Language in Social Media summary: academic articles and powerpoints
20 views 1 purchase
Course
Language in Social Media
Institution
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)
I summarized the academic articles, except Rapp, A., Curti, L., & Boldi, A. (2021) because that one is like 80 pages long and I do not have the time for that.
The main focus is on the articles and Ive tried to only include the important information from each article (its still 160 pages long oops...
Language in Social Media
Summaries of the used articles
Lecture and seminar notes
Week 1
Reading
1. Van Hooijdonk, C. & Liebrecht, C. (2021). Sorry but no sorry. The use and effects of
airline webcare responses to NeWOM messages of flight passengers. Discourse,
Context & Media, 40.
2. Researching the language of social media: A student guide. Chapters 1-2
3. 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
1. Sorry but no sorry. The use and effects of airline webcare responses to NeWOM
messages of flight passengers. Van Hooijdonk, C. & Liebrecht, C. (2021)
1 Introduction
- Research consistently shows that negative electronic word of mouth (NeWOM) has
detrimental effects on brands’ reputation.
- An adequate webcare response offers brands the opportunity to protect their
reputation. These responses typically range from defensive (e.g., justifications) to
accommodative (e.g., corrective actions).
- In this paper, the focus is on the use and effectiveness of offering an apology in
webcare responses to online complaints in the airline industry.
- However, the effects of offering an apology in webcare responses are open to more
than one interpretation (positive or negative).
- The effectiveness of an apology depends on how it is combined with defensive and/or
accommodative strategies.
- This paper aims to answer the following research questions:
- (1) How do airline companies offer apologies to complaining customers on
Twitter?
- (2) How does offering an apology with and without a defensive and/or
accommodative strategy affect passengers’ perceptions of the airline’s
reputation?
- To answer the first research question, a corpus analysis was conducted of 480
webcare conversations between customers and 20 international airlines.
- The second research question was answered by means of an experiment in which
passengers of an international airline assessed a corporate apology in a fictitious
webcare conversation between a customer complaining about a service failure and
the airline company.
,2 Theoretical background
2.1. Offering an apology in a webcare response
- An apology implies that an offense or wrongdoing has occurred which requires a
remedial action. Therefore, an apology can be regarded as an acknowledgment of (the
responsibility for) the dissatisfying event and can include an expression of regret.
- In the context of webcare, a customer’s complaint about a brand’s service failure can
be perceived as requesting a remedial action of the brand. By apologizing the brand
attempts to mitigate the negative repercussions of the service failure.
- Offering an apology is one of the response strategies distinguished by the Situation
Crisis Communication Theory.
- The SCCT framework organizes response strategies on a continuum from
accommodative to defensive. On this continuum the degree of responsibility taken by
the brand for the service failure varies.
- Whereas accommodative responses are used to communicate a high degree of
responsibility, defensive responses are used to express a low degree of
responsibility for a service failure.
- Accommodative responses refer to the acknowledgement and acceptance of a
dissatisfying event caused by brands. These responses can range from lowly or
moderately (e.g., providing information) to highly (e.g., corrective actions)
accommodative actions.
- Defensive responses include brands denying their responsibility, and
justifying the cause of the negative event.
- Einwiller and Steilen (2015) distinguished a third strategy, passive responses, in their
corpus analysis of brands’ responses on social media. This passive strategy refers to
the absence of a public webcare response which includes the brand being
non-responsive, or redirecting the complaining customer to a private channel.
- Research has shown brands do not frequently offer an apology in webcare
conversations.
- Arguably, brands are not generous in apologizing in webcare responses because it
might imply they are responsible for the negative event.
- Page (2014) focused on the wording of apologies in, inter alia, brand tweets. She
showed brands expressed their apologies frequently using the formulation ‘sorry’
instead of ‘apology’, ‘afraid’, and ‘regret’. Moreover, brands’ apologies often contained
corrective actions, whereas explanations as to why the offense occurred were not
frequently employed.
- Presumably brands combine apologies with corrective actions to avoid a ‘double
deviation’ (i.e., a failed recovery of a service failure).
- In this paper, we focus on the use of offering an apology in webcare responses within
a homogeneous sample: airlines. T
- Based on the findings of Einwiller and Steilen (2015), Huibers and Verhoeven (2014),
and Page (2014) we formulated the following hypotheses that will be examined by
means of a corpus analysis:
- H1: Airlines’ webcare responses to NeWOM tweets will rarely contain an
apology.
- H2: Airlines’ webcare apologies will be combined with accommodative
rather than defensive responses.
- H3: Airlines’ webcare apologies will often contain the wording ‘sorry’
instead of other apology wordings (i.e., ‘apology’, ‘afraid’, and ‘regret’).
,2.2. Effectiveness of offering an apology in webcare
- Webcare can serve multiple organizational goals, including customer care and public
relations (Van Noort et al., 2014).
- For customer care the goals of webcare are signaling customer problems with
brands’ service or products. By engaging in an online conversation with
complaining customers, brands can solve the problems which meet or even
exceed customers’ expectations (Van Noort et al., 2014).
- Webcare is also a means for reputation management. Brands’ responses to
NeWOM messages are not only read by dissatisfied customers, but also by
other social media users. By engaging in webcare, brands demonstrate they
take the concerns of their stakeholders seriously, which may prevent NeWOM
messages from becoming a crisis, but also may influence stakeholders’
impressions of them (i.e., reputation; Van Noort et al., 2014).
- According to the Attribution Theory people search for the causes of events, especially
those that are negative and unexpected, such as service failures. The type of service
failure influences peoples’ attributions.
- A distinction can be made between service type failure in the amount of attributed
responsibility to the brand which is based on attributions of locus, (who caused the
service failure?), controllability (was the service failure preventable?), and stability
(will the service failure occur again?).
- For example, airline passengers experiencing flight cancellations due to
weather conditions may attribute little responsibility to the airline company
compared to airline passengers experiencing the same service failure due to
technical issues of the airplane.
- When a service failure occurs, stakeholders assess the degree to which the brand is
responsible for the negative event, which negatively affects brand reputation. Thus,
(perceived) responsibility is a determinant of brand reputation.
- Besides responsibility, brand reputation is also based on determinants of the brand’s
credibility, such as trustworthiness and competence.
- In case of a service failure, stakeholders assess the brand’s acts to solve the issue. If
the brand does not demonstrate trustworthiness and competence, its reputation may
be damaged. Reputational damage can be limited or even repaired with an
appropriate webcare response to a NeWOM message, such as an apology.
- The SCCT recommends to use an accommodative strategy (i.e., an apology) in the
case of service failures with high responsibility attribution.
- By apologizing brands acknowledge the service failure and take responsibility.
- Furthermore, the SCCT recommends to use a defensive strategy (i.e., no apology) in
the case of service failures with low responsibility attribution.
- Using an accommodative strategy (i.e., an apology) in the case of a service
failure with low responsibility attribution might bring stakeholders to the
conclusion that the service failure is much worse.
- In this paper, we will focus on one particular service type failure, i.e., lost luggage
caused by a baggage handling error at the airport.
- Arguably, airline passengers could attribute the responsibility to the airline company
for losing their luggage. Therefore, we expect that the presence of an apology will lead
to more favorable perceptions of brand reputation than the absence of an apology.
, - H4: Stakeholders’ perception of brand reputation will be more positive with
the presence of an apology in a webcare response to a lost luggage
complaint than the absence of an apology.
- However, a simple apology might be not enough to handle online complaints. In this
case an apology is merely an empathetic response in which the brand acknowledges
the customer’s complaint, but fails to take the responsibility for resolving the
situation.
- Moreover, apologies typically co-occur with other response strategies . This raises the
question whether the addition of another strategy is more effective than a single
apology, and in turn, which combination is the most effective to restore the brand’s
reputation: an apology combined with a defensive response strategy, an
accommodative response strategy, or both?
- In the present study we distinguish between a single apology, an apology plus a
defensive strategy (i.e., justification: explanation about the cause of the service
failure), an apology plus an accommodative strategy (i.e., corrective action:
explanation that the service failure is less likely to occur again), and an apology plus
defensive and accommodative strategy (i.e., justification and corrective action).
- Brands can go beyond apologizing by providing closure by means of a corrective
action. This might satisfy stakeholders because they feel the brand is making an extra
effort.
- According to the SCCT, corrective actions are part of rebuild strategies: brands
attempt to improve their reputation by offering forms of aid to stakeholders.
- However, stakeholders are likely to demand some sort of explanation when a service
failure occurs, which differ in attributions of locus, controllability, and of stability.
- According to the SCCT, justifications are part of diminish strategies: brands
communicate their lack of control over the service failure -and thus reducing their
responsibility- in an attempt to mitigate reputational damage.
- In addition, an apology can be used in conjunction with a justification and a
corrective action. With this combination of response strategies, brands apologize and
explain what caused the service failure and promise that this service failure is not
likely to happen again.
- The SCCT recommends to maintain consistency in the response strategies: mixing
diminishing and rebuilding strategies might erode the effectiveness of the overall
response.
- However, this combination of response strategies could affect stakeholders’
attributions and protect brand reputation.
- Because of the plausibility of both explanations, the following contradictory
hypothesis will be tested in an experiment:
- H5: Stakeholders’ perception of brand reputation will be more positive
(negative) with the presence of a defensive and accommodative strategy in a
webcare apology to a lost luggage complaint than the absence (presence) of
these response strategies.
- To answer the research questions a mixed methods approach was used. First, a
corpus study was conducted to investigate the form and content of apologies
occurring in airlines’ webcare responses to complaining customers on Twitter.
Subsequently, an experiment was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of
airline’s webcare apologies in protecting reputation whilst controlling for service
failure type and carrier type.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Moenen. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
