Can webcare responses really convey ‘consumer language’?

Consumers’ perception of the Conversational Human Voice and their satisfaction of webcare responses to different types of eWOM

Marith van der Horst ANR 401229 / SNR 2029643

Master’s Thesis Communication and Information Sciences Specialization Business Communication and Digital Media

School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg University, Tilburg

Supervisor: Dr. C.C. Liebrecht Second reader: Dr. P.J.F.J. Broeder

January 2020

CONSUMERS’ CHV PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION TO EWOM 2

Preface

After five and a half years of studying at Avans University of Applied Sciences Breda and

Tilburg University, I can proudly say that I am ending this journey with my master thesis. The decision to continue studying at Tilburg University brought me a lot of new knowledge, skills, and opportunities. Especially in the field of webcare for which I wrote this thesis and worked on with great pleasure. Although, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support and guidance of several people.

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. C.C. Liebrecht, for her enthusiasm, guidance, and above all, critical view and valuable input. She helped me to improve the quality of my thesis and contributed to successful completion. Also, I would like to thank the second reader of my thesis, Dr. P.J.F.J. Broeder, for his willingness to provide feedback.

A final thank you goes to all the respondents who were willing to invest their time and helped me with the pre-test and experimental questionnaire. And a special thanks to my parents and closest friends for their support and advice during my educational journey so far.

Marith van der Horst

January 2020, Koudekerke

CONSUMERS’ CHV PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION TO EWOM 3

Abstract

To increase the effectiveness of webcare responses, organizations use linguistic elements to induce a human tone of voice in their responses, referred to as the Conversational Human

Voice (CHV, Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006). Arguably, the linguistic elements could differ in contribution to the perceived communication style. Previous research investigated the relation between the linguistic elements and the perception of CHV among webcare employees, focusing on neutral eWOM (Liebrecht & Van Hooijdonk, 2019).

However, little is known to what extent the linguistic elements contribute to the perception of

CHV among consumers and other types of eWOM. In this study, an online experiment (N =

137) was conducted with a 14 (type and amount of linguistic elements) x 2 (type of eWOM: neutral and negative) mixed-design to investigate the contribution of the linguistic elements to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response for neutral and negative eWOM. The results showed that webcare responses with linguistic elements engender the perception of CHV and satisfaction. Also, differences between categories of linguistic elements were found, whereas combinations of elements contributed to a greater extent. In contrast to the expectations, the type of eWOM did not influence the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Keywords: webcare, Conversational Human Voice, conversational linguistic elements, satisfaction, neutral and negative eWOM

CONSUMERS’ CHV PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION TO EWOM 4

Table of contents

Introduction ...... 5

Theoretical Framework ...... 8 CMC and social presence ...... 8 Conversational Human Voice in webcare ...... 9 Conversational linguistic elements ...... 10 Perception of conversational linguistic elements ...... 12 Perception of linguistic categories ...... 14 Perception of merging linguistic categories ...... 17 Type of eWOM in webcare ...... 18

Method ...... 20 Design ...... 20 Materials ...... 20 Pre-test ...... 24 Participants ...... 25 Instrumentation ...... 26 Procedure ...... 27

Results ...... 28 CHV and satisfaction in webcare responses ...... 28 The use of linguistic categories in webcare responses ...... 32 Combined categories in webcare responses ...... 36

Conclusion and discussion ...... 40 Theoretical and practical implications ...... 44 Limitations and future research ...... 46

References ...... 49

Appendices ...... 54 Appendix A – Experimental materials ...... 54 Appendix B – Pre-test materials ...... 58 Appendix C – Pre-test questionnaire ...... 59 Appendix D – Pre-test reliability scores ...... 63 Appendix E – Experimental questionnaire ...... 66 CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 5

Introduction

More than ever, consumers voice their complaints and questions about organizations on social media. To prevent the negative and incorrect messages from reaching others, organizations have started to actively monitor consumers’ electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and engage in conversations with them, referred to as webcare (Van Noort & Willemsen,

2012). Webcare requires a different style of communication from organizations compared to corporate communication, as real-time dialogues on social media are more informal, personal, and focusing on human interaction (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Oegema, Kleinnijenhuis,

Anderson, & Van Hoof, 2008). For instance, the webcare response of the LinkedIn Social

Support Team in Figure 1 contains such a communication style, which is characterized by a greeting (Hi Sam), personal pronouns (you, your), a shortening (DM), a non-verbal cue (:)), and a signature (FN).

Figure 1. Webcare response LinkedIn Social Support Team (2019).

The use of greetings, personal pronouns, shortenings, non-verbal cues, and human representatives reflects a human tone of voice in the organization’s response, known as

Conversational Human Voice (CHV, Kelleher, 2009). In webcare responses, CHV is characterized by linguistic elements that are typically not associated with a corporate tone of voice. In addition to the aforementioned elements, the use of humor, communicating invitingly, and informal language are also belonging to CHV (Van Noort, Willemsen, CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 6

Kerkhof, & Verhoeven, 2015). By adopting CHV in their communication, the organization’s tone of voice becomes more humanized, which makes consumers perceive as they are communicating with an actual person rather than an organization (Kwon & Sung, 2011; Park

& Lee, 2013). Previous research has shown that including CHV increases the effectiveness of a webcare response, which induces positive effects on the organization’s reputation and trustworthiness (e.g., Park & Cameron, 2014; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007).

However, up to now much of the research on the perception of CHV has been a theoretical operationalization of CHV and distinction of the linguistic elements (e.g., Crijns,

Cauberge, Hudders, & Claeys, 2017; Huibers &Verhoeven, 2014; Kerkhof, Beugels, Utz, &

Beukeboom, 2011). Hence, it is still not known whether the conversational linguistic elements actually contribute to the perception of CHV and if they could differ in their contribution.

Considering Figure 1, is the perceived CHV of a non-verbal cue equal to that of a signature or a greeting? This study therefore set out to examine the perception of each linguistic element in webcare responses.

Similarly, the researchers Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) recently found differences between linguistic elements and their weighted contribution to the perception of

CHV among webcare employees. However, it has not yet determined to what extent each linguistic element contributes to the consumers’ perception of CHV. Instead of relying on the deliberate use of CHV by webcare employees, it is important to look at the unconscious reception of the consumer. For instance, whether the conscious use of a non-verbal cue in a webcare response is perceived by the consumer as intended. Arguably, the linguistic elements could differ in the perception of CHV between webcare employees and consumers.

Besides the importance to examine the consumers’ perception of CHV, this study has several additions in comparison to the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019). Firstly, the combination of linguistic elements in a webcare response is examined. Previous studies CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 7 differ in CHV manipulation and number of linguistic elements that are operationalized (e.g.,

Crijns et al., 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Kerkhof et al., 2011), hence it could be expected that a combination of linguistic elements affects the consumers’ perception of CHV differently compared to one linguistic element. Additionally, by examining the contribution of the linguistic elements to the perception of CHV, it remains unknown whether the webcare response is positively received by the consumer. Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of

CHV, this study examines the consumers’ satisfaction with the webcare response.

Furthermore, Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) investigated the perception of

CHV in webcare responses to consumers’ questions. Previous research has shown that the type of eWOM can have an effect on consumer responses (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011), with negative eWOM (e.g., complaints) weighing more heavily in the minds of consumers than neutral eWOM (e.g., questions, Park & Lee, 2008). Possibly, consumers might assign more value to CHV in webcare responses towards negative eWOM rather than towards neutral eWOM. However, little attention has been paid to the effect of eWOM type on the consumers’ perception of CHV. Therefore this current study examines CHV in neutral and negative eWOM.

Eventually, by extending the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), this study will contribute to gain academic knowledge in the field of webcare on the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response to different types of eWOM.

Moreover, this study will provide useful insights for organizations on how to integrate CHV in their webcare responses more properly, and, hereby, enhance the satisfaction with the response. Therefore, this research aims to answer the following research question:

RQ: To what extent do the conversational linguistic elements, individually and combined, contribute to the perception of Conversational Human Voice by consumers and their satisfaction of a webcare response to different eWOM types? CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 8

Theoretical Framework

CMC and social presence

Since the rise of web 2.0, consumer complaining and questioning has changed from a private phenomenon into a public phenomenon (Ward & Ostrom, 2006). As a consequence, consumers can easily voice their complaints and questions about organizations throughout the web. An effective method for reducing the damaging effects of consumers’ negative and incorrect eWOM is webcare. Van Noort and Willemsen (2012) defined webcare as “the act of engaging in online interactions with (complaining) consumers, by actively searching the web to address consumer feedback (e.g., questions, concerns and complaints)” (p. 133). Previous research indicated beneficial effects for webcare as a tool in support of customer care, public relations, and marketing (Van Noort et al., 2015). For instance, Demmers, Van Dolen, and

Weltevreden (2013) found that an organizational webcare response in reply to a negative comment enhances the consumers’ satisfaction compared to when a response was lacking.

Webcare is performed by one or more organization representatives (i.e., webcare teams) who are mostly communicating via a computer, referred to as computer-mediated- communication (CMC). CMC serves as a low threshold for organizations and consumers to communicate easily and quickly with each other (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Moreover, conversations can be saved, picked up at a later time, and are reviewable anytime and anywhere (Clark & Brennan, 1991). On the other hand, compared to face-to-face communication, CMC is missing non-verbal cues and is mainly asynchronous, so that CMC can be experienced as distant and impersonal (Garton & Wellman, 1995; Ocker &

Yaverbaum, 1999). Regarding webcare, that relies on real-time interactions and active conversations, it is therefore important for organizations to create the feeling that consumers are talking to an actual person (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Oegema et al., 2008). CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 9

This is called the Social Presence Theory, which is defined as the extent to which people are aware that they are talking to another person (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Short,

Williams, & Christie, 1976). However, through CMC non-verbal cues are missing, which ensures social presence cannot be created (Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). To resolve this limitation cues have to be communicated, such as a human tone of voice. According to the

Social Presence Theory (Short et al., 1976), communicating with a human tone of voice through CMC can be accomplished when people have the perception of interpersonal interaction in the online context (i.e., parasocial relationship, Horton & Wohl, 1956). The more interpersonal interactions are perceived in an online context, the more perceptions of social presence will increase. Eventually, this reflects a situation in which social presence is perceived to be high and the human tone of voice shows that organizations are actual persons, instead of CMC resides within a communication context that is missing such cues (Park &

Lee, 2013). As a result, CMC will be experienced as less distant and the organization as more personal, which increases the effectiveness of webcare (Park & Cameron, 2014). To integrate a human tone of voice, and therefore, social presence into webcare’s CMC, both verbal and non-verbal linguistic elements can be used (Park & Lee, 2013). For instance, signing the webcare response with the name or initials of the webcare employee or using emoji’s.

Consequently, social presence can be verbally realized by the use of the communication style

Conversational Human Voice.

Conversational Human Voice in webcare

The Conversational Human Voice is defined as “an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by an organization’s publics based on interactions between individuals in the organization and individuals in publics” (Kelleher, 2009, p.177). In the study of Kelleher (2009), the perception of CHV was investigated with 11 items, which varied from being open to dialogue and giving genuine feedback to conversing with a human CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 10 style, and the use of humor. Kelleher (2009) showed that the perception of CHV has a positive effect on the consumers’ opinions towards the organization in online communication.

Furthermore, similar effects for the perception of CHV were shown in previous research into blogs (Park & Cameron, 2014), social media (Barcelos, Dantas, & Sénécal, 2018; Dijkmans,

Kerkhof, Buyukcan-Tetik, & Beukeboom, 2015), and webcare (Huibers &Verhoeven, 2014;

Schamari & Schaefers, 2015; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012).

The perception of CHV reflects a communication style that is characterized by the formulation the organization uses to express personalization (Hi Sam), informal language

(Haha, J), and inviting rhetoric (Do you have any other questions?) in their webcare responses (Van Noort et al., 2015). When communicating with CHV, the organization’s tone of voice in webcare responses is no longer associated with a corporate tone of voice (Park &

Cameron, 2014). The linguistic realization of CHV are the conversational linguistic elements, which are represented with verbal and non-verbal cues such as personal pronouns and emoji’s

(Van Hooijdonk & Liebrecht, 2018). The different linguistic elements are subdivided into three linguistic categories that can be used in webcare to implement CHV, namely Message

Personalization, Informal Speech, and Invitational Rhetoric (Van Noort et al., 2015).

Conversational linguistic elements

The researchers Van Hooijdonk and Liebrecht (2018) developed an instrument based on scientific research, with which they identified conversational linguistic elements that could contribute to the perception of CHV. The linguistic elements were determined using the three linguistic categories Van Noort et al. (2015) distinguished, namely Message Personalization,

Informal Speech, and Invitational Rhetoric. Also, the 11 questionnaire items of Kelleher

(2009) and Kelleher and Miller (2006) were assigned to the categories.

Message Personalization. The first linguistic category is Message Personalization, which Walther (2011) defined as “the degree to which a message can be made to address a CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 11 specific individual” (p.448; see also Van Noort et al., 2015, p.18). Personalization can be operationalized by both the receiver (i.e., consumer) and the sender of the webcare message

(i.e., organization). A frequently used verbal way of personalizing the sender of the webcare message is to sign the message with the name or initials of the webcare employee (^LW or

^Lisa, e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Kwong & Sung, 2011). This is a more individualistic way of communicating, which makes consumers perceive the webcare message as coming from an employee instead of the (faceless) organization as a whole (Park

& Lee, 2013). Moreover, the webcare message can be personalized by specifically addressing the message to the consumer. The organization can greet consumers with their name (Hi

Nicky), which is a common language act in face-to-face communication while in CMC such a personal start of the conversation seems to occur to a lesser extent (Van Hooijdonk &

Liebrecht, 2018). Finally, personal and possessive pronouns can be used to make the webcare message more personal by referring to the consumer, which can include the use of ‘you’ and

‘your’.

Informal Speech. Informal Speech is the second linguistic category, which Van Noort et al. (2015) defined as “casual and expressive language that is exchanged in everyday conversations” (p.19). The Informal Speech category is in line with colloquial language, which is in contrast to the more corporate tone of voice organizations use in written communications. Many linguistic elements are possible to imitate spoken language in written language and thereby create the illusion of proximity. Hence, the linguistic elements of

Informal Speech compensate for what written language in CMC cannot convey, such as emotion and verbal nuances (e.g., facial expressions and body language). Van Noort et al.

(2015, p.19) rely on the work of Pearce (2005) and Pollach (2005). According to them the lack of non-verbal cues can be solved with shortenings (ok instead of okay), abbreviations

(LOL for Laughing Out Loud), and non-verbal cues such as emoticons (:-)) and emoji’s (J). CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 12

Van Noort et al. (2015) state that interjections (oh, wow) are also examples of Informal

Speech.

Invitational Rhetoric. The third linguistic category is Invitational Rhetoric, which

Van Noort et al. (2015) defined as “a style of communication that is oriented to a negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions with stakeholders” (p.20). In their webcare response, the organization creates the impression that they are easily approachable, like to engage with consumers, and are open to their ideas and suggestions (Yang, Kang, & Johnson, 2010). A language act that can be classified under inviting rhetoric is inviting the consumer to join the conversation by asking if there are any further questions or issues the webcare employee can help with (Crijns et al., 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Pollach, 2005). Respectively, the organization creates an open ambiance to engage with consumers in direct and candid communication (Harrison & Barthel, 2009). Likewise, the organization’s response not only serves as an answer to consumers’ eWOM but also as a trigger for further communication

(Yang et al., 2010). Moreover, another inviting rhetoric is showing sympathy or empathy for the consumer’s situation as well as apologizing, with which the organization expresses concern and willingness to listen to the (critical) consumer. Finally, closing the webcare message with a positive note to the consumer, such as expressing a positive wish, can be used to adapt Invitational Rhetoric. This is a common and natural way to close conversations and to ensure the relationship between the organization and the consumer will be maintained in the future.

Perception of conversational linguistic elements

Compared to the linguistic categories of Van Noort et al. (2015), several experimental studies investigated the conversational linguistic elements in webcare responses regarding the perception of CHV (e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry, Horváth, Belei, &

Van Riel, 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Kerkhof et al., 2011). However, between the CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 13 experimental studies, there are noticeable differences in the type and number of linguistic elements that are operationalized and investigated, as well as in the operationalization of CHV and application of the manipulated material. Besides, most studies investigated whether dependent variables, such as brand trust and organizational reputation were mediated by CHV

(e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014). The focus of these earlier studies was not on the linguistic elements in direct relation to the perception of CHV.

Therefore, the contribution of the conversational linguistic elements to the perception of CHV demonstrated by different studies is not unambiguous. For instance, Gretry et al. (2017) used elements such as adjectives, interjections, a personal greeting, and emoticons to examine brand trust and brand familiarity. Generally, they found that their experimental CHV condition was perceived as more informal than the corporate condition, in which the linguistic elements were absent. Likewise, Crijns et al. (2017) used the elements informal language, addressing the consumer with its name, personal pronouns, and a personal signature. They found that these elements of personalization of the webcare response engender CHV and have a positive influence on organizational reputation. On the other hand, Huibers and Verhoeven

(2014) did not find any effects on the perception of CHV in relation to organizational reputation, using similar elements such as a signature, personal pronouns, and a question to ask for feedback.

Although CHV and its linguistic elements seem to be operationalized differently, there can be a common thread seen in the effects that have been found. Namely that the use of linguistic elements, in theoretical perspective, on average leads to higher perceptions of CHV.

Furthermore, previous studies indicate that webcare responses can enhance the consumers’ satisfaction when consumers feel that their voices are being heard, their complaints are taken seriously, and problems are being addressed (Dekay, 2012; Demmers et al., 2013). Something the conversational linguistic elements in webcare responses could induce to greater extents CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 14 since CHV can engender the impression that organizations are easily approachable, concerned and willing to listen to consumers (Yang et al., 2010).

However, based on previous research, it remains unknown to what extent each linguistic element actually contributes to the consumers’ perception of CHV and their satisfaction with the webcare response. Previous studies mostly focused on the mediated effects of CHV and investigated the linguistic elements laterally instead of systematically

(e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Huibers & Verhoeven,

2014; Kerkhof et al., 2011). Though, investigating the contribution of the linguistic elements systematically to the consumers’ perception of CHV is relevant, since more insight can be gained into the unconscious reception of CHV in webcare responses by consumers.

Particularly, to what extent each linguistic element in a webcare response could contribute differently to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Also, this allows CHV in webcare responses to become more effective, since the responses could better match the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction with the response. The latter should even be a requirement in webcare; the fact that consumers are satisfied with the response of the organization.

Given these points, this current study will investigate the weighted contribution of each linguistic element to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Based on the theoretical framework, the following is hypothesized:

H1: Webcare responses with conversational linguistic elements will lead to higher levels of (a) CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to webcare responses without conversational linguistic elements.

Perception of linguistic categories

Related to the research gap that it is unknown to what extent the linguistic elements contribute to the perception of CHV, the researchers Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 15 conducted a perception experiment. They investigated the contribution of the linguistic categories and accompanying linguistic element subcategories to the perception of CHV among webcare employees of Dutch charity organizations. In the experiment, the webcare employees assessed and ranked to what extent the linguistic elements contributed to the perception of CHV of a webcare response. The materials consisted of conversations between consumers asking questions to a fictitious charity organization. At first, the organization responded with a basic response including an average amount of CHV. Subsequently, nine webcare responses per basic response were created by adding one of the linguistic elements to the basic response. In short, the experiment had a 1 (consumer’s question) x 10 (linguistic element inclusive basic response) within-subjects latin square design.

Overall, the perception experiment showed that the linguistic categories and accompanying linguistic element subcategories differ in their contribution to the perception of

CHV of webcare responses among webcare employees. Initially, the linguistic category

Message Personalization contributed the most to the perception of CHV, whereas Informal

Speech contributed least. Moreover, for Message Personalization the linguistic element greeting the stakeholder induced the highest perception of CHV, followed by addressing the stakeholder, and signatures. The linguistic element stimulating dialogues contributed the most to CHV for Invitational Rhetoric, followed by showing sympathy/empathy, and well-wishing.

Finally, for Informal Speech, the linguistic element shortenings and abbreviations did not contribute to the perception of CHV, whereas non-verbal cues devoted most to the perception of CHV, followed by interjections.

Considering the findings of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), the linguistic category Message Personalization seems to transcend the other two linguistic categories. In their study, Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) did not further elaborate on this finding.

However, personalized messages could stand out more compared to messages with informal CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 16 language and inviting rhetoric, since personalized messages are tailored to a specific individual and cannot be sent to everyone (Demmers et al. 2013).

Correspondingly, Heerwegh, Vanhove, Matthijs, and Loosveldt (2005) found positive effects for personalization in e-mail surveys, in which the messages were personalized by individually addressing the recipient in the e-mail greeting and text. The positive personalization effects were interpreted with the Social Exchange Theory (Dillman, 2007), which states that the evaluation of interpersonal interactions is motivated by the return (i.e., reward, cost, and trust) these interactions are expected to bring. By personalizing the communication, the degree to which consumers perceive the importance and value attached to them increases (Heerwegh et al., 2005). They will develop positive regard, which has a rewarded value towards the personalized message (Dillman, 2007). Possibly, the Social

Exchange Theory can also explain the transcend effect of the linguistic category Message

Personalization in webcare responses. It could be assumed that Message Personalization meets the consumers’ expectations of the response (i.e., reward, cost, and trust) in such a way as to positively increase their rewarded value towards the personalized response and therefore the satisfaction with the webcare response.

Moreover, another explanation for the transcend effect of Message Personalization could be that the other linguistic categories in webcare responses, Informal Speech and

Invitational Rhetoric, are less tailored to the consumer and therefore perceived less personally appealing and getting less attention. As a consequence, webcare responses with Informal

Speech or Invitational Rhetoric could be perceived as more generic and not influencing the consumers’ rewarded value towards the webcare response. Therefore, consumers could be less likely to perceive those categories as contributing to their perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response. In line with this, it could be expected that the linguistic category Message Personalization contributes more to the consumers’ perception of CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 17

CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response than the linguistic categories Informal

Speech and Invitational Rhetoric. Hence, corresponding with the effect found by Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), the following is hypothesized:

H2: Webcare responses with Message Personalization will lead to higher levels of (a)

CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to webcare responses with Informal Speech and Invitational Rhetoric.

Perception of merging linguistic categories

When adapting CHV, webcare employees mostly do not use one linguistic element in their webcare response. It often happens that they use CHV by implementing multiple linguistic elements belonging to the same or different linguistic categories. Previous studies found theoretical evidence for the contribution of the linguistic elements to the perception of

CHV, while these studies differed in the application of CHV manipulation and number of linguistic elements that were operationalized (e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017;

Gretry et al., 2017; Kerkhof et al., 2011). It could, therefore, be expected that combinations of linguistic categories in webcare responses induce the perception of CHV. However, research has not yet determined to what extent the use of multiple linguistic categories affects the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response compared to the use of one linguistic category. Though, it can be assumed that the more linguistic elements used in a webcare response, the higher the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the response.

Webcare responses with multiple linguistic categories are therefore expected to induce higher perceptions of CHV and satisfaction among consumers than webcare responses with one linguistic category. Hence, this study will examine the weighted contribution of a combination of linguistic categories to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response compared to one linguistic category. Based on the theoretical framework, the following is hypothesized: CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 18

H3: Webcare responses with three linguistic categories will lead to higher levels of

(a) CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to webcare response with one linguistic category.

Type of eWOM in webcare

Through CMC consumers are easily able to ask questions or share their dissatisfied opinions in form of electronic-word-of-mouth (eWOM). Previous research has revealed that eWOM can affect consumer attitudes, behavior, and brand image (Schultz et al., 2011), whereby negative eWOM (e.g., complaints) has been shown to weight more heavily in consumer minds than positive (e.g., compliments) or neutral eWOM (e.g., questions, Park &

Lee, 2008). Moreover, neurological studies provide strong support for the notion that increased attention is given to negative, as opposed to positive or neutral stimuli (e.g., Smith,

Cacioppo, Larsen, & Chartrand, 2003). Consequently, it can be assumed that consumers perceive CHV in webcare responses to negative eWOM as more noticeable, so that they are more likely to perceive CHV in webcare responses to negative eWOM rather than in webcare responses to positive or neutral eWOM.

Earlier studies into CHV in webcare mainly focused on negative eWOM, whereas sometimes comparing it with positive eWOM. The comparison with neutral eWOM has never been made, therefore mainly negative and positive eWOM is discussed. At first, previous research has shown that webcare responses with CHV towards negative eWOM affect the consumers’ perception of CHV positively (e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Jakic, Wagner, & Meyer,

2017; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012). For instance, Crijns et al. (2017) compared the usage of three conversational linguistic elements in webcare responses to negative and positive eWOM. They found that a webcare response towards negative eWOM generates higher perceptions of CHV than a webcare response towards positive eWOM. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 19

On the other hand, previous research has shown that webcare responses with CHV towards positive eWOM affect the consumers’ perception of CHV differently (i.e., positive and negative) since most studies also included other variables when investigating this relation

(e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Gretry et al., 2017; Schamari & Schaefers, 2015). Therefore, the perception of CHV in webcare responses to positive eWOM is depending on other factors, such as the type of platform, brand familiarity, and having a hedonic or utilitarian value. As a consequence, no reliable conclusion can be drawn whether webcare responses with CHV towards positive eWOM affect the consumers’ CHV perception positively. Given these points, more value could be attached to the extent to which the perception of CHV is investigated in webcare responses to negative eWOM.

Moreover, research on webcare responses towards neutral eWOM is limited. So far,

Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) looked at webcare responses to consumers’ questions when investigating the perception of CHV. They found that webcare responses with CHV towards neutral eWOM positively contribute to the perception of CHV. However, it is still unknown to what extent the perception of CHV is affected when comparing CHV in webcare responses towards negative and neutral eWOM. Since negative eWOM appears to transcend neutral eWOM in the consumer mind (Park & Lee, 2008; Smith et al., 2003), it could be expected that consumers assign more value to CHV in webcare responses towards negative eWOM. Hence, it might be assumed that consumers are more likely to perceive higher perceptions of CHV in webcare responses towards negative eWOM compared to neutral eWOM. This current study, therefore, will extend the previous hypotheses by examining the weighted contribution of the conversational linguistic elements to consumer’s perception of

CHV and their satisfaction of a webcare response to negative and neutral eWOM. Based on the theoretical framework, the following is hypothesized: CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 20

H4: Webcare responses with conversational linguistic elements to a complaint will lead to higher levels of (a) CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to webcare responses with CHV to a question.

H5: Message Personalization in webcare responses to a complaint will lead to higher levels of (a) CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to Message Personalization in webcare responses to a question.

H6: Webcare responses with three linguistic categories to a complaint will lead to higher levels of (a) CHV perception and (b) satisfaction compared to webcare responses with three linguistic categories to a question.

Method

Design

An online experiment with a 14 (type and amount of conversational linguistic elements) x 2 (type of eWOM: neutral or negative) mixed-design was conducted. In this design, the independent variable conversational linguistic elements was measured within- subjects, while the type of eWOM was measured between-subjects. Consumer’s perception of

CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response were the dependent variables. The experiment conformed a latin square design with 10 constructed questionnaires. To prevent recurrence of the questions’ topics, 14 customer service topics and accompanying webcare responses were created for the two types of eWOM. Each participant assessed one experimental condition per customer service topic for one type of eWOM, which generated 14 responses per participant in total.

Materials

Conversational linguistic elements. The experimental materials were partially replicated from Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) and written in Dutch. The materials consisted of fictive webcare conversations between consumers and a fictitious charity CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 21 organization. In the webcare conversations the charity organization responded to the consumers with an average amount of CHV. These basic webcare responses with an average amount of CHV were developed in a pre-test of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), and were identical for both eWOM types. Eventually, the basic webcare response was adjusted by adding one of the linguistic element subcategories or a combination of the linguistic element subcategories. For example, a non-verbal cue was included in the response by adding an emoji to the basic response.

In the experiment, nine linguistic subcategories were included, corresponding to the subcategories in the experiment of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019). From every main category (i.e., Message Personalization, Informal Speech, and Invitational Rhetoric) three linguistic elements were chosen, which are presented in Table 1. Subsequently, ten webcare conversations tested the linguistic element subcategories individually by creating nine webcare responses per basic response through adding one of the nine linguistic subcategories.

Table 1.

Included linguistic element subcategories in the experimental questionnaire

Message Personalization Informal Speech Invitational Rhetoric

Greeting Shortenings and Showing sympathy and Hi Robin abbreviations empathy vd website, info Begrijpelijk dat dit onhandig is

Addressing the consumer Non-verbal cues Stimulating dialogue Bedankt voor je melding J Mochten er nog vragen zijn, neem dan gerust weer contact op

Signature Interjections Well-wishing ^BM Och, Geniet van het mooie weer vandaag! Note: examples of subcategories are in italics.

Additionally, as an extension to Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), four webcare conversations tested the linguistic element subcategories combined per main category and all CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 22 categories combined in one. For these conversations three webcare responses per basic response were created by adding the three linguistic subcategories of one main category, and one webcare response per basic response was created by adding the nine linguistic subcategories. This test of the conversational linguistic elements was done for both types of eWOM, resulting in a total of 28 tested webcare conversations. Two examples of the adjusting process can be found in Appendix A.

Type of eWOM. The consumers’ type of eWOM differed for the experimental webcare conversations; consumers either approached the charity organization with a question

(i.e., neutral type of eWOM) or with a complaint (i.e., negative type of eWOM). The neutral type of eWOM condition was replicated from Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), which contained no negative words and was characterized by a question mark. To generate a difference between the conditions, the sentiment of the webcare conversations with a neutral type of eWOM was slightly adjusted to a negative type of eWOM, whereas the content of the conversations maintained. Therefore, the negative type of eWOM condition was manipulated by means of negative adjectives and/or adverbs, and exclamation marks. An example of both eWOM types and its manipulations is shown in Figure 2. In addition, a pre-test was conducted to determine whether the manipulation of eWOM type was successful.

Moreover, to prevent participants’ prejudice, the design of the webcare conversations was not based on an existing social media platform. Likewise, only gender-neutral names and profile pictures were used in the materials to avoid gender effects. An example of a webcare conversation used in the experimental questionnaire is shown in Figure 3. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 23

Figure 2. Example of a webcare response to neutral and negative eWOM with several manipulations. The conversation in this example is about consumer Robin who cannot find information about the charity project on the organizational website.

Figure 3. Example of the same webcare response used in the experimental questionnaire. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 24

Pre-test

In the pre-test, 20 respondents participated of whom 6 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 29.55 years (SD = 12.52). The majority of the participants (45%) had the highest or current education in academic education, followed by higher professional education (30%).

Also, participants had a good general opinion towards charity organizations (M = 5.58, SD =

0.97 on a 7-point Likert scale). Due to the fact that the weighted contribution of the conversational linguistic elements was tested by Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), this pre-test focused on the manipulation of neutral and negative type of eWOM. The two types of eWOM were tested between-subjects by a questionnaire with 14 different webcare conversations. To avoid bias, four webcare conversations were added to the questionnaires as filler items in the form of webcare conversations with a positive type of eWOM. All the webcare conversations were between consumers and a fictitious charity organization. An example of a webcare conversation for every type of eWOM as tested in the pre-test can be found in Appendix B.

Participants were randomly assigned to webcare conversations with a neutral type of eWOM (N = 12) or webcare conversations with a negative type of eWOM (N = 8). To ensure the different types of eWOM were correctly operationalized in the webcare conversations, the pre-test measured different aspects concerning the positivity and negativity of the eWOM. In total, participants were asked to answer five items per webcare conversation (e.g., ‘I consider the expression of the consumer to be satisfied’), all on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree), which can be found in Appendix C. Reliability scores showed that participants had misinterpret the contrary questioned items, namely ‘unkind’ and ‘critical’, which were therefore removed from the analysis (between α = -0.23, and α = 0.84, see

Appendix D). The three remaining items had a high reliability in every condition (between α

= 0.77, and α = 1.00, see Appendix D). An independent-samples t-test revealed that, on CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 25 average, consumers’ complaints were perceived more negative (M = 1.88, SD = 0.34) than consumers’ questions (M = 3.38, SD = 0.80, Mdif = 1.50, t(18), p < .001, d = 2.45). This shows that the operationalization of the two eWOM types was successful and usable for the experimental questionnaire.

Participants

Only participants from and above the age of 18 years old were recruited in order to have the permission to make a charitable donation. In total 137 participants fully completed the experimental questionnaire. The sample consisted of 63 males (46%) and 74 females

(54%), with ages ranging from 18 to 73 years (M = 38.90, SD = 16.79). The majority of the participants (49.6%) had the highest or current education in higher professional education, followed by 22.6% in secondary vocational education, 21.9% in academic education, and

5.8% in other educational levels. Also, participants had a good general opinion towards charity organizations (M = 5.80, SD = 1.06 on a 7-point Likert scale). Out of the 137 participants, 91 reported being familiar with webcare conversations between consumers and organizations. Additionally, the majority of the participants (40.9%) indicated that they never engage in webcare conversations with organizations, followed by 32.8% that engages sometimes. Most participants use social media several times a day (47.7%), followed by once a day (14.6%), during the whole day (13.9%), and a few times per week (9.5%). Of the participants, 14.6% is not using social media at all.

Overall, the participants were rather equally divided among the two conditions; in the neutral condition 66 participants participated, and in the negative condition 71 participants participated. Analyses showed that the participants were equally divided over the two eWOM conditions regarding gender (χ2 (1) = 0.01, p = 0.931), age (F(1,135) = 2.41, p = .123), and educational level, (χ2 (5) = 4.41, p = 0.493). Thus, the conditions could be compared in a reliable manner. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 26

Instrumentation

Perception of CHV. The perception of CHV was measured with an assessing task replicated from Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019). Participants had to assess the perceived

CHV of every experimental condition on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree). The perceived CHV was operationalized with three items (translated from

Dutch): ‘I consider the webcare response as personal / informal / distant’ (reversed item).

Reliability scores showed that participants’ answers varied too much for the questioned item

‘informal’, which was therefore removed from the analysis (α = 0.51, M = 4.52, SD = 1.57).

The reliability of the scale with the two remaining scores was acceptable (α = .60, M = 4.50,

SD = 1.23). Hence, the items were merged into mean variables and used for further analysis.

Satisfaction. The satisfaction with the webcare response is based on Oliver (1997) and defined as the consumers’ judgement that the webcare response provided a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment (see also Giese & Cote, 2002). In every experimental condition, participants had to assess their satisfaction with the webcare response on a 7-point

Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree). The variable was operationalized with three items based on Ranaweera and Jayawardhena (2014): ‘I experience the webcare response as satisfied / pleased / favorable’. The reliability of the scale was excellent (α = 0.93,

M = 4.77, SD = 1.87). Therefore, the items were merged into mean variables and used for further analysis.

Demographic characteristics and manipulation check. Demographic characteristics and a manipulation check were included in this experiment to determine whether they influence the results. In addition to the personal characteristics of the participants (i.e., gender, age, and level of education), they were asked about their social media usage, familiarity with webcare, engagement in webcare, and general opinion towards charity organizations. After the experimental conditions, participants were asked if consumers in the webcare CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 27 conversations had approached the organization with a question or a complaint (i.e., ‘The consumers in the webcare conversations approached the organization with a question / complaint’). This latter question was a manipulation check to prevent from bias.

Procedure

A convenience sampling approach in the researcher’s network was used. The anonymous link to the online questionnaire in Qualtrics was distributed via Facebook and

LinkedIn, and send to respondents directly via E-mail and WhatsApp.

Firstly, participants were shown an introduction in which the topic, procedure, and length of the questionnaire were explained to them without revealing they were participating in an experiment. Participants were also informed about the anonymity, confidentiality, and the possibility to quit the questionnaire. Subsequently, through an informed consent, participants confirmed that they were sufficiently informed and gave permission to process the data.

Eventually, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two surveys, in which they were seeing 14 webcare conversations one by one. Each conversation was accompanied by the statements regarding the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response, which participants were asked to assess. After the experimental conditions, the question regarding the manipulation check was asked. Finally, the demographic questions were asked.

At the end of the questionnaire, participants were debriefed about the manipulations of both types of eWOM and the different webcare responses regarding CHV. They were also thanked for their participation. When the participants still had some questions or comments, they could leave them behind. The experimental questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes and participants did not get a compensation. The entire questionnaire was approved by the CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 28

Research Ethics and Data Management Committee from Tilburg School of Humanities and

Digital Sciences and can be found in Appendix E.

Results

CHV and satisfaction in webcare responses

Two mixed ANOVA’s with planned contrasts were performed in order to test hypotheses one and four. The first hypothesis states that consumers will perceive higher levels of CHV and satisfaction for webcare responses with linguistic elements compared to webcare responses without linguistic elements. The analysis serves to find out which linguistic elements deviate from webcare responses without CHV. Subsequently, the fourth hypothesis states that that webcare responses with CHV to a complaint will lead to higher levels of consumers’ CHV perception and satisfaction compared to webcare responses with CHV to a question. The analyses included the independent variables conversational linguistic elements and type of eWOM, the dependent variable in the analyses were either the perception of CHV or the satisfaction with the webcare response.

Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics regarding the dependent variables per experimental condition. The highest mean of perception of CHV was 5.58 (SD = 1.01) belonging to the linguistic element subcategory greeting towards a neutral type of eWOM, the lowest mean of perception of CHV was 3.33 (SD = 1.43) belonging to the webcare response without CHV towards a neutral type of eWOM. The means and standard deviations present no evidence for possible floor or ceiling effects, or for a restriction of range effect. As well as for the satisfaction with the webcare response, where the highest mean was 5.31 (SD = 1.43) belonging to the linguistic element subcategory greeting towards neutral type of eWOM, and the lowest mean was 4.04 (SD = 1.48) belonging to the webcare response without CHV towards negative type of eWOM.

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 29

Table 2

Means and standard deviations of perception of CHV and satisfaction per experimental condition (N = 137)

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions M SD M SD

1. No CHV 3.37 1.38 4.07 1.48 Neutral type of eWOM 3.33 1.43 4.10 1.48 Negative type of eWOM 3.40 1.34 4.04 1.49

2. Greeting 5.41 1.11 5.04 1.44

Neutral type of eWOM 5.58 1.01 5.31 1.43 Negative type of eWOM 5.25 1.18 4.79 1.42

3. Addressing the consumer 3.75 1.47 4.31 1.40 Neutral type of eWOM 3.75 1.54 4.28 1.45 Negative type of eWOM 3.75 1.41 4.35 1.37

4. Signature 4.39 1.35 4.68 1.39

Message Personalization Neutral type of eWOM 4.58 1.41 4.70 1.50 Negative type of eWOM 4.20 1.23 4.67 1.28

5. Shortenings & abbreviations 3.58 1.40 4.17 1.46 Neutral type of eWOM 3.50 1.48 4.14 1.51 Negative type of eWOM 3.65 1.33 4.19 1.43

6. Non-verbal cues 4.14 1.25 4.48 1.33 Neutral type of eWOM 4.28 1.12 4.67 1.32 Negative type of eWOM 4.01 1.35 4.31 1.33

Informal Speech Informal 7. Interjections 4.07 1.41 4.46 1.52 Neutral type of eWOM 4.32 1.52 4.67 1.53 Negative type of eWOM 3.85 1.27 4.27 1.50

8. Sympathy & empathy 4.15 1.53 4.61 1.53

Neutral type of eWOM 4.30 1.59 4.80 1.41 Negative type of eWOM 4.01 1.48 4.44 1.63

9. Stimulating dialogue 4.24 1.47 4.76 1.42 Neutral type of eWOM 4.33 1.60 4.74 1.50 Negative type of eWOM 4.17 1.35 4.80 1.34

10. Well-wishing 4.42 1.27 4.77 1.32 Invitational Rhetoric Invitational Neutral type of eWOM 4.61 1.22 5.12 1.32 Negative type of eWOM 4.24 1.30 4.46 1.32

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the two independent variables and its residuals indicated violation of normality, since all scores were significant (p ranged from < .001 to

.039). The results of the Levene’s test of equality of error variances were non-significant (p ranged from .079 to .922), except for two conditions (p = .029 and p = .049), which assumes CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 30 that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated. However, ANOVA is fairly robust against violations, meaning it was still convenient to continue with the analyses as long as the results are interpreted with caution. Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity was not violated for the main effect of perception of CHV (χ2(44) =

53.81, p = .148), but was violated for the main effect of satisfaction (χ2(44) = 95.54, p < .001), whereby the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimate (ε = .86).

The mixed ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the perception of CHV, F(9,

2 1215) = 28.62, p < .001, ηp = .18 (large effect), and for satisfaction F(7.74, 1045.47) = 7.15,

2 p < .001, ηp = .05 (medium effect). More importantly, the results revealed that most of the linguistic elements are significantly perceived to have higher levels of perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response compared to webcare responses without CHV. These results are presented in Table 3. However, this does not apply to all the linguistic elements, as contrasts revealed that the subcategory shortenings and abbreviations in webcare responses with CHV is not significantly perceived to have higher levels of perception of CHV (F(1,

135) = 1.87, p = .173) and satisfaction (F(1, 135) = 0.32, p = .572) compared to webcare responses without CHV. Also, the subcategory addressing the consumer is not perceived as more satisfied in webcare responses with CHV (F(1, 135) = 2.64, p = .107). Overall, the results indicate that the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response is higher for webcare responses with CHV, compared to webcare responses without

CHV. Therefore, support was found for the first hypothesis, nevertheless depending on which linguistic elements used in the webcare response.

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 31

Table 3

Contrasts of the Within-Subjects variable conversational linguistic elements

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions F-statistic df p F-statistic df p

Greeting 164.25 1 < .001 36.62 1 < .001

Addressing the consumer 5.64 1 .019 2.64 1 .107

Signature 42.86 1 < .001 17.22 1 < .001

Shortenings & abbreviations 1.87 1 .173 0.32 1 .572

Non-verbal cues 28.75 1 < .001 6.24 1 .014

Interjections 22.43 1 < .001 6.45 1 .012

Sympathy & empathy 20.24 1 < .001 9.34 1 .003

Stimulating dialogue 27.07 1 < .001 14.27 1 < .001

Well-wishing 49.46 1 < .001 20.01 1 < .001

Note: significant effects are in boldface.

Furthermore, the mixed ANOVA showed no significant main effect of eWOM on perception of CHV (F(1, 135) = 2.86, p = .093) and satisfaction (F(1, 135) = 3.47, p = .065).

This indicates that the perception of CHV and satisfaction were similar for neutral eWOM

(MCHV = 4.26, SD = 0.09, MSatisfaction = 4.65, SD = 0.09) and negative eWOM (MCHV = 4.05,

SD = 0.08, MSatisfaction = 4.43, SD =0.08 ).

At last, hypothesis four was tested on the basis of the above performed analyses. The results showed that there was no significant interaction effect between the webcare responses with CHV to a complaint and the webcare responses with CHV to a question. This led to the rejection of hypothesis four for the perception of CHV (F(9, 1215) = 1.02, p = .424) and satisfaction of the webcare response (F(7.74, 1045.47) = 1.39, p = .200). Closer inspection of

Figure 4 shows that webcare responses to a question, on average, lead to a higher CHV perception, whereas Figure 5 shows that the satisfaction with a webcare response differs for the types of eWOM nonetheless this is not supported in statistics.

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 32

Figure 4. Mean perception of CHV as a function of the linguistic elements and type of eWOM.

Figure 5. Mean perception of satisfaction as a function of the linguistic elements and type of eWOM.

The use of linguistic categories in webcare responses

Two mixed ANOVA’s with additional planned contrasts were performed to test the second hypothesis, which states that webcare responses with the linguistic category Message

Personalization will lead to higher levels of consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction compared to webcare responses with Informal Speech and Invitational Rhetoric. Additionally, hypothesis five was tested as well, which states that Message Personalization in webcare CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 33 responses towards complaints will lead to higher levels of CHV perception and satisfaction compared to Message Personalization in webcare responses towards questions. The analyses included the independent variables conversational linguistic categories and type of eWOM, and either the dependent variable perception of CHV or the satisfaction with the webcare response.

The descriptive statistics regarding the dependent variables per experimental condition are shown in Table 4. Looking at the highest means of perception of CHV (M = 4.46, SD =

0.75) and satisfaction (M = 4.88, SD = 0.93), as well as the lowest means of those variables

(M = 3.84, SD = 0.96, and M = 4.26, SD = 0.97), there is no present evidence for possible floor or ceiling effects, or for a restriction of range effect.

Table 4

Means and standard deviations of perception of CHV and satisfaction per experimental condition (N = 137)

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions M SD M SD

Message Personalization Neutral type of eWOM 4.64 0.75 4.76 0.89 Negative type of eWOM 4.40 0.81 4.60 0.91

Informal Speech Neutral type of eWOM 4.03 0.98 4.49 0.95 Negative type of eWOM 3.84 0.96 4.26 0.97

Invitational Rhetoric Neutral type of eWOM 4.41 1.05 4.88 0.93 Negative type of eWOM 4.14 0.93 4.56 1.01

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the independent variable perception of CHV and its residuals indicated a normal distribution (p = .200). For the variable satisfaction, a potential violation of normality is indicated for Informal Speech (D(137) = 0.10, p = .004). ). However,

ANOVA is fairly robust against violations, meaning it was still convenient to continue with the analyses and interpret the results with caution. The results of the Levene’s test of equality CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 34 of error variances were non-significant (p ranged from .130 to .874), assuming that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated. Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity was not violated for both main effects of perception of CHV (χ2(2) = 1.29, p = .526) and satisfaction (χ2(2) = 4.93, p = .085).

The mixed ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the perception of CHV, F(2,

2 270) = 27.28, p < .001, ηp = .17 (large effect), and for satisfaction F(2, 270) = 8.28, p < .001,

2 ηp = .06 (medium effect). More importantly, the results revealed that the usage of Message

Personalization contributes, on average, significantly to higher perceptions of CHV (F(1, 135)

2 2 = 44.76, p < .001, ηp = .25, large effect) and satisfaction (F(1, 135) = 19.74, p < .001, ηp =

.13, large effect) of the webcare response than the usage of Informal Speech and Invitational

Rhetoric (see Table 5). However, from Table 5 it can be seen that contrasts revealed that the satisfaction of webcare responses with Message Personalization is not significantly higher than the satisfaction of webcare responses with Invitational Rhetoric, (F(1, 135) = 0.14, p =

.713). Overall, support was found for hypothesis two, since Message Personalization, on average, contributes most to the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Nevertheless, when examining satisfaction, Invitational Rhetoric transcends Message

Personalization and Informal Speech.

Table 5

Means and standard deviations of perception of CHV and satisfaction per experimental condition (N = 137)

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions M SD M SD

Message Personalization 4.52 0.07 4.68 0.08

Informal Speech 3.94 0.08 4.38 0.08

Invitational Rhetoric 4.28 0.09 4.72 0.08

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 35

Subsequently, the mixed ANOVA showed no significant main effect of eWOM on perception of CHV (F(1, 135) = 3.40, p = .067). This indicates that the perception of CHV for the use of the linguistic categories towards neutral eWOM (M = 4.36, SD = 0.09) and negative eWOM (M = 4.13, SD = 0.09) was similar. The effect of eWOM on satisfaction was marginally significant (F(1, 135) = 3.86, p = .052), which indicates that the satisfaction with the webcare response was, on average, higher for the linguistic categories towards neutral eWOM (M = 4.71, SD = 0.09) compared to negative eWOM (M = 4.47, SD = 0.08).

Eventually, hypothesis five was tested on the basis of the above performed analyses.

The results presented no significant interaction effect between the use of Message

Personalization towards a complaint or a question on the perception of CHV (F(2, 270) =

0.12, p = .886) and satisfaction of the webcare response (F(2, 270) = 0.38, p = .685).

Consequently, this led to the rejection of hypothesis five. Closer inspection of Figure 6 and 7 shows that, on average, webcare responses with Message Personalization have a similar pattern of CHV perception and satisfaction regardless the type of eWOM.

Figure 6. Mean perception of satisfaction as a function of the linguistic categories and type of eWOM. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 36

Figure 7. Mean perception of satisfaction as a function of the linguistic categories and type of eWOM.

Combined categories in webcare responses

Two mixed ANOVA’s, with accompanying planned contrasts, were performed to test the third hypothesis, which states that webcare responses with three linguistic categories will lead to higher levels of CHV perception and satisfaction compared to webcare responses with one linguistic category. Subsequently, hypothesis six was also tested in these analyses. This hypothesis states that webcare responses with three linguistic categories to a complaint will lead to higher levels of perception of CHV and satisfaction compared to webcare responses with three linguistic categories to a question. The independent variables were the linguistic categories individually and combined, and type of eWOM, whereas the dependent variable was either the perception of CHV or the satisfaction with the webcare response.

The descriptive statistics regarding the dependent variables per experimental condition are shown in Table 6. As can be seen from the table, there is no present evidence for possible floor or ceiling effects, or for a restriction of range effect. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the two independent variables and its residuals indicated violation of normality, since all scores were significant (p ranged from <.001 to .008). However, ANOVA is fairly robust against violations, meaning it was still convenient to continue with the analyses and interpret CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 37 the results with caution. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated, since the results of the Levene’s test of equality of error variances were non-significant (p ranged from .139 to .890). Mauchly’s test of sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated for the main effect of CHV (χ2(5) = 44.51, p < .001), therefore the degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimate (ε = .85). The test was also violated for the main effect of satisfaction (χ2(5) = 12.42, p = .029), therefore the degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimate (ε = .97).

Table 6

Means and standard deviations of perception of CHV and satisfaction per experimental condition (N = 137)

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions M SD M SD

Message Personalization 5.82 0.95 5.64 1.04 Neutral type of eWOM 5.89 0.91 5.70 1.05 Negative type of eWOM 5.77 1.00 5.59 1.04

Informal Speech 4.62 1.33 4.79 1.33 Neutral type of eWOM 4.77 1.26 5.03 1.29 Negative type of eWOM 4.49 1.39 4.57 1.34

Invitational Rhetoric 4.92 1.26 5.33 1.12 Neutral type of eWOM 4.85 1.30 5.33 1.13 Negative type of eWOM 4.99 1.22 5.32 1.12

Combination of categories 6.16 0.94 5.68 1.31 Neutral type of eWOM 6.19 1.00 5.76 1.28 Negative type of eWOM 6.13 0.88 5.61 1.31

The mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for perception of CHV, F(2.55,

2 343,89) = 64.49, p < .001, ηp = .32 (large effect), and for satisfaction F(2.91, 392.41) =

2 18.80, p < .001, ηp = .12 (large effect). More importantly, the results indicate that the perception of CHV and satisfaction is, on average, higher for webcare responses with three linguistic categories than for webcare responses with one linguistic category (see Table 7). In contrast to expectations, contrasts revealed that the satisfaction for webcare responses with the linguistic categories combined (M = 5.64, SD = 0.09) is not significantly higher than the CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 38 satisfaction for webcare responses with the linguistic category Message Personalization (M =

5.68, SD = 0.11), indicating that those were similar (F(1, 135) = 0.12, p = .731). Overall, support was found for hypothesis three, since combinations of linguistic categories, on average, contribute most to the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Nevertheless, when examining satisfaction, a combination of categories induce a similar degree of satisfaction of the webcare response as the category Message Personalization.

Table 7

Contrasts of the Within-Subjects variable conversational linguistic categories

Perception of CHV Satisfaction

Conditions F-statistic df p F-statistic df p

Message Personalization 14.89 1 < .001 0.12 1 .731

Informal Speech 118.81 1 < .001 37.84 1 < .001

Invitational Rhetoric 93.96 1 < .001 8.08 1 .005

Note: significant effects are in boldface.

Moreover, the mixed ANOVA showed no significant main effect of eWOM on perception of CHV (F(1, 135) = 0.46, p = .489) and satisfaction (F(1, 135) = 2.03, p = .157).

This indicates that the perception of CHV and satisfaction were similar for neutral eWOM

(MCHV = 5.42, SD = 0.08, MSatisfaction = 5.45, SD = 0.09) and negative eWOM (MCHV = 5.35,

SD = 0.08, MSatisfaction = 5.27, SD =0.09).

At last, hypothesis six was tested on the basis of the above performed analyses. The results showed no significant interaction effect between the combination of three linguistic categories towards a complaint and towards a question. This led to the rejection of hypothesis six, for the perception of CHV (F(2.55, 343.89) = 0.93, p = .412) and satisfaction of the webcare response (F(2.91, 392,41) = 1.08, p = .358). Closer inspection of Figure 8 and Figure

9 shows that, on average, webcare responses with the usage of three linguistic categories and CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 39 one linguistic category have a similar pattern of CHV perception and satisfaction regardless the type of eWOM.

Figure 8. Mean perception of CHV as a function of the linguistic categories and type of eWOM.

Figure 9. Mean perception of satisfaction as a function of the linguistic categories and type of eWOM.

In summary, the results showed that webcare responses with CHV engender higher perceptions of CHV and satisfaction than webcare responses without CHV. This also applies for the linguistic category Message Personalization compared to Informal Speech and

Invitational Rhetoric, as well as for combinations of the three linguistic categories compared CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 40 to one linguistic category. Nevertheless, the type of eWOM in webcare responses did not affect the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response. Table 8 provides a summary of the results per hypothesis.

Table 8

Results experimental questionnaire

Hypothesis 1 Confirmed

Hypothesis 2 Confirmed

Hypothesis 3 Confirmed

Hypothesis 4 Rejected

Hypothesis 5 Rejected

Hypothesis 6 Rejected

Conclusion and discussion

Although the Conversational Human Voice has been extensively investigated in webcare (e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Huibers &

Verhoeven, 2014; Kerkhof et al., 2011; Schamari & Schaefers, 2015), it remained unknown whether the conversational linguistic elements contribute to the consumers’ perception of

CHV and satisfaction of a webcare response. Therefore, this study investigated the difference in contribution of the linguistic elements to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response for negative and neutral eWOM. An online experiment among 137 participants showed that webcare responses with linguistic elements induce higher perceptions of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. While there were differences in the contribution of individual linguistic elements and linguistic categories, the combination of linguistic categories in webcare responses ensure an even higher perception of CHV and satisfaction. In contrast to expectations, the type of eWOM did not influence the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 41

In line with previous research that theoretically operationalized the effect of CHV and its linguistic elements (e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Kerkhof et al., 2011; Van

Hooijdonk & Liebrecht, 2019), this study showed that CHV in webcare responses engenders the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response among consumers. By adopting CHV in webcare responses, the organization’s tone of voice becomes more humanized, which increases the extent to which consumers are aware that they are communicating with an employee rather than an organization as a whole (i.e., Social Presence

Theory, Kwong & Sung, 2011; Park & Lee, 2013; Short et al., 1976). This reduces the distant and impersonal experience webcare responses can convey and increases the positive opinion towards the webcare response (Park & Cameron, 2014). Eventually, adopting CHV in webcare is in line with Kelleher’s (2009) definition, namely that consumers perceive CHV as

“an engaging and natural style of organizational communication” (p.177).

Moreover, in the current study, not every linguistic element contributed equally to the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response. The linguistic element shortenings and abbreviations (ok instead of okay, and LOL for Laughing Out Loud) did not increase the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Additionally, the linguistic element addressing the customer (you and/or your) did contribute to the perception of CHV but not to the satisfaction with the webcare response. These findings are in line with the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), who found similar effects for both of the linguistic elements. In their study, according to an assessing and ranking task, shortenings and abbreviations, and addressing the customer were the two bottom elements of contributing to the perception of CHV. It could be assumed that shortenings and abbreviations are too similar to the consumers’ online colloquial language since much is shortened within the use of online language. For instance, tweets are limited to 140 characters. This means that consumers can look over shortenings and abbreviations faster, as they are used to not CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 42 completely writing every word out. Therefore, shortenings and abbreviations no longer stand out in a message as CHV and do not increase the perception of CHV and the satisfaction with the webcare response. Furthermore, for the linguistic element addressing the customer, it could be assumed that consumers expect a more formal language approach from organizations, but recognize the informal approach as a contribution to the perception of

CHV. This could explain the previous findings of a contribution to the perception of CHV

(e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Liebrecht & Van Hooijdonk, 2019), but the lack of contribution to the satisfaction of the webcare response.

In line with the expectations (Dillman, 2007; Heerwegh et al., 2005) and the effect found by Liebrecht & Van Hooijdonk (2019), the linguistic category Message Personalization contributes most to the perception of CHV followed by Invitational Rhetoric and Informal

Speech. Personalized messages tailored to a specific individual could stand out more than messages that can be sent to everyone (Demmers et al., 2013). Although, in the current study there are differences found in the contribution of the linguistic categories to the satisfaction of the webcare response. In contrast to the expectations, Invitational Rhetoric contributes most to the satisfaction of the webcare response followed by Message Personalization and Informal

Speech. According to the Social Exchange Theory (Dillman, 2007; Heerwegh et al., 2005), the category Invitational Rhetoric seems to influence the consumers’ rewarded value (i.e., reward, cost, and trust) towards the personalized message in such a way as to contribute to their satisfaction with the webcare response the most. Given the 11 questionnaire items of

Kelleher (2009) and Kelleher and Miller (2006), the above results reflect on the distinction made in the items. Namely half of the items corresponds to personalization and the human tone of voice (e.g., ‘Tries to communicate in a human voice’, Kelleher & Miller, 2006, p.413), whereas the other half mainly corresponds to inviting rhetoric (e.g., ‘Invites people to conversation’, Kelleher & Miller, 2006, p.413). Consequently, it could be assumed that CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 43

Message Personalization contributes more to the perception of CHV according to the transcend effect found by Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), whereas Invitational Rhetoric contributes more to the satisfaction of the webcare response according to the evaluation of the interpersonal interaction (i.e., Social Exchange Theory, Dillman, 2007; Heerwegh et al.,

2005).

Additionally, this study showed that the usage of a combination of the three linguistic categories in a webcare response contributes to a greater perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response. This in line with previous studies that showed that the use of multiple linguistic elements, in theoretical perspective, leads to higher perceptions of CHV

(e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Kerkhof et al., 2011). As a result, the organization increases the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response to a greater extent by implementing multiple linguistic elements belonging to different linguistic categories.

Furthermore, the type of eWOM (i.e., neutral or negative) did not influence the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. It was expected that consumers would be more likely to perceive CHV in negative eWOM rather than in neutral eWOM, since neurological research provides strong support for the notion that increased attention is given to negative as opposed to neutral stimuli (e.g., Smith et al., 2003). Also, previous research has shown that webcare responses with CHV positively affect the perception of CHV (e.g., Crijns et al., 2017; Jakic et al., 2017; Van Noort & Willemsen,

2012). However, it turned out that the usage of CHV in webcare responses exceeds the valence effects of the type of eWOM on consumers. Therefore, the findings of the current study are in line with the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019), in which was found that webcare responses with CHV towards neutral eWOM also positively contributes to the CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 44 perception of CHV. As a result, it could therefore be assumed that CHV can be used in webcare responses towards negative and neutral eWOM.

Theoretical and practical implications

The findings of this study add valuable insights to the theory and practice of using the

Conversational Human Voice in webcare responses.

Theoretical implications. This study contributes to the current knowledge on the contribution of conversational linguistic elements to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. As the findings of previous studies were not unambiguous due to differences in the operationalization and application of CHV and its linguistic elements (e.g., Barcelos et al., 2018; Crijns et al., 2017; Gretry et al., 2017; Kerkhof et al., 2011), this current study provides clarity drawing upon the theoretical perspective by confirming that webcare responses with CHV induce higher perceptions of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. In comparison to the results of this study, most of the elements used by the previous studies were similar to the elements investigated for the weighted contribution to the perception of CHV. For instance, Gretry et al. (2017) used elements belonging to the categories Message Personalization and Informal Speech, such as adjectives, interjections, a personal greeting, and emoticons. Similarly, Crijns et al. (2017) also used elements belonging to those categories, such as informal language, addressing the consumer with its name, personal pronouns, and a personal signature. Barcelos et al. (2018) and Kerkhof et al. (2011) only used elements belonging to Message Personalization, such as a personal greeting and personal pronouns. Although the previous studies did not investigate linguistic elements belonging to Invitational Rhetoric, this study confirms that those elements also contribute to the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Therefore, the findings of the current study show that the theoretical distinction between the linguistic elements is correct since almost all linguistic elements and linguistic categories contribute to CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 45 the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Hence, this study also contributes to the tripartition of the linguistic categories Van Noort et al. (2015) distinguished, and the linguistic elements identified by the identification instrument of Van

Hooijdonk and Liebrecht (2018).

Moreover, this study expands on the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) by several additions. Initially, the consumers’ perception of CHV was taken into account instead of the perception of webcare employees. Also, the consumers’ satisfaction with the webcare response was investigated. Eventually, next to neutral eWOM, the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response to negative eWOM was investigated. These additions allowed the study by Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019) to be partially replicated so that valuable additions could be made to it. Namely, that this current study shows that webcare responses with CHV also contribute to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Besides, the findings concerning the linguistic elements and linguistic categories correspond with the study of Liebrecht and Van Hooijdonk (2019). Finally, the current study did not find an effect for the type of eWOM on the perception of CHV and satisfaction. Based on this study, one could also state that the usage of CHV in webcare responses exceeds the valence effects of the type of eWOM on consumers.

Practical implications. This study provides valuable knowledge for organizations and webcare employees who strive to implement CHV in their webcare responses. Since CHV is used consciously in webcare responses, it is important to have knowledge about the unconscious receipt of the message by the consumer. Further, including CHV increases the satisfaction of a webcare response, which induces positive effects on the organization’s reputation and trustworthiness (e.g., Park & Cameron, 2014; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). The advice is, therefore, to adapt conversational linguistic elements in webcare responses to contribute to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 46

When looking at the webcare response of the LinkedIn Social Support Team in Figure 1, this webcare employee implements CHV correctly. Given the findings of this study that combining several linguistic elements from different categories will increase the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response to a greater extent. Finally, this study shows that webcare employees do not have to develop separate CHV responses for negative and neutral eWOM, as the type of eWOM did not influence the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Limitations and future research

Despite the theoretical and practical implications of the study, there are several limitations to take into account. Considerations to increase the generalizability of the research and suggestions for future research are given.

Firstly, there was no effect found for the type of eWOM on the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Although the manipulation question in the experiment checked whether the type of eWOM was perceived as intended, there were in total 24 participants that answered the check wrong. The question that raises is whether the participants were aware of the type of eWOM during the 14 conversations they have read, and if so, whether the manipulation possibly was not clear enough. When participants were not aware of the type of eWOM to which the fictitious organization responded, there could be an explanation for the effect of eWOM type that was not found. Future research could include filler items in the form of positive type of eWOM to avoid bias and keep the participants focused, since the pre-test included such items and showed a successful operationalization of the two types of eWOM. Besides, future research could highlight the manipulation of eWOM type in the information letter of the experiment. The manipulation check in this study may have come too unexpectedly for the participants, namely at the end of the experiment. Also, transferring the participants to the corresponding condition could give more certainty for the CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 47 result the current study found. With such improvements, it could be established with greater certainty that the type of eWOM does not influence the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response.

Subsequently, another limitation is that the basic condition for webcare responses with a combination of linguistic categories was not investigated. Only webcare responses with multiple elements representing one or three linguistic categories were compared in the statistical analyses. Eventually, no comparison has been made between the basic webcare response and the webcare responses with multiple elements. Therefore, it remains unknown whether there is a higher perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response for responses with a combination of linguistic categories compared to the basic condition. To investigate this, future research could include a basic condition with an average amount of

CHV and adjust the condition by adding a combination of linguistic elements from different categories.

Based on the results of this study, several suggestions can be made for future research.

First, future research could focus on specific combinations of linguistic elements. The current study investigated the weighted contribution of each element, each category, and all categories combined to the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. Future research could examine if there are combinations of specific elements, regardless of category, that can enhance the consumers’ perception of CHV and satisfaction to greater extents. For instance, could a webcare response with a greeting, well-wishing, and signature induce higher perceptions of CHV and satisfaction than a webcare response with personal pronouns, sympathy and empathy, and a non-verbal cue? This could be plausible since the current study showed differences in the contribution to the perception of CHV and satisfaction with the webcare response between each element, as well as between each category. Furthermore, future research could take into account the increasing use of visuals CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 48

(e.g., GIFs and memes) used by webcare employees to support the webcare response. The current study investigated the contribution of several linguistic elements to the perception of

CHV. Visuals might also communicate a certain human tone of voice since they support the webcare response by characterizing a bodily touch (e.g., high-five), emotion (e.g., happiness) or sense of humor (e.g., meme). Future research could examine if the use of visuals in webcare responses can be a linguistic element that contributes to the perception of CHV and satisfaction of the webcare response. This could be plausible given the 11 questionnaire items of Kelleher (2009) and Kelleher and Miller (2006), which contain items such as ‘tries to communicate in a human voice’, ‘attempts to make communication enjoyable’ and ‘uses a sense of humor in communication’ (Kelleher & Miller, 2006, p.413).

In summary, dear reader, this study took you into the online world of webcare. To the smallest part to show that each linguistic element contributes to the consumers’ perception of

CHV, but also to the full view that showed that the elements contribute to satisfaction of the webcare response. Oh, and remember: webcare responses can convey ‘consumer language’ J

^MvdH

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 49

References

Barcelos, R.H., Dantas, D.C., & Sénécal, S. (2018). Watch your tone: How a brand’s tone of

voice on social media influences consumer responses. Journal of Interactive

Marketing, 41, 60-80.

Clark, H.H., & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially

Shared Cognition, 127-149.

Crijns, H., Cauberghe, V., Hudders, L., & Claeys, A.-S. (2017). How to deal with online

consumer comments during a crisis? The impact of personalized organizational

responses on organizational reputation. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 619-631.

Dekay, S.H. (2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 17(3), 289-299.

Demmers, J., Van Dolen, W.M., & Weltevreden, J.W.J. (2013, June). Attentive customer care

of privacy infringement? Dealing with customer feedback on social network sites.

Paper presented at European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC), Istanbul,

Turkey.

Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan-Tetik, A., & Beukeboom, C.J. (2015). Online

conversation and corporate reputation: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of

exposure to the social media activities of a highly interactive company. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 632-648.

Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Garton, L.E., & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A

review of the research literature. Annals of the International Communication

Association, 18(1), 434-453. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 50

Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2002). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing

Science Review, 1-24.

Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N., & Van Riel, A.C. (2017). “Don’t pretend to be my friend!”

When an informal brand communication style backfires on social media. Journal of

Business Research, 74, 77-89.

Harrison, T.M., & Barthel, B. (2009). Wielding new media in web 2.0: Exploring the history

of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media &

Society, 11(1-2), 155-178.

Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Matthijs, K., & Loosveldt, G. (2005). The effect of

personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys. International

Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(2), 85-99.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R.R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction.

Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.

Huibers, J., & Verhoeven, J. (2014). Webcare als online reputatiemanagement. Tijdschrift

voor Communicatiewetenschap, 42(2), 165-189.

Jakic, A., Wagner, M.O., Meyer, A. (2017). The impact of language style accommodation

during social media interactions on brand trust. Journal of Service Management,

28(3), 418-441.

Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations

outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1),

172-188. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 51

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B.M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational

strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

11(2), 395-414.

Kerkhof, P., Beugels, D., Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C.J. (2011). Crisis PR in social media: An

experimental study of the effects of organizational crisis responses on Facebook.

Paper presented at the 61st Conference of International Communication Association

(ICA), Boston, MA.

Kwon, E.S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Follow Me! Global marketers’ Twitter use. Journal of

Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 4-16.

Liebrecht, C., & Van Hooijdonk, C. (2019). Creating humanlike chatbots: What chatbot

developers could learn from webcare employees in adopting a conversational human

voice. Manuscript submitted for publication.

LinkedIn. (2019). Webcare conversation [Printscreen]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/LinkedInHelp/status/1200055307839397888

Ocker, R.J., & Yaverbaum, G.J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication

versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction.

Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(5), 427-440.

Oegema, D., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Anderson, K., & Van Hoof, A. (2008). Flaming and blaming:

The influence of mass media content interactions in online discussions. In Konijn,

E.A., Utz, S., Tanis, M., & Barnes, S.B. (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal

Communication (pp. 331-358). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Park, H., & Cameron, G.T. (2014). Keeping it real. Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly, 91(3), 487-507. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 52

Park, H., & Lee, J. (2008). eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention

depending on consumer involvement. Electronic Commerce Research and

Applications, 7(4), 386-398.

Park, H., & Lee, H. (2013). Show us you are real: The effect of human-versus-organizational

presence on online relationship building through social networking sites.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 265-271.

Pearce, M. (2005). Informalization in UK party election broadcasts 1966-97. Language and

Literature, 14(1), 65-90.

Pollach, I. (2005). Corporate self-presentation on the WWW. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 10(4), 285-301.

Ranaweera, C., & Jayawardhena, C. (2014). Talk up or criticize? Customer responses to

WOM about competitors during social interactions. Journal of Business Research,

67(12), 2645-2656.

Schamari, J., & Schaefers, T. (2015). Leaving the home turf: How brands can use webcare on

consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 30, 20-33.

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and

reactions to crisis communication via Twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public

Relations Review, 37(1), 20-27.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.

London, England: Wiley.

Smith, N.K., Cacioppo, J.T., Larsen, J.T., & Chartrand, T.L. (2003). May I have your

attention, please: Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli.

Neuropsychologia, 41(2), 171-183. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 53

Sweetser, K.D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a

relationship management tool. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340-342.

Van Hooijdonk, C., & Liebrecht, C. (2018). “Wat vervelend dat de fiets niet is opgeruimd!

Heb je een zaaknummer voor mij? ^EK.”: Conversational human voice in webcare van

Nederlandse gemeenten. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 40(1), 45-81.

Van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L.M. (2012). Online damage control: The effects of proactive

versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated

platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 131-140.

Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L.M., Kerkhof, P., & Verhoeven, J.W.M. (2015). Webcare as an

integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: A

literature review. In Kitchen, P.J., & Uzunoğlu, E. (Eds.), Integrated Communications

in the Postmodern Era (pp. 77-99). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Walther, J.B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal

relations. In Knapp, M.L., & Daly, J.A. (Eds.), The Handbook of Interpersonal

Communication (pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ward, J.C., & Ostrom, A.L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in

customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220-230.

Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic

communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through

organizational blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473-497.

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 54

Appendices

Appendix A – Experimental materials

Example of a neutral and negative webcare conversation and the adjusted linguistic subcategories to induce the experimental manipulation for the linguistic elements.

Consumer’s message, neutral type of Consumer’s message, negative type of eWOM eWOM Robin: @goeddoel Waar kan ik info vinden Robin: @goeddoel Informatie over jullie projecten over jullie projecten? Kan het niet vinden op is niet te vinden op de website. Irritant, ik ben al jullie website. een uur aan het zoeken!

Manipulation Webcare response

Basic Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Greeting Hoi Robin, bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot

vanavond onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Addressing the Bedankt voor je melding. Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond consumer onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date en kun je straks weer voldoende informatie vinden! Message Signature Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond Personalization onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! ^BM Shortenings and Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel vd website is tot vanavond

abbreviations onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende info te vinden! Non-verbal cues Bedankt voor de melding J Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Interjections Och, bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot Informal Speech Informal vanavond onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Showing sympathy Begrijpelijk dat dit onhandig is. Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel and empathy van de website is tot vanavond onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Stimulating Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond dialogue onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Mochten er nog vragen zijn, neem dan gerust weer contact op. Well-wishing Bedankt voor de melding. Dat deel van de website is tot vanavond

Invitational Rhetoric Invitational onder constructie, daarna is de pagina Projecten helemaal up to date. Zo is er straks weer voldoende informatie te vinden! Geniet van het mooie weer vandaag! CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 55

Figure 10. Example of the basic webcare response to the neutral type of eWOM used in the experiment.

Figure 11. Example of the basic webcare response to the negative type of eWOM used in the experiment. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 56

Example of a neutral and negative webcare conversation and the adjusted linguistic subcategories to induce the experimental manipulation for the linguistic categories.

Consumer’s message, neutral type of Consumer’s message, negative type of eWOM eWOM Sem: @goeddoel Ik zou graag een donatie Sem: @goeddoel Wat rot. Wil je een keer iets willen doen. Is dit ook online mogelijk? doneren, kan dat niet online!

Manipulation Webcare response

Basic Een online donatie is zeker mogelijk. Op onze website is rechtsboven een donatie-knop te vinden. Nadat hier op is geklikt, wijst de weg vanzelf. Alvast bedankt voor de donatie!

Message Hey Sem, een online donatie is zeker mogelijk. Dit kan je doen op onze Personalization website waar rechtsboven een donatie-knop te vinden is. Nadat je hier op klik, wijst de weg vanzelf. Alvast bedankt voor de donatie! ^Jonne

Informal Speech Een online donatie is zeker mogelijk, hoor. N.l. op onze site is rechtsboven een donatie-knop te vinden. Nadat hier op is geklikt, wijst de weg vanzelf. Alvast bedankt voor de donatie! *duimpje positief* Invitational Rhetoric Goede opmerking. Een online donatie is zeker mogelijk. Op onze website is rechtsboven een donatie-knop te vinden. Nadat hier op is geklikt, wijst de weg vanzelf. Alvast bedankt voor de donatie! Hoor graag als er nog vragen zijn. Fijne middag nog! Combination of Hey Sem, goede opmerking. Een online donatie is zeker mogelijk, hoor. categories Dit kan je n.l. doen op onze site waar rechtsboven een donatie-knop te vinden is. Nadat je hier op klikt, wijst de weg vanzelf. Alvast bedankt voor de donatie! *duimpje positief* Hoor graag als er nog vragen zijn. Fijne middag nog! ^Jonne

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 57

Figure 12. Example of the webcare response with the combination of linguistic categories to the neutral type of eWOM used in the experiment.

Figure 13. Example of the webcare response with the combination of linguistic categories to the negative type of eWOM used in the experiment. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 58

Appendix B – Pre-test materials

Example of webcare conversations as tested in the pre-test.

Figure 14. Example of the webcare response with neutral type of eWOM used in the pre-test.

Figure 15. Example of the webcare response with negative type of eWOM used in the pre-test.

Figure 16. Example of the webcare response with positive type of eWOM used in the pre-test.

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 59

Appendix C – Pre-test questionnaire

Introductie Beste participant,

Bedankt dat u de tijd neemt om deel te nemen aan deze pre-test. Dit onderzoek wordt gehouden als onderdeel van mijn afstudeeronderzoek voor de master Business Communication & Digital Media. Het onderzoek gaat over webcare; de reactie van een organisatie op vragen en klachten van consumenten op sociale media. Dit kan resulteren in een online gesprek tussen consument en organisatie.

U krijgt tijdens dit onderzoek 18 verschillende webcare gesprekken te zien tussen consumenten en een fictief goed doel. Aan de hand van de gesprekken volgen een aantal vragen met betrekking tot de uiting van de consument. Het is dus van belang dat u de webcare gesprekken goed leest.

De pre-test neemt ongeveer 15 minuten van uw tijd in beslag. Uiteindelijk zullen uw antwoorden worden meegenomen in de ontwikkeling van een experiment over webcare. Hierbij zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden, ik ben vooral benieuwd naar uw mening. Daarom wil ik u vragen om elke gedachtegang en twijfel uit te spreken tijdens het onderzoek.

Door verder te gaan met dit onderzoek erkent u dat u zich er van bewust bent dat er vertrouwelijk wordt omgegaan met uw antwoorden, deze worden gebruikt voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek, en dat uw deelname aan deze pre-test vrijwillig is. U kunt te allen tijde, ongeacht de reden, de pre-test verlaten door de vragenlijst af te sluiten.

Mocht u vragen of opmerkingen hebben over de pre-test, neem dan contact o

Tot slot wil ik u erop attenderen dat de vragenlijst het best wordt weergegeven op een laptop of computer. Het is mogelijk dat sommige functies op uw telefoon of tablet minder goed werken. Wilt u daarom dit onderzoek op laptop of computer voltooien?

Nogmaals bedankt!

Marith van der Horst Master student Business Communication & Digital Media Tilburg University o Ik ga akkoord met bovenstaande informatie o Ik ga niet akkoord met bovenstaande informatie en stop hierbij mijn deelname

< Webcare conversaties worden getoond, zie voorbeeld van conversaties in Appendix B >

Uiting van de consument Ik beschouw de uiting van de consument als tevreden. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 60

Ik beschouw de uiting van de consument als positief. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik beschouw de uiting van de consument als complimenteus. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik beschouw de uiting van de consument als onaardig. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik beschouw de uiting van de consument als kritisch. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Sociale media gebruik Geef aan hoe vaak u sociale media gebruikt (bijv. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ik gebruik Een paar Minstens Meerdere Gedurende geen keer per één keer keren per de gehele sociale week per dag dag dag media

Bekendheid met webcare De gesprekken die u zojuist heeft beoordeeld behoren tot webcare. Ziet u wel eens dit soort online gesprekken tussen consumenten en organisaties (webcare)? o Ja o Nee

Zelf participeren in webcare Heeft u zelf wel eens contact opgenomen/gehad met organisaties via sociale media? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Nooit Zelden Soms Vaak Heel vaak

Goed doel Wat is uw algemene mening tegenover goede doelen? Ik vind goede doelen goed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal oneens eens mee eens CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 61

mee oneens

Ik vind goede doelen belangrijk. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik vind goede doelen nuttig. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Leeftijd Wat is uw huidige leeftijd in jaren?

------

Geslacht Welk gendertype past het beste bij u? o Man o Vrouw o Anders o Ik geef liever geen antwoord

Opleidingsniveau Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleidingsniveau? Indien u momenteel studeert, kies het opleidingsniveau dat u momenteel volgt o Middelbare school o Mbo o Hbo o Wo o PhD o Anders

Debriefing U bent aan het einde gekomen van de vragenlijst. Pas nadat u op de blauwe knop heeft geklikt, worden de antwoorden verstuurd. Voordat u dit doet, wil ik nog even toelichten wat u zojuist heeft gedaan en waar dit aan bijdraagt.

Tijdens deze pre-test zijn 18 verschillende webcare gesprekken tussen consumenten en een fictief goed doel vertoond, waarbij u de uiting van de consument heeft beoordeeld. De uitingen waren verschillend: sommigen waren negatief, anderen neutraal of positief. In dit onderzoek wilde ik vooral uw mening achterhalen van de negatieve berichten. Deze berichten zullen in mijn hoofdexperiment over webcare worden gebruikt.

Onderstaande vragen zijn niet verplicht om in te vullen, maar helpen mij wel bij het maken van het hoofdexperiment: CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 62

- Welke negatieve woorden bent u tegen gekomen in de pre-test?

------

- Heeft u nog tips met welke woorden een uiting negatief kan worden gemaakt?

------

- Indien u nog vragen of opmerkingen heeft, kunt u deze hier achterlaten ------

Nogmaals bedankt voor uw medewerking!

Marith van der Horst CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 63

Appendix D – Pre-test reliability scores

As mentioned in the method section, the reliability scores for the type of eWOM showed that participants had misinterpret the contrary (i.e. negative) items, namely ‘unkind’ and ‘critical’. These items were therefore removed from the pre-test analysis. The remaining items were ‘satisfied’, ‘positive’, and ‘complementary’. The reliability scores including ‘unkind’ and ‘critical’ are shown in Table 9 and Table 10, whereas the reliability scores for the remaining items ‘satisfied’, ‘positive’, and ‘complementary’ are shown in Table 11 and Table 12. The filler webcare conversations are not included.

Table 9

Individual Cronbach Alpha scores for Group A (neutral type of eWOM) with Means and

Standard Deviations

Cronbach Alpha M SD

Conversation 1 .84 15.08 5.03

Conversation 2 .59 14.00 3.86

Conversation 4 .80 15.92 5.82

Conversation 5 .56 16.83 3.59

Conversation 6 .75 20.17 3.71

Conversation 7 .58 19.83 3.56

Conversation 9 .66 16.33 3.65

Conversation 10 .34 19.91 2.90

Conversation 11 .73 22.58 3.15

Conversation 13 .71 13.25 4.65

Conversation 14 .68 25.50 4.12

Conversation 15 .37 23.25 3.91

Conversation 16 -.23 18.00 3.10

Conversation 18 .80 11.67 4.87

Note. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 64

Table 10

Individual Cronbach Alpha scores for Group B (negative type of eWOM) with Means and

Standard Deviations

Cronbach Alpha M SD

Conversation 1 .37 12.22 4.92

Conversation 2 .16 11.44 4.30

Conversation 4 .46 11.33 3.94

Conversation 5 .65 11.22 5.31

Conversation 6 .23 14.78 3.07

Conversation 7 .50 11.78 5.49

Conversation 9 .72 11.44 5.08

Conversation 10 .57 12.11 4.91

Conversation 11 .66 14.00 5.66

Conversation 13 .36 13.44 4.45

Conversation 14 .32 13.56 3.57

Conversation 15 .49 14.77 4.29

Conversation 16 .45 11.89 4.70

Conversation 18 .42 12.44 5.15

Note. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

Table 11

Individual Cronbach Alpha scores for Group A (neutral type of eWOM) with Means and

Standard Deviations

Cronbach Alpha M SD

Conversation 1 .88 2.75 1.10

Conversation 2 .95 2.31 1.11

Conversation 4 .95 3.00 1.53

Conversation 5 .85 3.25 1.01

Conversation 6 .88 4.14 0.72

Conversation 7 .86 3.72 1.04 CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 65

Conversation 9 .77 3.25 0.89

Conversation 10 .86 3.83 0.96

Conversation 11 .79 4.22 0.57

Conversation 13 .88 2.25 1.02

Conversation 14 .82 4.97 0.83

Conversation 15 .88 4.50 1.24

Conversation 16 .94 3.25 1.47

Conversation 18 .95 1.94 1.18

Note. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

Table 12

Individual Cronbach Alpha scores for Group B (negative type of eWOM) with Means and

Standard Deviations

Cronbach Alpha M SD

Conversation 1 .91 1.71 0.86

Conversation 2 .99 1.33 0.40

Conversation 4 .99 1.75 0.39

Conversation 5 1.00 1.79 0.80

Conversation 6 .96 2.92 0.68

Conversation 7 .97 1.54 1.05

Conversation 9 .98 1.92 0.87

Conversation 10 .99 1.75 0.79

Conversation 11 .98 2.17 0.91

Conversation 13 .96 2.08 0.58

Conversation 14 .98 1.96 0.55

Conversation 15 .96 2.29 0.68

Conversation 16 .99 1.50 0.47

Conversation 18 .99 1.63 0.93

Note. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 66

Appendix E – Experimental questionnaire

Information letter Welkom!

Bedankt dat u de tijd neemt om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek. Deze vragenlijst is opgesteld door Marith van der Horst, student aan Tilburg University, in het kader van een master thesis*.

Met dit onderzoek wordt wetenschappelijk inzicht verkregen in webcare; de reactie van een organisatie op vragen en klachten van consumenten op sociale media. Dit kan resulteren in een online gesprek tussen consument en organisatie.

U krijgt tijdens dit onderzoek 14 verschillende webcare gesprekken te zien tussen consumenten en een fictief goed doel. Aan de hand van de gesprekken volgen een aantal vragen met betrekking tot de reactie van de organisatie. Het is dus van belang dat u de webcare gesprekken goed leest. Op deze manier wordt er inzicht verkregen in de mate waarin u het eens of oneens bent met de stellingen.

Het invullen van de vragenlijst neemt ongeveer 20 minuten van uw tijd in beslag. Er bestaan geen goede of foute antwoorden, ik ben enkel benieuwd naar uw mening. Deelname aan dit onderzoek is geheel vrijwillig. U kunt te allen tijde, ongeacht de reden, het onderzoek verlaten door de vragenlijst af te sluiten.

Uiteraard wordt er vertrouwelijk omgegaan met uw antwoorden. De antwoorden worden volledig anoniem verwerkt, waardoor deze niet te koppelen zullen zijn aan persoonsgegevens. De verkregen data zullen conform het beleid van Tilburg University 10 jaar worden bewaard.

Mocht u vragen of opmerkingen hebben over de vragenlijst, neemt u dan contact op.

Tot slot wil ik u erop attenderen dat de vragenlijst het best wordt weergegeven op een laptop of computer. Het is mogelijk dat sommige functies op uw telefoon of tablet minder goed werken. Wilt u daarom dit onderzoek op de laptop of computer voltooien?

Nogmaals bedankt!

Marith van der Horst Master student Business Communication & Digital Media Tilburg University

* Dit onderzoek is beoordeeld en goedgekeurd door het Research Ethics and Data Management Committee van Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences behorende tot Tilburg Univeristy.

Informed consent Door verder te gaan met dit onderzoek verklaart u de informatie betreffende het onderzoek te hebben gelezen en hiermee akkoord te gaan. Ook bent u zich er bewust van dat er ruimte was voor het stellen van vragen voor de start van het onderzoek. Daarbij erkent u dat u zich er van bewust bent dat er vertrouwelijk wordt omgegaan met uw antwoorden, deze anoniem worden CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 67 gebruikt voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek, en dat uw deelname aan dit onderzoek vrijwillig is. U kunt te allen tijde, ongeacht de reden, het onderzoek verlaten door de vragenlijst af te sluiten.

o Ik ga akkoord met bovenstaande informatie o Ik ga niet akkoord met bovenstaande informatie en stop hierbij mijn deelname

Lees het gesprek goed en beoordeel de reactie van de organisatie. Let op: zodra u op de blauwe pijl klikt, wordt uw antwoord opgeslagen en gaat u naar de volgende vraag.

Perceived Conversational Human Voice Ik beschouw de webcare reactie van de organisatie als persoonlijk 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik beschouw de webcare reactie van de organisatie als informeel 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik beschouw de webcare reactie van de organisatie als afstandelijk 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Satisfaction with the webcare response Ik ervaar de webcare reactie van de organisatie als tevreden 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik ervaar de webcare reactie van de organisatie als aangenaam 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik ervaar de webcare reactie van de organisatie als gewenst 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 68

Manipulatiecheck De consumenten in de webcare gesprekken benaderden de organisatie met een o Vraag o Klacht

Sociale media gebruik Geef aan hoe vaak u sociale media gebruikt (bijv. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ik gebruik Een paar Minstens Meerdere Gedurende geen keer per één keer keren per de gehele sociale week per dag dag dag media

Bekendheid met webcare De gesprekken die u zojuist heeft beoordeeld behoren tot webcare. Ziet u wel eens dit soort online gesprekken tussen consumenten en organisaties (webcare)? o Ja o Nee

Zelf participeren in webcare Heeft u zelf wel eens contact opgenomen/gehad met organisaties via sociale media? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Nooit Zelden Soms Vaak Heel vaak

Goed doel Wat is uw algemene mening tegenover goede doelen? Ik vind goede doelen goed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik vind goede doelen belangrijk. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Ik vind goede doelen nuttig. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Helemaal Oneens Enigszins Neutraal Enigszins Eens Helemaal mee oneens eens mee eens oneens

Leeftijd Wat is uw huidige leeftijd in jaren?

------CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION REGARDING CHV 69

Geslacht Welk gendertype past het beste bij u? o Man o Vrouw o Anders o Ik geef liever geen antwoord

Opleidingsniveau Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleidingsniveau? Indien u momenteel studeert, kies het opleidingsniveau dat u momenteel volgt o Middelbare school o Mbo o Hbo o Wo o PhD o Anders

Debriefing U bent aan het einde gekomen van de vragenlijst. Pas nadat u op de blauwe knop heeft geklikt, worden de antwoorden verstuurd. Voordat u dit doet, wil ik nog even toelichten wat u zojuist heeft gedaan en waar dit aan bijdraagt.

Tijdens deze vragenlijst zijn 14 verschillende webcare gesprekken tussen consumenten en een fictief goed doel vertoond, waarbij u de reactie van de organisatie heeft beoordeeld. De reacties waren gebaseerd op een vraag óf een klacht van de consument. U bent hierbij willekeurig tot één van deze condities ingedeeld.

Daarbij verschilden de reacties van de organisatie niet alleen op basis van vraag of klacht, maar ook in de mate van personalisatie. Per reactie zijn namelijk verschillende personalisatie strategieën toegepast. In deze strategieën komt een mate van een menselijk geluid tot uiting in de toonzetting van de reacties, genaamd Conversational Human Voice. Zo reageerde de organisatie bijvoorbeeld wel of niet met een begroeting, en sprak deze de consument wel of niet met persoonlijke voornaamwoorden aan.

Doordat u op basis van een verschillende aanleiding, verschillende webcare reacties heeft beoordeeld, kan worden gemeten welke personalisatie strategieën de effectiviteit van webcare beïnvloeden en bijdragen aan de perceptie van de Conversational Human Voice.

Tot slot wil ik u vragen om bovenstaande informatie niet openbaar te maken, zodat andere participanten zonder voorkennis kunnen deelnemen aan dit onderzoek.

Indien u nog vragen of opmerkingen heeft, kunt u deze hier achterlaten:

------

Nogmaals bedankt voor uw medewerking!

Marith van der Horst

Druk op de blauwe pijl om uw antwoorden te verzenden!