Abstract
Professional recommendations function to provide objective evaluations about job candidates and thereby should be expected to follow warranting principles. However, this expectancy can be compromised on LinkedIn. This study examines how individuals perceive the expectedness and the valence of LinkedIn recommendations that violate warranting principles. Results from a within-subjects experiment (N = 156) reveal that LinkedIn recommendations from the former supervisor were more expected and valenced more positively, compared to those from the former subordinate. In addition, nonreciprocal recommendations were valenced more positively than reciprocal recommendations, although they did not differ in their expectedness. These findings reveal how norms change depending on the context, and highlight LinkedIn's nature of collective self-presentation and relationship management.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
