HUMAN VOICE IN CRISIS SITUATIONS
AN EXPERIMENT TO EXAMINE DIFFERENCES IN CRISIS
COMMUNICATION VIA DIFFERENT SOCIAL MEDIA
Oscar Verheijen | 10003638 | Supervisor: James Slevin PhD | 26-6-2015
Master’s Thesis | Graduate School of Communication | Master’s
programme Corporate Communication
1
Abstract
The aim of this Master’s thesis was to develop an advice for communication professionals on the use of conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment in crisis communication on social media, and which social medium is most effective, based on a review of existing material and a new study. The study employed an online experimental research method, in which it showed 116 participants one of four possible research stimuli, and then were asked a series of questions about the perceived level of conversational human voice, communicated relational commitment and their attitude towards the brand. Results showed that use of conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment positively influenced brand attitudes, Facebook is a more effective medium for conveying conversational human voice to increase brand attitudes compared to Twitter, and communicated relational commitment partially mediates the relationship between
conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment.
The results from this research will serve to advise crisis communication professionals in mitigating negative crisis effects through social media management in crisis situations. By employing conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment on
Facebook in crises, crisis communication managers can develop a more successful strategy when dealing with crises through social media, with similar or higher brand attitudes than before the crisis.
Keywords: crisis communication, social media, conversational human voice, relational
2
Introduction
Communication-professionals are seeing a lot of opportunities and threats in social media. The manner in which consumers communicate with each other has changed dramatically in the last decade. The same holds true for how consumers collect and share information about organizations and their products, and how they gather and use them. The rise of new media has provided consumers with plenty of options for actively exchanging information about services and products with other consumers, known as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Accordingly, these social media are also getting a lot of attention from organizations, seeing as stakeholders are increasingly expressing their complaints and concerns with their online social networks. The fast-moving nature of social media allows small issues to become large corporate crises within a short amount of time. An ill-handled complaint or an inappropriate comment on social media is all it takes for the masses to turn against your organization (Van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof, & Verhoeven, 2014). A text-book example of this phenomenon is the Chevrolet-case. Janelle McCoy, a loyal customer of Chevrolet, expressed a concern about her new car and a faulty loan on social media. Chevrolet first did not respond at all, and later in a very generic and avoiding manner. This set off a chain of messages that garnered a larger audience than Chevrolet anticipated. Thousands upon thousands of people saw Chevrolets lack of customer service, and the result was large reputational loss (Van Noort, Willemsen, Kerkhof, & Verhoeven, 2014). Since then, organizations have been acknowledging the importance of online conversations on social media, and feel an urge to respond to the questions, complaints, compliments, and comments that are posted by consumers (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Therefore, organizations have been actively trying to proactively monitor social media conversations, looping for potential crises in their early stages, and intervene in consumers’ negative eWOM before the situation escalates. These interventions are referred to as webcare (Kerkhof, Vonkeman, Beukeboom, & Utz, 2011). For an organization, an
appropriate response to a negative reviews or an online customer complaint not only has the potential to influence the original complainant. It can also influence anyone who might be
3 following the discussion (Kerkhof et al., 2014). This study focuses on crises that are given a platform on social media conversations.
The growing popularity of social media has stimulated PR-professionals to integrate social media elements into their communication planning and has led scholars to focus attention on the potential that these new communication tools imply for PR practice (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Given its potential for faster and more dialogic communication, the use of social media for managing a crisis has been garnering increasing interest by organizations (Kim, Kim, & Nam, 2013). However, organizations still seem to be struggling with effective and appropriate social media management in crisis situations. For example, finding the appropriate medium and the appropriate tone of voice can prove to be challenging to some organizations. Multiple studies have shown that companies can benefit from employing conversational human voice (e.g. Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kelleher, 2009; Park & Cameron, 2014). Conversational human voice, defined as “an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by an
organization's public based on interactions between individuals in the organization and individuals in public’’ (Kelleher, 2009, p. 177).
There is, however, some debate going on about what factors influence efficient and effective use of social media. Even though Schultz, Utz, and Goritz (2011) showed that social media can be an effective tool for expressing commitment to customers, Yang, Kang, and Johnson (2010) argued that the manner in which these social media are used may mitigate these positive effects. In their study, the manner in which customers were addressed, and especially the use of conversational human voice and invitational rhetoric in their blog, were shown to create the feeling that the company is open to dialogue. Invitational rhetoric, defined as “an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination” (Yang et al., 2010, p. 476), expressed an openness to dialogue, which improved audience engagement in crisis situations and evoked positive post-crisis attitudes. However, communication with a lack of a human presence and
4 invitational rhetoric might actually have negative effects on organization-customer
relationships (Yang et al., 2010). There appear to be many more factors influencing the efficacy of organizations’ social media use. The aim of this study was to identify some of these factors, and to see to what extent they are of influence. To that end, the following question served as the core of this research:
To what extent does the use of conversational human voice in crisis communication on social media affect brand attitudes? Is this effect mediated by communicated relational
commitment? And is this effect different for different social media?
The results from this research will serve to advise crisis communication professionals in mitigating negative crisis effects through social media management in crisis situations. By knowing which crisis response strategy and tone of voice to apply to a specific medium type, crisis communication managers can develop more successful strategies in dealing with crises through social media, with similar or higher brand attitudes than before the crisis.
First, a theoretical background is presented, reviewing relevant literature concerning social media use by organizations in crisis situations. Then, the online experimental research method is presented. After presenting and discussing the results, the study is concluded, mentioning limitations of the paper and possible avenues for future research.
Theoretical background
In this section a theoretical background is presented, outlining existing material and theories used. Firstly, the organizational problem (social media use in crisis situations) tackled in this paper is explained more in-depth. Then, social media will be more clearly defined in the context of this study. Conversational human voice as a dialogic tool will then be explained, after which relational outcomes will be discussed. Based on the examined literature, several hypotheses related to the research question will be postulated.
5
Social media use in crisis situations
In the current study, an organizational crisis is defined as a specific, unexpected and non-routine event or series of events that creates high levels of uncertainty and threatens, or are perceived to threaten, organizations’ high priority goals (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003). When facing a crisis, social media can prove useful. They allow for quick and effective reach of large amounts of people, in order to counter negative comments or information that have been made available (Aladwani, 2014). Studies underline this emerging trend of using social media as a crisis communication tool (Perry, Taylor, & Doerfel, 2003). Organizations are using the Internet to communicate with consumers during a crisis, and are integrating it fully into their crisis communication strategies (Perry, Taylor, & Doerfel, 2003). Furthermore, during crises consumers’ social media use appears to increase. Consumers seek out social media during crises because they provide real time, unfiltered information that they cannot get elsewhere, and enable consumers to comment on the situation in a comfortable way (Procopio & Procopio, 2007).
Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via Facebook and Twitter play an increasing role in the social construction of these crises, but also in the social
deconstruction of crises by organizations (Schultz et al., 2011). Organizations have been increasingly using social media as communication tools for repairing the reputation of their organization going through a crisis. These media are seen as more dialogic, interactive and faster tools for maintaining relations in comparison with classic media such as newspapers and television (Yang et al., 2010) Furthermore, they allow frequent publishing with a human voice, to be used in crisis situations as a means of quick communication (Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). This dialogic function of social media is essential in crisis situations (Perry, Taylor, & Doerfel, 2003).
In crisis situations, the primary goal is to repair the image of the organization (Benoit, 1997) by mitigating negative post-crisis (cognitive and affective) reactions (Coombs & Holladay, 2007). To achieve this, engaging stakeholders in crisis narratives can be a critical
6 to successful crisis management (Heath, 1997). There are several ways to stimulate
engagement with stakeholders in crisis situations, which will be described further below. First, social media are defined in the context of this study and their use by organizations will be described.
Social media
Social media can be tricky to define. As stated by Wigley and Zhang (2011), “social media are changing the way everyone, including journalists and public relations practitioners, communicate” (p. 1). They do, however, stress that a proper definition of social media is still under development. Social media, despite being everywhere in our society, are still a relatively new phenomenon. There have been scholars with an attempt at a definition. For example, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) define social media as ‘’a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content.’’ (p. 61). However, this often cited definition barely scratches the surface, and fails to make the connection between organizations and social media. Moreover, they rely strongly on the Web 2.0 concept, which many scholars heavily criticize. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the internet, even said the following about the Web 2.0 terminology: ‘’…I think Web 2.0 is just a piece of marketing jargon, nobody even knows what it means...’’ (Anderson, 2006). Web 2.0 proponents posit that the Internet experienced a sudden shift in nature, from a static, one-way Web 1.0 paradigm to an inter-connected, social phenomenon in the early 2000’s. While it is true that online social life grew immensely in scale over time, many claim the Internet has always been social (Scholz, 2008). Web 2.0 technologies have not significantly changed from the underlying, fundamental technologies of the original web. They still function the same as they ever did, simply with a layer of adjuncts added (Scott, 2007). Basing the perception and definition of social media on the premise that the Web only has been social since roughly 10 years, as Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) do, can be problematic. Therefore, a definition
7 The term ‘social media’ constituted in two areas of research, communication science and sociology. In the context of communication, a medium is simply a means for the storage or delivering of information and data. In sociology, and especially with regard to social (network) theory and analysis, social networks are comprised of social structures, made up of a set of social actors, such as individuals, groups or organizations. These social networks have a complex set of dyadic ties among them (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Combining these two constructs, social media are communication systems that allow for social actors to communicate along existing dyadic ties. As a result, and in many ways different to traditional media, social media are egalitarian by nature. Consequently, organizations are essentially nodes or actors in these social networks, just like any other social actors (Peters, Chen, Kaplan, Ognibeni, & Pauwels, 2013). Meanwhile, while trying to define social media, scholars seem to be overlooking its nature. The forming of new relationships and strengthening and maintaining existing relationships between dyadic ties are some of the main purposes of social media. Research suggests that online relationship development is becoming essential in the survival and success of organizations (Kent & Taylor, 1998). Thus, a shift in
perspective to more relational perspective on organization-consumer is required, especially when considering social media in a crisis context.
As stated by Coombs & Holladay (2010), “one key component found in these newer media is the capacity to facilitate bi-directional communication, or dialogue” (p. 381). In the context of bi-directional and dialogical communication, another important aspect of social media comes to mind, namely immediacy (Wigley & Zhang, 2011). The unique quality of social media, namely near immediate communication, is what sets it apart from traditional media in crisis situations. Social media grant communication professionals the ability to reach large masses without the limitation of geography (Auer, 2011). Consequently, social media in the context of crisis communication are defined by immediacy, dialogical
8 Social media have become integrated into our modern network society (Peters et al., 2013). These media have given consumers the ability to easily give voice to their complaints about organizations, and are platforms to share their complaints with others in online
conversations. Organizations are noticing this shift to online conversations on social media, and they feel the urge to respond to the questions, complaints, compliments, and comments posted by consumers (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Social media are becoming an increasingly more important stage for an organization. In traditional customer care, complaints were a one on one activity hidden away from the public. On social media, however, these complaints have garnished an audience. Online consumer reviews and complaints can have strong effects on consumer behaviour of the online audience. This effect is strongest when the reviews or complaints are very negative (Kerkhof et al., 2014). Therefore, complaints need to be handled with care, or organizations run risk of complaints escalating into large online crises (e.g. Kerkhof et al., 2014; Van Noort et al., 2013).
Facebook and Twitter are among the most common platforms on which organizations can engage in dialogue with their customers online. A study into social media use amongst the top 100 organizations in the Fortune 500 showed that 57% of organizations used Facebook, with 55% using Twitter, with over half using both applications (Kim, Kim, & Nam, 2013). However, these two media are significantly different by nature. Twitter, as a
microblog, is quite limited in its use. Short messages of a 140 characters can be sent, and can be seen and replied to by anyone. Facebook allows for longer messages, and allows for more sharing and interaction than Twitter. This distinction can be better described using the dialogic principles, suggested by Kent and Taylor (1998). These principles include (1) the ease of the interface, (2) the conservation of visitors, (3) the generation of return visits, (4) the provision of useful information to a variety of users, and (5) maintaining a dialogic loop (Kent & Taylor, 1998). These principles together form a dialogic interaction index. As a medium for dialogue, Facebook has the highest rating according to this index, and is used the most as a dialogic tool across all industries in comparison with Twitter (Kim, Kim, & Nam,
9 2013). The conversational human voice in communication on social media is further
explained below.
Conversational Human Voice
Crisis situations can arise when customer-care interactions are handled poorly. Research suggests the use of conversational human voice as a key factor in successful crisis communication (Park & Cameron, 2014; Yang et al., 2010). Conversational human voice is characterized by an openness to dialogic conversation and the use of narratives (Kelleher, 2009). To express a conversational human voice, organizations can do several things. Huibers and Verhoeven (2014) identified the following: be humorous, use emoticons, engage customers with colloquial greetings and pronouns, or end conversations with the names or initials of the employee handling a complaint.
Research done by Park and Cameron (2014) supports the notion of social presence theory. Social presence theory entails that greater perceived social presence in a mediated communication context leads to a greater persuasive impact of a message. In the study, it was found that blogs that employ a conversational human voice thus appeared to create a more personal and sociable atmosphere for consumers, in comparison to those without conversational human voice. It was also found that an increased social presence in turn appeared to promote perceived interactivity in online communication with the organization (Park & Cameron, 2014).
Openness to dialogic conversation and the use of narratives, which are attributes of conversational human voice, appear to inspire higher engagement and more positive brand attitudes with customers in crisis situations (Yang et al., 2010). An effective tactic for dialogic online communication appears to be using conversational human voice, by bringing a human presence to an otherwise corporate entity. Use of the human (as opposed to organizational) voice was also found to stimulate stronger purchase intentions for an organization’s products and stimulate engaging in positive eWOM, leading to increased viral attention. Thus, positive
10 eWOM can function as free advertising and reduce advertising costs (Van Noort &
Willemsen, 2012).
There are some factors that can affect the influence of webcare on positive brand attitudes and relational outcomes, such as trust and commitment. For instance, it was shown that social media sites of for-profit organizations were perceived as employing a higher level of organizational human voice than non-profit organizations. This might be the result of differing consumer expectations on the nature of an organization (Park & Lee, 2013). In essence, the type of organization can be a determining factor in whether employing conversational human voice is beneficial.
Another factor is perceived privacy infringement (i.e. the degree to which a consumers perceives his privacy to be violated). Consumers can perceive their online privacy to be violated when organizations respond to complaints that were not directly addressed to organizations (Demmers, van Dolen, & Weltevreden, 2013). It was also shown that when a response is personalized, it can lead to a higher perceived violation of privacy than when it is a generic response. A higher perceived privacy infringement leads to lower customer satisfaction, and thus affects brand attitudes. These findings by Demmers et al. (2013) contradict findings by Kerkhof et al. (2014) that a personalized response to eWOM has a positive effect on the attitudes of webcare conversations. These conflicting findings will be tested. In this research, the assumption that use of conversational human voice inspires more positive brand attitudes will be tested, and the following is hypothesized:
H1: Use of a conversational human voice will lead to higher brand attitudes, in comparison to the organizational voice
H2: Higher levels of perceived conversational human voice will lead to higher brand attitudes
Furthermore, applying conversational human voice was shown on several occasions to have no significant effect on organizational reputation (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014; Park & Cameron, 2014). Huibers and Verhoeven (2014) suspect this is because of the length of
11 webcare responses in their research. The stimulus material consisted of Twitter webcare responses. These responses are restricted to 140 characters. It is possible that respondents might not be able to deduct conversational human voice in a relatively short message. This can diminish possible reputational effects. In addition, they argue that a conversational human voice could possibly be considered as an attribute intrinsic to the medium, instead of the communication style of the organization (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014). Use of first person pronouns, initials and asking for feedback as described by Kwon and Sung (2011) can, however, be seen as conversational human voice, also known as brand anthropomorphism. It is thus unclear whether Twitter webcare-responses truly allow the use of conversational human voice. Therefore, it is interesting to see how the use of conversational human voice on Twitter compares to the other most used social medium for webcare, Facebook. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Use of a conversational human voice on Facebook will lead to higher brand attitudes, in comparison to Twitter
Employing a conversational human voice on social media appeared to influence not only brand attitudes, but also relational outcomes like trust and commitment (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012). Relational commitment will be further explained below.
Relational commitment
Organizations can engage in relationships with their customers (Kelleher & Miller, 2006). The term relationship in the organizational context has been defined in several ways: ‘‘the state which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other entity.’’ (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 62), or ‘‘Relationships consist of the transactions that involve the exchange of resources between organizations.’’ (Broom, Casey, & Ritchie, 1997, p. 91). There are different dimensions to an organization-customer relationship, being trust,
12 openness, involvement, commitment and investment (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). There are certain strategies that organizations can use to maintain these relationships with customers. These strategies are grounded in interpersonal communication, but have been found to translate well into the field of public relations and relationship management (Canary & Stafford, 1992). Maintenance strategies in interpersonal communications are defined as: positivity (interacting with partners in a cheerful, uncritical manner); openness (directly discussing the relationship and disclosing desires for the relationship); assurances
(communicating one’s desire to continue with the relationship); social networks (relying on shared relations); and sharing tasks (performing responsibilities). These strategies can be applied to organizational relationships by shifting the focus to a public instead of a personal audience. For example, positivity would entail efforts an organization takes to make a relationship more enjoyable; openness would entail providing transparency towards the customer; assurances entails communication that emphasizes the value of audience members, and a wish to continue the relationship (i.e. commitment); social networks entails an emphasis on shared values and relations between the organization and its public; and sharing tasks includes asking for public involvement (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). The maintenance strategy assurances is similar to relational commitment, which this study focuses on.
Relational commitment has been defined as "an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship" (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande 1992, p. 316). It is argued that there are three components to commitment: the instrumental component of some form of investment, an attitudinal component that is described as affective commitment or psychological
attachment, and a temporal dimension indicating that a relationship exists over time
(Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995). Commitment is the decision to continue a relationship. This is definitely of importance in crisis situations, since there is more strain on the
relationship in moments when an organization comes under scrutiny (Perry et al., 2003). This body of research, however, is focused on interpersonal relationships between two people or
13 a person and an organization. It is argued that the current dynamic with social media has altered the way these relationships function, and brought about a paradigm shift in corporate communications, in regards to online public relations versus offline public relations (Kelleher & Miller, 2006).
Consumers who were engaged in a conversational human voice feel more relational commitment from the organization they are in contact with. Several studies on online public relations show that a conversational human voice can play an important part in the
development and nurturing of online organization-public relationships, as well as increasing positive brand attitudes (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). There is more evidence to support the notion that employing conversational human voice influences relational outcomes. Park and Lee (2013) found that a human presence on social media positively influences favourable relationships between organizations and consumers. These assumptions will be tested. The following is hypothesized:
H4: Use of a conversational human voice will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment, in comparison to the organizational voice
H5: Higher levels of perceived conversational human voice will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment
It is however unclear whether this effect of conversational human voice on relational commitment is the same for different types of social media. Based on the same intrinsic limitations inherent of Twitter that Huibers and Verhoeven (2014) raised questions about, the following is hypothesized:
H6: Use of a conversational human voice on Facebook will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment, in comparison to Twitter
It is also unclear whether relational commitment and brand attitudes are two separate outcomes, or possibly influence each other. Bruning, Dials, and Shirka (2007) suggest that both communicated relational commitment and dialogue positively affect consumer
14 evaluations of and intended behaviours toward an organization. This research will first test that assumption, hypothesizing the following:
H7: Higher levels of perceived communicated relational commitment will lead to higher brand attitudes
To the author’s knowledge, however, no research has been done to find out whether the influence conversational human voice and relational commitment have on brand attitudes are two separate factors, or whether they influence each other. However, existing research into the relationships between conversational human voice and relational commitment (Kerkhof et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2010), relational commitment on brand attitudes (Bruning, Dials, and Shirka, 2007), and conversational human voice on brand attitudes (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007) all point to correlation between the variables. Communicated relational commitment also entails concepts like ‘assurance’ and ‘openness’ (Kelleher, 2009). The concept ‘assurance’ refers to the efforts an organization makes to assure that the public’s concerns are acknowledged. Using conversational human voice may let the audience believe that an organization cares about their ideas, opinions and responses on the incident. ‘Openness’, the other concept, is about the belief that people in an organization can discuss their thoughts about the organization freely (Kelleher, 2009). Using conversational human voice might lead to a higher perceived openness by the public, when the response comes from within the organization discussing a sensitive topic, such as an error by the company. A response with an organizational tone of voice might, on the other hand, show distance between the organization and its employees and thus imply less
openness (Kerkhof et al., 2014). In their study, Kerkhof et al. found that tone of voice indirectly affects product and company evaluations through levels of relational commitment and human voice. Participants rated a personal response as higher in communicated relational commitment and human voice, and these factors, in turn, positively affected attitudes toward the brand. Furthermore, conversational human voice and relational commitment seem to share some dialogic characteristics (Huibers & Verhoeven, 2014;
15 Kelleher & Miller, 2006), possibly implying some mediating role. Based on these indications, the author hypothesizes the following:
H8: The effect of conversational human voice on brand attitudes is mediated by perceived communicated relational commitment
Conceptual model of research
In this model, all hypotheses that are tested in this study are visualized.
Conversational
human voice
Relational
commitment
Social medium
Positive
brand
attitudes
16
Method
To answer the main research questions, a quantitative research method was used. Data was collected through an online experimental survey. In the conducted experiment, respondents received one of four possible stimuli: Conversational human voice vs. organizational voice and Facebook vs. Twitter. Fictional social media conversations by organizations experiencing a crisis were developed, each satisfying one of the conditions, namely Conversational Human voice on Twitter and Facebook, and Organizational voice on Twitter and Facebook. The experimental survey was designed on the online survey platform Qualtrics. See Appendix A for the full survey.
Selection
For this study, participants were required to be social media users, since the research investigates social media, and some knowledge about the workings of Facebook and Twitter is required. To this end, the invitation to participate in the survey was only sent through social media. There were no age restrictions for participating in the study.
Sample
In total 139 participants started the survey, out of which 116 completed the survey. The survey had a non-response of 22%. Participants were aged between 19 and 58 (M=31.71, SD=11.94). Participants were mostly higher educated, with over 60% having either a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree. Participants, on average, used social media often. Only 2.6% used social media only once a week or less, with 86% participants using social media daily (n=100).
Survey structure
The survey consisted of several parts. First, the topic of study was shortly introduced. Participants’ anonymity was ensured, and the confidential nature of the data was stressed. The author’s contact information was mentioned, in case participants wanted more
17 Then, participants were shown one of four stimuli containing a social media
conversation following a customer’s complaint to a telecom-provider experiencing a crisis. Participants were then asked to fill out several questions pertaining to the level of
conversational human voice and relational commitment perceived, and the attitude towards the brand. Lastly, the age, highest level of education completed, and how often the
participant used social media were asked.
Operational definitions
In the present study, conversational human voice is the independent variable, communicated relational commitment the moderating variable, and brand attitude the dependent variable. The method used is a combination of previous research, combined to apply a new approach to the topic. The experimental method, namely the fictional social media posts varying in tone of voice, is derived from Huibers & Verhoeven (2014), the conversational human voice and relational commitment items were derived from similar research done by Kelleher (2009), while the brand attitude items were taken from earlier research testing the validity of the most often-used brand attitude measures (Spears & Singh, 2004). The online survey included 19 items measured on a Likert-scale, asking participants to answer on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, for each question as it applied to respondents’ perceptions of Telecorp’s social media communication. These 19 items consisted of 8 items measuring conversational human voice, six items measuring communicated relational commitment, and five items measuring brand attitudes. The items were standardized and presented in a fixed order. The 8 items for conversational voice were: In their social media communication, Telecorp (1) invites people to engage in conversation, (2) is open to dialogue, (3) uses a conversation-style in their communication, (4) tries to communicate in a human voice (a human voice means
communicating like a person), (5) tries to be interesting in communication, (6) would admit a mistake, (7) provides prompt feedback addressing criticism with a direct, but uncritical manner, (8) and treats me and others as human.
18 The six items for communicated relational commitment are: In their social media communication, Telecorp (1) attempts to demonstrate they are committed to maintaining the relationship, (2) communicates the organization’s desire to continue to maintain and/or build a relationship with me and others, (3) stresses commitment to me and others, (4) implies that our relationship has a future/is a long-term commitment, (5) directly discusses the nature of the organization, (6) and emphasizes the quality of our relationship.
The five items for brand attitudes are: Based on Telecorp’s social media communication, I think the organization is (1) Appealing, (2) Good, (3) Pleasant, (4) Favorable, (5) Likable.
To confirm validity of the indices, a principal-axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed in SPSS. To test the reliability of the scales, a Cronbach’s alpha was run for both variables. The eight conversational human voice items formed one factor with an Eigen value of 4.04, explaining 50.5% of variance. The item ‘…tries to be interesting in
communication’ had a factor score of under the required .5, and was thus excluded from analysis. The remaining seven conversational human voice items were tested for reliability, and yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .85, and could not be improved by removing an item. The six communicated relational commitment items formed two factors, the first four items forming a factor with an Eigen value of 3.36 and the last two variables forming a factor with an Eigen value of 1.05 respectively. The first factor explained 56% of variance, whereas the second factor only explained 17% of variance. Because of the low Eigen value and explained variance, the second factor, with items ‘…directly discusses the nature of the organization’ and ‘…emphasizing the quality of our relationship’ was excluded. The remaining four items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .86, and could not be improved by removing an item. For the five brand attitude items, one factor was found with an Eigen value of 3.53, explaining 71% in variance. The factor was tested for reliability, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .9 was found. After confirming validity and reliability, conversational human voice was operationally defined henceforth as the mean score of the seven remaining 1-7 scale items. Communicated
19 relational commitment was confirmed as valid and reliable, and henceforth operationalized as the mean score of the four remaining 1-7 scale items. The same was the case for brand attitude, with five remaining variables.
Results
In hypothesis 1 it was posited that use of a conversational human voice will lead to higher brand attitudes, in comparison to the organizational voice. To test this hypothesis, a one way ANOVA was performed. Participants showed no significant difference in brand attitudes when comparing social media conversations with and without conversational human voice, F (1, 114) = .66, p = .42. Participants who were shown the social media conversation with conversational human voice did not like the organization more (M = 4.45, SD = .91) than participants who were shown the social media conversation without conversational human voice (M = 4.29, SD = 1.14). We therefore reject hypothesis 1.
In hypothesis 2 it was posited that higher levels of perceived conversational human voice will lead to higher brand attitudes. To test this hypothesis, a single linear regression analysis was performed to predict brand attitudes based on conversational human voice. A significant regression equation was found (F (1,114) = 70.84, p < .001), with an R² of .38. Conversational human voice explains 38% of the variance in brand attitudes.
Use of conversational human voice has a significant positive effect on brand attitudes, b* = .62, t = 8.42, p < .001, 95% CI [.44, .71]. As the perceived level of conversational human voice in an organizations’ social media communication increases, brand attitudes towards that organization will also increase. The residuals seem to be distributed normally.
Furthermore, the spread of the residuals seems to be equal, which means there is
homoscedasticity. This means the conditions for the regression analysis has been fulfilled. We thus accept hypothesis 2.
In hypothesis 3 it was posited that use of a conversational human voice on Facebook will lead to higher brand attitudes, in comparison to Twitter. To test this hypothesis, a one
20 way ANOVA was performed. Participants showed a significant difference in brand attitudes when comparing social media conversations with conversational human voice on Twitter and Facebook, F (1, 55) = 4.61, p = .03. Participants who were shown the Facebook
conversation with conversational human voice liked the organization more (M = 4.71, SD = .70) than participants who were shown the Twitter conversation with conversational human voice (M = 4.21, SD = 1.01). We therefore accept hypothesis 3.
In hypothesis 4 it was posited that use of a conversational human voice will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment, in comparison to the organizational voice. A one way ANOVA was performed. Participants showed no significant difference in perceived communicated relational commitment when comparing social media conversations with and without conversational human voice, F (1, 114) = .66, p = .99. Participants who were shown the social media conversation with conversational voice did not perceive more communicated relational commitment from the organization (M = 4.45, SD = 1.27) than participants who were shown the social media conversation without conversational human voice (M = 4.45, SD = 1.09). We therefore reject hypothesis 4.
In hypothesis 5 it was posited that higher levels of perceived conversational human voice will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment. To test this hypothesis, a single linear regression analysis was performed to predict perceived
communicated relational commitment based on conversational human voice. A significant regression equation was found (F (1,114) = 53.55, p < .001), with an R² of .32.
Conversational human voice explains 32% of the variance in perceived relational commitment.
Use of conversational human voice has a significant positive effect on perceived relational commitment, b* = .57, t = 7.32, p < .001, 95% CI [.43, .76]. As the perceived level of conversational human voice in an organizations’ social media communication increases, perceived relational commitment from that organization will also increase. The residuals seem to be distributed normally. Furthermore, the spread of the residuals seems to be equal,
21 which means there is homoscedasticity. This means the conditions for the regression
analysis has been fulfilled. We thus accept hypothesis 5.
In hypothesis 6 it was posited that use of a conversational human voice on Facebook will lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment, in comparison to Twitter. To test this hypothesis, a one way ANOVA was performed. Participants showed a significant difference in perceived communicated relational commitment when comparing social media conversations with conversational human voice on Twitter and Facebook, F (1, 55) = 6.71, p = .01. Participants who were shown the Facebook conversation with conversational human voice liked the organization more (M = 4.88, SD = .93) than participants who were shown the Twitter conversation with conversational human voice (M = 4.05, SD = 1.28). We therefore accept hypothesis 6.
In hypothesis 7 it was posited that higher levels of perceived communicated relational commitment will lead to higher brand attitudes. To test this hypothesis, a single linear
regression analysis was performed to predict brand attitudes based on perceived
communicated relational commitment. A significant regression equation was found (F (1,114) = 97.78, p < .001), with an R² of .46. Perceived communicated relational commitment
explains 46% of the variance in brand attitudes.
Use of communicated relational commitment has a significant positive effect on brand attitudes, b* = .68, t = 9.89, p < .001, 95% CI [.48, .72]. As the perceived level of perceived communicated relational commitment in an organizations’ social media communication increases, brand attitudes toward that organization will also increase. The residuals seem to be distributed normally. Furthermore, the spread of the residuals seems to be equal, which means there is homoscedasticity. This means the conditions for the regression analysis has been fulfilled. We thus accept hypothesis 7.
In hypothesis 8 it was posited that the relationship between conversational human voice and brand attitudes is mediated by the perceived relational commitment. The direct
22 relations between conversational human voice, perceived communicated relational
commitment and brand attitudes were analyzed using three separate regression analyses. Conversational human voice had a significant effect on brand attitudes, B = .57, t = 8.42, p < .001. Conversational human voice also had a significant effect on perceived communicated relational commitment, B = .60, t = 7.32, p < .001. Perceived communicated relational commitment in turn had a significant effect on brand attitudes, B = .60, t = 9.89, p < .001.
Next, a multiple regression for brand attitudes has been done with conversational human voice and perceived communicated relational commitment as predictors. The regression coefficient for conversational human voice in this model is controlled for the influence of perceived communicated relational commitment. Henceforth we shall refer to this as c’, the effect of this is B = .32, t = 4.48, p < .001. Because there is a difference between the uncontrolled and controlled effect of conversational human voice on brand attitudes, but the controlled effect remains significant, the mediation effect of perceived communicated relational commitment is a partial mediation.
To test the mediation hypothesis we performed a Sobel’s Z test, to calculate how much of the influence of conversational human voice on brand attitudes is removed by controlling for perceived communicated relational commitment. The mediation effect is a significant partial mediation, B = .57, p < .001; B’ = .32, p < .001; Sobel’s Z = 5.91, p < .001. The manner in which conversational human voice affects brand attitudes seems to, at least partially, be influenced by perceived communicated relational commitment. We therefore accept hypothesis 8.
Conclusion
In this section, the author draws conclusions about the research. The research problem will be restated, and research deliverables and other implications will be discussed.
The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the efficacy of organizations’ social media use in crisis situations, and test certain assumptions made in this
23 area. The influence of the use of conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment on brand attitudes was investigated. The study also looked into use of different social media, and its influence on brand attitude outcomes.
The results from the first two hypotheses seemingly contradict each other. In the results for the first hypothesis, no difference in brand attitudes was found between social media conversations with and without conversational human voice. Results for the second hypothesis, however, showed that higher levels of perceived conversational human voice lead to higher brand attitudes. This is consistent with earlier research (Kerkhof et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2010).
Another goal of the study was to investigate whether the influence of conversational human voice on brand attitudes was different for different social media. Huibers and
Verhoeven (2014) suspected that Twitter was not effective as a tool for communicating with a conversational human voice because of its limitation of characters, and suggested other media with less restrictions might be more effective. In the current study, Facebook was shown to be more effective in improving brand attitudes by using conversational human voice in comparison to Twitter. These results provide some empirical evidence to confirm the suspicions by Huibers and Verhoeven (2014).
When investigating the influence of conversational human voice on perceived
communicated relational commitment, another conflicting result was found. In the results for the third hypothesis, no difference in perceived communicated relational commitment was found between social media conversations with and without conversational human voice. Results for the second hypothesis, however, showed that higher levels of perceived
conversational human voice lead to higher perceived communicated relational commitment. These findings are in agreement with earlier research (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007).
24 Drawing further on the suspicions of Huibers and Verhoeven (2014), that social media type might influence the efficacy of use of conversational human voice, this study
investigated whether Facebook allowed for more effective use of conversational human voice on communicating relational commitment, in comparison to Twitter. Again, the findings are consistent with earlier suspicions, and Facebook appeared to be the more effective social medium.
Lastly, the study investigated whether relational commitment and brand attitudes are two separate outcomes of use of conversational human voice, or whether they possibly influence each other. First, an assumption made by Bruning, Dials, and Shirka (2007), that communicated relational commitment positively affects brand attitudes was tested. Results in the current study were in line with these findings. Not based on earlier research, the author suspected a mediating role of relational commitment on the influence that conversational human voice has on brand attitudes. This was partly because existing research appeared to support separate relationships between the different variables, thus the author found it reasonable to believe there might be more of a connection between all variables. Empirical evidence was found to support the suspicions of the mediating role of perceived
communicated relational commitment. This mediating effect was partial, meaning that perceived communicated relational commitment accounts for some part of the effect of conversational human voice on brand attitudes.
Taken together, these findings support strong recommendations for crisis
communication professionals to employ conversational human voice and communicating relational commitment in crisis communication, when the goal is to increase positive brand attitudes towards an organization and mitigate negative crisis effects through social media management in crisis situations. Using conversational human voice in social media
communication, i.e. speaking like a human being instead of a corporate entity, will serve to inspire a feeling of commitment to the organization/customer relationship, resulting in a more positive association with your brand. Furthermore, it is advised to choose Facebook over
25 Twitter when deciding on which social medium to use in crisis situations. Whether to focus on one or use several different social media is another line of research, which will not be
discussed in this paper.
Discussion
In this section, some limitations to the research will be mentioned, and suggestions for further avenues of research will be made.
This study compared, on two occasions, social media posts with and without conversational human voice on brand attitudes and perceived communicated relational commitment, but found no significant results. However, when looking at total levels of perceived conversational human voice on their influence on brand attitudes and perceived communicated relational commitment, significant results were found. A possible explanation for these contradicting results might be that the first instance tested one half of the sample against the other half, while the second instance was based on the entire sample. Perhaps the size of the sample had a decisive influence on the significance of the results. Future research, with a bigger sample, might serve to affirm these suspicions, and provide conclusive results.
More research into further defining the concept of conversational human voice needs to be done. A broadly defined concept, indicators for conversational human voice are
openness to dialogue, welcoming conversations, and giving feedback (Kelleher & Miller, 2006). Conceptually, these show similarities to brand anthropomorphism (Kwon & Sung, 2011), and partially with communicated relational commitment (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006). Conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment appear to be the two most important factors for predicting relational outcomes such as trust,
satisfaction and commitment (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). Commitment entails the wish to engage into a relationship, the importance of
commitment to the future relationship and its quality (Kelleher, 2009). Possibly, instead of the mediating relationship the current study found, the concepts conversational human voice and
26 communicated relational commitment need to be redefined as a single, broader concept, and tested in future research.
It is unfortunate that the study did not include validated stimulus material. The author attempted to recreate to some extent the stimulus material from a similar research done by Huibers and Verhoeven (2014). However, the authors stated themselves in their paper, more research needs to be done into the way conversational human voice can be manipulated in dialogue as stimulus material, since it is normally established through actual dialogue between a customer and an organization, and thus might be challenging to recreate in an experimental setting. Subsequently, it is unclear what exactly constitutes a conversational human voice. Is it language-wise, content-wise, it is based on perception or is it simply determined by which media are used? And can conversational human voice be deduced from a single webcare conversation, or might it be better to show, for example, an entire Twitter feed or Facebook wall? This study confirmed that different types of media can convey different levels of conversational human voice, but these other questions are not addressed. Future research might include these questions in their conceptual framework. An alternative method of research could be the interviewing of consumers based on actual social media conversations they have with organizations that address them with or without conversational human voice.
Another limitation of this study is that it did not take into account what kind of organization was responding to the complaint. As stated by Park and Lee (2013), differing consumer expectations of an organization can result in different perceived levels of conversational human voice. A smaller company might be expected to speak in a
conversational manner, and be prized for handling complaints in a professional, corporate manner, while a large company might positively surprise customers when they are
addressed in a personal manner. Little background story was given to the telecom-provider created for the current study, but one can expect it might have given different results if it was a different organization. Thus, future research might expand the stimulus material with a
27 distinction between types of organizations, to see whether this distinction results in
28
References
Aladwani, A. M. (2015). Facilitators, characteristics, and impacts of Twitter use: Theoretical analysis and empirical illustration. International Journal of Information Management,
35(1), 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.09.003
Anderson, N. (2006). Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: “nobody even knows what it means”. Retrieved, May 11, 2015, from: http://arstechnica.com/business/2006/09/7650/
Auer, M. R. (2011). The policy sciences of social media. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 707-736.
Benoit, W.L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23(2), 177-186. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a Concept and Theory of
Organization-Public Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0902_01
Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization-public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public
Relations Review, 34(1), 25–31. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The negative communication dynamic. Journal of
Communication Management, 11(4), 300–312. doi:10.1108/13632540710843913
Coombs, T. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2010). The handbook of crisis communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
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.
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.001
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships. American Marketing Association, 63(2), 70–87. doi:10.2307/1251946
Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The Structure of Commitment in Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78–92. doi.org/10.2307/1252016
29 Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy
Challenges. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from
https://books.google.nl/books?id=zFsgYrJ4uaQC
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, a., & Skiera, B. (2010). The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 311–330. doi:10.1177/1094670510375460
Huibers, J., & Verhoeven, J. (2014). Webcare als online reputatiemanagement. Tijdschrift
Voor Communicatiewetenschap, 42(2), 165–189.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172– 188. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
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. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web.
Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
Kerkhof, P., Vonkeman, C., Beukeboom, C., & Utz, S. (2014). Customer service as PR:
Audience effects of customer care in social media.
Kwon, E. S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Follow Me ! Global Marketers’ Twitter Use. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 4–16. doi:10.1080/15252019.2011.10722187
Ledingham, J. a., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55– 65. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328. doi.org/10.2307/3172742
Park, H., & Cameron, G. T. (2014). Keeping it real: Exploring the roles of conversational human voice and source credibility in crisis communication via blogs. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 487-507. doi:10.1177/1077699014538827
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.
30
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(4), 265–71.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0051
Perry, D. C., Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2003). Internet-Based Communication in Crisis Management. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(2), 206–232.
doi:10.1177/0893318903256227
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A. M., Ognibeni, B., & Pauwels, K. (2013). Social media metrics - A framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 27(4), 281–298. doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.007
Procopio, C. H., & Procopio, S. T. (2007). Do You Know What It Means to Miss New
Orleans? Internet Communication, Geographic Community, and Social Capital in Crisis.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(1), 67–87.
doi.org/10.1080/00909880601065722
Scholz, T. (2008). Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved from: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945.
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. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001
Scott, D. T. (2007). Bubble 2.0: Online Organized Critique of Web 2.0. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit5/papers/TraversScott.pdf
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational
crisis. Westport, CT: Quorum Press.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. doi:10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship management tool. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340–342.
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.016
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.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2011.07.001
Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L. M., Kerkhof, P., & Verhoeven, J. (2014). Webcare as an integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: A
31 literature review. In Integrated Communications in the Post-Modern Era. In P. J. Kitchen and E. Uzunoglu (Eds.). doi:10.1089/ees.2013.0409
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
32
Appendix A
Conversational Human Voice in Crisis Communication via Social Media
Intro Thank you for agreeing to help me with my research! You have my eternal gratitude in helping me with the final steps in completing my Master’s degree! In this study, I am looking into
organization's social media use in crises, and what they can do to keep their customers when
something goes wrong. By agreeing to continue on with participation in this experiment, you declare that you have clear knowledge about the nature of the research as it was described to you through the invitation from the researcher. Throughout the course of the research, you may stop
participating at any time. You understand that anonymity and confidentiality will be upheld, and personal information will not be shared with third parties. Should there be any questions
concerning the research, you can contact the researcher by email at oscar.verheijen@student.uva.nl. Should you have any complaints or comments about this research, you can contact the Ethics
Committee representing the Department of Communication Science, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam 020‐ 525 3680 / ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I have read and understood the above information, and agree to participate in this study. (1) Intro2 On the following page, you will view a social media conversation between a complaining customer and a telecom provider experiencing a crisis. The servers, responsible for providing their customers with phone and television, crashed, and a large amount of customers are affected by it. One of their customers decided to complain about it via social media. You may stay on this page for as long as you’d like, absorbing as much information as possible. Once you click next, you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire based on the image you have just seen. If you need a little
reminder while filling in the questions, you can press the 'back' button to go back and view the image again.
Q10
33 Q12
34 CHV In their social media communication, Telecorp: Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) invites people to engage in conversation (1) is open to dialogue (2) uses a conversation-style in their communication (3) tries to communicate in
35 a human voice (a human voice means communicating like a person) (4) tries to be interesting in communication (5) would admit a mistake (6) provides prompt feedback addressing criticism with a direct, but uncritical manner (7) treats me and others as humans (8) REL In their social media communication, Telecorp: Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) attempts to demonstrate they are committed to maintaining the relationship (1) communicates the organization's desire to continue to
36 maintain and/or build a relationship with me and others (2) stresses commitment to me and others (3)
implies that our relationship has a future (4) directly discusses the nature of the organization (5) emphasizes the quality of our relationship (6) ATT Based on Telecorp's social media communication, I think the organization is: Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Appealing (1) Good (2) Pleasant (3) Favorable (4) Likable (5)
Q14 What is your age? (only write a number)
Q16 What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School / Middelbare school (1)
37 University of Applied Sciences / HBO (3)
Bachelors Degree (4) Masters Degree (5)
Q20 How often do you use social media, like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.? Never (1)
Less than Once a Month (2) Once a Month (3)
2-3 Times a Month (4) Once a Week (5) 2-3 Times a Week (6) Daily (7)
Q21 You have reached the end of the survey. Thanks again! The organization Telecorp is a fictional organization, and Peter de Vries is not an existing person.
