Fool me once

Citation

Schwartz, D.G. (2008), "Fool me once", Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr.2008.17218aaa.001

Fool me once

As the saying goes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. It may therefore come as no surprise that the findings of Yen and Lu in “Factors influencing online auction repurchase intention”, indicate a strong correlation between bidders’ satisfaction of auctioneer’s performance and bidders’ intention to participate in future auctions in the same market. Yet this is the first time that Expectation Disconfirmation Theory is being applied to provide a scientific grounding for the adage. Their work goes a step further in recognizing two interacting sources for disconfirmation (or fooling) that need to be considered – both the seller and the auctioneer.

Flavián and Gurrea, in “Reading newspapers on the Internet: the influence of websites attributes”, provide a different perspective on the “fool me once” theory by showing that website reputation and trust are not decisive factors in the choice of digital news sources. Amongst their surprising conclusions are: “a good number of readers declare that the consult of current news does not involve risk, because it is possible to correct a mistake easily, only visiting another newspaper website”. Meaning that the ability to easily avoid being disappointed or fooled a second time can actually lower the need for validation prior to consumption of information. It will be interesting to see if their results can be replicated in similar studies of online news consumption. In studying a decision process that requires far more input than the choice of online news, Slack, Rowley and Coles present a discussion of “Consumer behaviour in multi-channel contexts: the case of a theatre festival”. They explore the ways in which consumers combine a variety of physical-world and online stimuli from multiple channels to inform their decision processes.

Research that combines two previously unrelated theories is always thought provoking and Lin’s article, “Empirically testing innovation characteristics and organizational learning capabilities in e-business implementation success”, is no exception. In this case we are shown how innovation diffusion theories can relate to organizational learning, and how the two then impact e-business implementation. Internal integration and learning of new technologies within the organization, it would seem, is inexorably combined with our outward-facing ability to interact with our trading partners.

Online learning via the Internet has become well-established over the past decade. However when it comes to the teaching of science and engineering we have been primarily constrained by virtual experimentation, limiting our abilities to extend the reach of science and engineering courses. Barrero, Toral and Gallardo push the limits of online learning by studying the effectiveness of an innovative web course that connects students to physical Digital Signal Processing design and test equipment.

In “Product-oriented design theory for digital information services” Wijnhoven and Kraaijenbrink present a comprehensive literature review. They take a product view of Digital Information Services and show how this view should influence the design of new information services.

Finally, this issue presents a study of Internet-based voting by Kim and Nevo. Their article, “Development and application of a framework for evaluating multi-mode voting risks”, takes us through two iterations of municipal elections in Markham, Ontario, Canada, during which the authors developed and refined a methodology for assessing the risks of various voting modes from the perspective of the town’s own management. The move to expanded Internet-based voting is, in my view, inevitable. Determining the most appropriate modes to ensure security, audit-trails, accuracy and participation will require much more research such as this. This is one area where we cannot afford to be fooled – not even once.

David G. Schwartz