• No results found

The impact of communication style in brand trust and brand attitude in the social media context : does product category type matter?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The impact of communication style in brand trust and brand attitude in the social media context : does product category type matter?"

Copied!
84
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The impact of communication style in brand trust

and brand attitude in the social media context:

Does product category type matter?

Daniela Jacobo Gallardo

Student number: 11374543

Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc in Business Administration – Marketing Track

Supervisor: Dr. Marco Mossinkoff

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Daniela Jacobo Gallardo, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ... 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8

2.1 Brand Trust ... 8

2.2 Social Media and Brands ... 9

2.3 Communication Style and Consumer Behavior ... 12

2.4 Communication Style in Online Settings ... 14

2.5 Product Category Type: Hedonic and Utilitarian ... 16

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ... 20

3.1 Communication Style and Brand Trust ... 21

3.2 Communication Style and Brand Attitude ... 22

3.3 The moderating effect of product type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) on brand trust . 23 4. METHODOLOGY ... 25

4.1 Procedure Pre-test Hedonic vs. Utilitarian ... 25

4.1.1 Measurements ... 26

4.1.2 Results ... 26

4.2 Procedure Pre-test Brand Personality ... 27

4.2.1 Measurements ... 28

4.2.2 Results ... 29

4.3 PILOT TEST ... 29

4.3.1 Brand Communication Style Stimuli ... 30

4.4 PROCEDURE MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE ... 31

4.4.1 Brand Communication Style Stimuli ... 33

3.4.2 Measurements main questionnaire ... 34

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ... 35

5.1 Response analysis ... 35 5.2 Descriptive Statistics ... 36 5.3 Manipulation Check ... 38 5.3.1 Hedonic vs. Utilitarian ... 38 5.3.2 Communication Style ... 39 5.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 40 5.5 Overview of hypothesis ... 46 6. DISCUSSION ... 47

6.1 Interpretation of the results ... 47

6.2 Managerial Implications ... 50

6.3 Limitations and directions for future research ... 51

7.CONCLUSION ... 54

APPENDIX ... 65

Appendix A Pre Test Brand Personality ... 65

Appendix B Main questionnaire example English ... 68

Appendix C Main questionnaire example Spanish ... 72

(4)

ABSTRACT

The increased use of social media has revolutionized the way brands communicate and interact with potential and current consumers.

However, due to the lack of literature on online brand communication, it remains unclear for brands what kind of communication style is more effective to use on their social media platforms.

Moreover, there is no empirical evidence on the impact of communication style (formal vs. informal) on brand trust and brand attitude and if the effect is moderated by product category type (hedonic vs. utilitarian). Therefore, this study aims to extend the literature on brand communication in social media settings.

Through an online experiment (N=290), it was measured how trust and attitude towards the brand are affected after consumers are exposed to different communication style stimuli on social media (formal vs. informal) of the two different product category type (hedonic vs. utilitarian).

Results showed that communication style has a direct effect on both; brand trust and brand attitude. However, the direction of the effect and the size depend on the product category. Moreover, other than expected, the use of informal communication style reduces trust and attitude for hedonic brands, while the effect is the opposite for utilitarian.

Key words: Communication style, social media, informal, formal, brand trust, brand attitude, hedonic, utilitarian, brand personality

(5)

1. INTRODUCTION

Social media is currently a mass phenomenon with a wide demographic distribution (Coulter, Bruhn, Schoenmueller, & Schäfer, 2012). On average, consumers spend one-third of their time online on social media (Lang, 2010) and its growth seems unlimited so far (Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009)

With billions of consumers worldwide using social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, the adoption of social media has become a pillar in marketing and brand advertisement. Moreover, it represents a significant opportunity for brands to connect, interact, and build relationships with consumers (Gretry, Horváth, Belei, & van Riel, 2017).

The use of social media has impacted the relationship between brands and consumers, allowing a connection on a personal level (Nawaz, Salman, & Ashiq, 2015). Moreover, it has provided brands with new platforms to interact with their consumers and promote their products in new ways (Dorado, 2011).

Companies have been embracing different social media platforms by establishing online brand communities in the form of brand fan pages (Gretry et al., 2017). These communities have allowed brands to reach a larger number of audience at a considerably lower cost compared to traditional marketing. Whence, approximately between 66%-96% of consumer goods corporations have adopted them as new channels to connect and interact with consumers (Burson-Marsteller, 2010 in Hyllegard, Ogle, Yavn, & Reitz, 2011).

Even though social media has opened up new opportunities for brands to connect and communicate with consumers (Beukeboom, Kerkhof, & de Vries, 2015), it remains uncertain

(6)

for marketers how to develop sustainable consumer-brand relationships through these platforms (Gretry et al., 2017).

Recent research suggests that the presence of most of the brands on social media is perceived to be inauthentic and out of place (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Moreover, it has empowered consumers to attack brands on a massive scale (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012). Therefore, fostering brand trust with consumers is crucial in the social media context. (Urban, Sultan, & Qualls, 2000; Bart, Shankar, Sultan, & Urban, 2005).

Previous research has suggested that the way brands communicate with consumers is decisive in shaping brand trust (Gretry et al., 2017). However, studies in the social media context are limited so far, and there is no evidence on what communication style is optimal for brands to communicate with consumers, most specifically based on their product type. Thus, there is a need in the literature to explore the effects of brand communication style on social media to develop insights for marketers to strengthen their relationships with consumers and to positively influence their attitude towards the brand.

Notably, social media is having an impact on the use of language. From the use of smileys (e.g. “J,L”) to acronyms such as LOL (Laughing Out Loud) or hashtags (#), social media is revolutionizing the way people communicate. Brands are not falling behind, and they are interactively communicating with consumers often using an informal style (Beukeboom et al., 2015). By definition, an informal communication style is “common, non-official, familiar, casual, and often colloquial, and contrasts in these senses with formal” (McArthur 1992, in Gretry et al., 2017). In their attempt to create bonds with consumers most of the brands present on social media are employing that style in their communication. On the other hand, some other brands remain using a more formal approach.

(7)

Despite its importance, there is no sufficient research which provides insights on the optimal and more effective communication style for brands to interact with consumers in the social media context and on its effects on consumer-brand relationships and attitudes towards the brand.

The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to examine the effect of informal vs. formal communication style on brand trust and brand attitude in the social media context. Moreover, how this effect is moderated by product category type (hedonic vs. utilitarian). In doing so, this research contributes to the marketing literature, by extending prior research on marketing communication in the online context.

The current study is organized as follows. In the theoretical section, key concepts and existing literature on communication style and consumer behavior are reviewed. Subsequently, the conceptual framework and the hypotheses are addressed. In the empirical section, method, data, and the results of the experimental study are reported. Finally, in the concluding discussion, managerial implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research are provided.

(8)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Brand Trust

Trust is considered to be the most important attribute any brand can own (Bainbridge, 1997; Kamp, 1999). It represents a manifestation of relationship quality (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990), the essence of brand´s value to consumers (Berry 2000, in Pentina, Zhang, & Basamamova, 2013), and it is one of the main antecedents to loyalty (e.g., Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Hong & Cho, 2011; Kim, Chung, & Lee, 2011). Moreover, it increases consumer´s intention to make a purchase (Doney & Cannon, 1997).

In the marketing context, the concept of trust refers to “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Moreover, it has been conceptualized as a key factor in the success of building and maintaining consumer- brand relationships (Anderson & Narus, 1990).

Brands that can shape trust build stronger consumer relationships (Urban et al., 2000). Moreover, trust it is reported to be a component of brand equity and essential in building strong consumer relationships on the internet (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Urban et al., 2000). Brand trust in the social media context is, however, characterized by a greater complexity. Recent research has suggested that consumers perceive the presence of brands in social media to be inauthentic (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Moreover, consumers´ trust in social media platforms keeps decreasing throughout the years, especially on Facebook. In 2016, 30% of consumers reported to have little or not trust in the brand information they see on the platform, compared to 20% in 2014 (Marketing Week, 20161). Therefore, building trust

(9)

https://www.marketingweek.com/2016/06/08/consumer-trust-in-brands-on-social-media-falls-as-line-through social media platforms is a challenge and a current priority for brands.

In order to further examine the importance of brand trust in the social media context, it is relevant to review key concepts as well as the existent literature on social media.

2.2 Social Media and Brands

Social media refers to a compilation of online platforms and communication channels that are used by individuals from all across the world to share information, profiles, and media itself; it is a tool that facilitates communication and interactions between different groups of people (Moran, 2012). These platforms have become popular amongst online users, and its growth seems unlimited so far.

Facebook, the platform that has largely driven the growth of social media networks, reached 1.94 billion monthly active users at the end of the first quarter of 2017 (Statista, 20172). Those active users log on at least once every 30 days and half of them log on every day3. Additionally, Instagram, the leading mobile photo platform, reached 700 million monthly active users in April 2017, showing a growth of 567% in 3 years (Statista, 20174). Whereas Twitter, the social media network where users post and interact via messages restricted to one hundred forty characters, reached 328 million users within the same period (Statista, 20175).

From a marketing perspective, social media represents an increasingly important way for brands to communicate with attractive audience segments (Murdough, 2009) and a powerful way to increase touch points with consumers. Unlike traditional marketing, social media

2https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

3 http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/one-quarter-of-the-worlds-population-is-on-facebook.html 4 https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users/

(10)

allows brands to interact directly and immediately with consumers (Gleeson, 2012). Moreover, it serves as a channel for different marketing activities, such as consumer relationship management, sales promotion, and branding (Ashley & Tuten, 2015).

Companies have been embracing social media not only to promote their products and the brand itself but because of its potential to engage and build relationships with prospects and consumers (Beukeboom et al.,2015). Therefore, they are establishing its presence on the social media platforms through the creation of brand-based online communities as brand fan pages, for instance on Facebook. These online communities are hosted and controlled by the brand, and they represent a unique interactive setting which allows brands and consumers to be part of a conversation. Furthermore, they have become extremely popular; more than half of social media active users have reported following brands through these platforms (Marketing Sherpa6, 2015). The popularity of social networks has allowed brands to reach an enormous number of consumers, for instance, Coca-Cola and Mc Donald´s, the brands with the largest audiences on Facebook have 105MM and 72MM fans respectively (Social Bakers, 20177).

Undoubtedly, the growth of social media platforms has opened up new opportunities for brands to connect with consumers on a large scale. However, despite its importance, marketers have been struggled to develop sustainable consumer-brand relationships on these platforms (Gretry et al., 2017). Furthermore, it remains unclear for marketers that social networks are not primarily a place to advertise, but a place to communicate with consumers and strengthen the relationship with them (Platon, 2015).

6

(11)

Previous research has suggested that one of the key elements for brands to foster brand-consumer relationships within the social media context, is the use of an appropriate communicate style (Gretry et al., 2017). However, it is yet unclear for brands how to effectively communicate with consumers through their social media channels.

Because of the interactive nature of social media platforms, brands are predominantly employing an informal style in their communication (Gretry et al., 2017). Moreover, in their attempt to connect with consumers on a personal level some brands are talking to consumers as friends. Besides using an informal style; “which is characterized by being ordinary, non-official, familiar, casual, and often colloquial” (McArthur 1992, in Gretry et al., 2017), some brands are also adopting “the social media language,” which is characterized by the use of emoticons, acronyms, and hashtags. For instance, Coca-Cola reacting to a comment from a consumer on its official Facebook fan page (Facebook, 20178) with the following message: Aaaww Jen J we are glad you like our new flavor #TeamVanilla!! On the contrary, other brands are still using a “traditional” or more formal style to interact with their consumers. Recent studies have demonstrated the importance of specific characteristics of the brand communication style on social media and its impact on consumer behavior, (Steinman, Mau & Scharamm-Klein, 2015; Gretry et al.,2017). However, there is still need to develop insights that provide managers with precise operational guidelines on how to effectively communicate with their consumers on social media according to their category product type. Existent research has previously investigated the relationship between language and consumer behavior. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that conversational norms and linguistic influence both; consumers’ expectations and behavior within advertising settings.

(12)

In the following chapter, linguistic approaches and prior studies on communication style and consumer behavior are revised.

2.3 Communication Style and Consumer Behavior

Theoretical linguistic approaches propose that the communication style has an impact on behavior and attitude. Scholars have demonstrated that people tend to use different communication styles that rely on the social context in which they communicate. On the other hand, individuals form impressions about their conversation partners from attributions associated with their communication styles (Walther, 1992). Consequently, it is possible to form an impression of the conversation partner regarding personality, education background or socioeconomic status based on his or her linguistic style (Walther, 1996).

Furthermore, the linguistic style has an impact on the impressions and evaluations of the communication partner (Bradac & Street Jr, 1989; Newcombe & Arnkoff, 1979). Moreover, it is a determinant of perceived credibility and trustworthiness (Walther, 1996).

Moreover, “human communication theory” (Giles, 2009) suggests that conversation style can elicit perceptions in conversational dyads (Ludwig et al., 2013). Furthermore, recent research has shown that linguistic style match (LSM) increases credibility. (Pennebaker, Chung, Ireland, Gonzales, & Booth, 2010). Finally, it has been shown that communication style can affect perceptions and attitudes (e.g., Luna, Peracchio, & de Juan, 2003) as well as emotions and mood (e.g., Leggitt & Gibbs, 2000).

In the marketing context, the way brands communicate with consumers represents a fundamental component of its strategy (Gretry et al., 2017). However, with the growth of

(13)

social media networks, the way marketing messages are delivered to consumers has changed. It is no longer a one-to-many but one-to-one communication (Cvijikj,& Michahelles , 2011). With a progressive growth of brands interacting with consumers in social media, the style of communication of brands is considered to be a crucial factor that affects its brand experience and evaluation (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2006). Despite its importance, few studies have analyzed how marketers should communicate with consumers on social media. However, considerable prior research has applied literature of interpersonal language on brand communication in an advertising context (e.g. Kronrod & Danziger, 2013; McQuarrie & Mick, 1999; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009), by examining how particular aspects of brand communication affect consumer behavior. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the way a message is communicated has an effect on consumer´s response (Gretry et al., 2017). For instance, Sela, Wheeler, & Sarial-Abi, (2012), examined how the use of personal pronouns (i.e., “we” vs. “you and I”) have either positive or negative effects on consumers´ evaluations of the brands. It was demonstrated that the effect depends on the consistency between the closeness implied by the pronoun and the consumer´s expected interactions with the brand.

Even though the previous studies provide some guidelines for brands on how to effectively communicate with consumers, they are set in advertising settings which characteristics differ from the ones of a social media context. Therefore, findings on one setting may not apply to the other. As a result, the effects of brand communication style need to be explicitly investigated in the social media context (Grety et al., 2017).

In the following chapter, the existent studies on communication style in the online context are revised.

(14)

2.4 Communication Style in Online Settings

Few recent studies have examined brand communication style in online settings. Among them, Kelleher (2009) examined consumers´ perception of brand communication via online blogs. Besides, he introduced the concept of “conversational human voice,” 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). Results of the research suggested that frequent visitors to a brand's online blog are more likely to perceive the brand’s communication as conversational human voice, which affects trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006). Even though the “conversational human voice” appears to be a promising approach for brands to communicate with their consumers on social media, the concept suffers from lack of conceptual clarity and does not provide precise operational guidelines for managers to understand how a brand can articulate such a communication style Furthermore, Mau and Scharamm-Klein (2015) examined how consumers’ perception and evaluation of the brand are affected by the degree of personalization (personalized vs. non-personalized messages) of the brand-related information presented in online consumption communities.

Based on previous findings (Buchan, Johnson & Croson, 2006), it was hypothesized that a higher degree of personalization in communication (e.g., “Dear Nancy”) would have a positive effect on the consumers’ perceptions and evaluation of the brand, compared to non-personalized messages (e.g., “Hello Brand X Follower). However, other than expected the results showed that consumer´s attitude towards the brand was positively influenced by a non-personalized communication style (Steinman et. al., 2015). Since the research was

(15)

cultural background of the consumers had an impact on the expected communication style. In countries in which a formal addressing is common, the use of non-personalized messages for brand communication might be perceived as more serious and adequate by the consumers (Steinman et. al, 2015).

Although the findings of the study by Mau et al. (2015) shed light on how communication style influences consumer´s evaluation of the brands, it solely studied one aspect of the brand communication style: degree of personalization. Therefore, the given insights do not provide enough operational guidelines on how brands can effectively communicate with consumers in order to positively increase their attitude towards the brand.

Finally, more recently Gretry et al. (2017) took the first step towards studying how social media communication style affects brand trust. In this research, it was investigated how adopting an informal communication style has an impact on brand trust depending on brand familiarity (familiar vs. non-familiar brands).

Based on insights from the role theory, which posits that a successful social interaction depends on the nature of the relationship and the shared understanding of behavioral norms (Schewe, 1973; Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel & Gutman, 1985); the results of the study provided evidence of the moderating role of brand familiarity on the effect of an informal communication style on brand trust. Accordingly, when brands communicate with consumers with a high degree of familiarity, the use of an informal style increases brand trust. On the other hand, the opposite effect occurs for consumers who are unfamiliar with the brand, demonstrating that people respond differently to the same brand messages.

Furthermore, the perceived appropriateness of the communication style was found to be the mediator of the interaction effect of the informal communication style and brand familiarity on brand trust (Grety et al., 2017).

(16)

Even though this research offers insights on how brands could best communicate with consumers in social media settings, findings came with certain limitations. First of all, the study was focused on the use informal communication style and its effects. However, the use of a formal communication style was not studied in depth.

Furthermore, since the focus of the study were familiar vs. unfamiliar brands, the findings are difficult to implement on a managerial level. Except for brand launch, at which time all consumers are unfamiliar with the brand, it is complex for brand managers to identify the degree of familiarity of the consumers with its brands, especially in the social media context. However, this limitation offers avenues for future investigation. The fact that it focuses only in familiar vs. unfamiliar brands opens the opportunity for further research in order to investigate different ways in which consumers relate to brands in a social media context and how it influences consumer´s expectations and behavior regarding communication style. While informal communication style seems to be appropriated for familiar brands, based on previous findings in the study of language, it is likely to expect that the effect of the communication style in consumer behavior differs by product category type: hedonic vs. utilitarian. Therefore, further investigation is needed in order to examine the potential moderation effect of product type. category

Before reviewing the existent studies on the moderating effect of product category type, an exploration of the key concepts of hedonic and utilitarian products is given in the following chapter.

2.5 Product Category Type: Hedonic and Utilitarian

(17)

behavior. Even though the consumption of various products involves both drives, consumers characterize some products as primarily hedonic or primarily utilitarian (Dhar and Wertenborch, 2000).

Broadly speaking, the consumption of hedonic products “is primarily characterized by an affective and sensory experience of aesthetic or sensual pleasure, fantasy, and fun” (Hoolbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Fundamentally, the purchase and consumption of hedonic goods are driven by the satisfaction of emotional needs (Sen & Lerman, 2007). For instance, designer clothes, sports cars, jewelry or luxury watches. (Dhar & Wertenborch, 2000). Whereas the consumption of utilitarian products is more cognitively driven, instrumental, and goal oriented, accomplishing a functional task (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). For instance: microwaves, washing powder or toothpaste.

Moreover, the evaluation process for each of the two dimensions differs. When searching for utilitarian products, consumers tend to have objective standards, while for hedonic products, consumers evaluate “through more subjective standards” (Lee et al., 2001).

Due to its nature, utilitarian products are relatively easy to be assessed prior to actual purchase, while hedonic products are harder to be evaluated before personal experiences have taken place. As a consequence, utilitarian goods are also referred as search goods and hedonic as experience goods (Nelson, 1970).

Furthermore, research has also suggested that hedonic and utilitarian features are linked to high and low involvement respectively (Berger & Milkman, 2012). Hedonic products are linked to high involvement since consumers are motivated by those needs or products and are willing to process information. Consumers of hedonic products are seeking for emotional worth, excitement, fun, and entertainment (Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann 2003) and

(18)

because of that they spend more time and effort on the decision making process. On the other hand, when buying utilitarian products, consumers are more concentrated on efficiently completing the task and therefore they are less motivated to process information (Teller, Reutterer & Schndiltz 2008).

Finally, prior research (e.g., Kronord & Danziger, 2013; Kronord et. al 2012) which is presented in the following chapter, has suggested that consumption context and product category: hedonic vs. utilitarian, moderate the relationship between language use and consumer behavior (Gretry et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been shown that the effect on consumer´s behavior is higher for hedonic products compared to utilitarian.

2.6 Product category type as moderator

Few researchers have studied the impact of language in consumer behavior involving hedonic and utilitarian products. Among them, Kronrod et al. (2012) examined the persuasiveness of assertive language (as in Sprite´s slogan “Obey yourself” or Nike´s “Just Do it”) as compared to nonassertive language (as in Microsoft´s slogan “Where do you want to go today?”). The study was set in an advertising context, and it involved the examination of actual existing slogans. Findings showed that the persuasiveness of a marketing communication (assertive vs. nonassertive) is product and context dependent. For instance, assertive language is more persuasive in the hedonic context. In contrast, consumers more often comply with nonassertive language in utilitarian products.

It was concluded that assertive messages are more persuasive than nonassertive in consumption contexts that induce positive mood. For instance, thinking of hedonic products

(19)

with assertive messages. Contrary, in the consumption of utilitarian products, such as toilet paper or toothpaste, no positive mood is experienced; therefore, non-assertive language is expected.

Even though the previous research gives guidelines in the effectiveness of language on marketing communications, because it was set in an advertising context, the results are not generalizable to social media settings. Moreover, the study was focused on slogans which represent a different type of marketing communication that does not involve an interaction between consumers and brands.

Furthermore, Kronrod and Danziger (2013), studied the effects and effectiveness of the use of figurative language in an online consumer-generated context. Their findings showed that those effects are context specific because of conversational norms unique to that form of communication. While the use of figurative language prompts more positive attitudes towards the product in hedonic consumption context, it does not have any effect on the utilitarian context.

Overall, previous findings on the use of language involving hedonic and utilitarian consumption, have shown that the impact of language on consumer´s behavior differs on consumption context and product category. Moreover, they have suggested that conversational norms influence consumer´s language expectations.

In conclusion, as previously reviewed in the literature, existent studies have examined different aspects and characteristics of the use of language and its effects on consumer´s behavior. While the findings of those studies provide insights regarding the use of communication style, there are still unanswered questions. First of all, most of the studies are set in advertisement settings and, as previously discussed, its characteristics differ from the

(20)

ones of social media settings. Therefore, it is expected to observe different effects of communication style in this setting. Hence, there is a need of investigating it within the social media context. Secondly, the existent research of communication style in online settings is limited and does not provide enough operational guidelines on how brands should communicate with their consumers based on their category product type and how does it affect brand attitude and trust.

3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

The goal of the study is, therefore to expand the limited literature on brand communication style, especially within the social media context (two-way communication settings) by investigating how the communication style influences brand trust and attitude towards the brand. Moreover, how product type moderates this relationship. For the study, two brands; one utilitarian and one hedonic with the same brand personality dimension (competence) were tested. The research question is as follows: What is the effect of communication style

(formal vs. informal) on brand trust and brand attitude in a social media context and how does product type moderate this effect?

The following figure represents the framework of this study. The model proposes that there is a direct positive relationship between brand communication style (formal vs. informal) and brand trust and brand attitude. Furthermore, it suggests an interaction effect of product category on these relationships. In the next subsections, the proposed hypotheses are addressed.

(21)

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

3.1 Communication Style and Brand Trust

Previous research has found that consumers build relationships with brands as with they do with people. For instance, they may conceive of brands as committed casual friends, flings, or partners (Fournier, 1998). Moreover, they may also form communal relationships with some brands and exchange relationships with others (Aggarwal, 2004). More recently, Aggarwal and McGill (2011) suggested that consumers may think of brands as partners. In social media settings, brands and consumers engage in conversations via two-way

Communication style (Formal vs Informal)

Product category (Hedonic vs Utilitarian) Brand trust Brand Attitude H1 H2 H3a H3b H4a H4b

(22)

communication (Gretry et al., 2017). Moreover, research has suggested that in the online context, consumers perceive the brand´s communication as a conversational human voice (Kelleher, 2009).

As previously mentioned in the literature review, theoretical linguistic approaches propose that individuals form impressions about their communication partners from attributions associated with their communication styles (Walther, 1992). Therefore, impressions on the communication partner can be made based on his or her linguistic style (Walther, 1996). Moreover, the communication style is a determinant of perceived credibility and trust. In line with previous research, it is likely to assume that because consumers tend to relate to brands in ways they do with people (Aggarwal, 2004), conversational norms and linguistic could be applied to consumer-brand relationships. Thus,

H1: The communication style used on social media has a positive direct effect on brand trust.

3.2 Communication Style and Brand Attitude

Brand attitude is defined by Mitchell (1981) as “consumer´s overall evaluation of a brand.” It refers to the global assessment that is based on favorable or unfavorable reactions to brand-related stimuli (Murphy and Zajonc 1993, in Schivinski, & Dabrowski, 2016). Moreover, brand attitude is constructed of both; stored representations about the brand and currently available brand information (Van Kleef, Van den Berg, & Heerdink, 2015), such as marketing communication.

(23)

impressions, attitudes, and evaluations of the communication partner (Bradac & Street Jr, 1989; Newcombe & Arnkoff, 1979). Therefore, in a social media context where consumers perceive their relationship with brands to be as with partners, the communication style used is likely to affect consumer´s attitude towards the brand. Furthermore, when considering the findings of previous literature, it has been demonstrated that in the online context, certain characteristics of communication style such as the level personalization of a message affect brand attitude (Steinmaan et al., 2015). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: The communication style used in social media has a positive direct effect on brand attitude.

3.3 The moderating effect of product type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) on brand trust

According to theory from social psychology, consumer reactions to brands´ communication seemingly should differ depending on the type of product: utilitarian vs. hedonic. Moreover, as previously reviewed in the literature, research has suggested that product type (Kronord & Danziger, 2013; Kronord et al., 2012), moderates the relationship between language use and consumer behavior (Gretry et al., 2017).

Furthermore, prior research on schema congruity demonstrates that people prefer congruent stimulus because it allows predictability (Mandler,1982; Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1989). Since trust is based on both, predictability and consistency with expectations (Sela et al., 2012), it is proposed that communication style in the social media context that is consistent (vs. inconsistent) with one’s expectations increases (vs. decreases) perceived brand trustworthiness and brand attitude.

(24)

The literature on product category suggests that hedonic experiences involve emotions, whereas utilitarian experiences a rational thinking process (e.g., Chaudhuri & Ligas, 2009 Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Moreover, previous research has proposed that product category affect consumer´s expectation on language (Kronrod et al., 2011). Because hedonic products elicit good mood and consumers are seeking fun, excitement, or joy on them (Voss et al., 2003). It is proposed that consumers will expect a communication style to have those characteristics. Therefore, they will expect an informal communication.

H3a: The use of informal communication style (formal communication style) in hedonic brands will increase (decrease) brand trust

H4a: The use of informal communication style (formal communication style) in hedonic brands will increase (decrease) brand attitude

On the other hand, in utilitarian products, no positive mood is experienced. Moreover, effectiveness, helpfulness, and functionality are expected. Therefore, it is proposed that a formal communication style will be congruent for that product category type.

H3b: The use of formal communication style (informal communication style) in utilitarian brands will increase (decrease) brand trust.

H4b: The use of formal communication style (informal communication style) in utilitarian brands will increase (decrease) brand attitude.

(25)

4. METHODOLOGY

Before the implementation of the main questionnaires, two pre-tests were conducted, its goal was to determine the most appropriate product categories and brands to be used in the study.

4.1 Procedure Pre-test Hedonic vs. Utilitarian

The primary objective of the first pre-test was to assess the appropriateness of each product category concerning the hedonic and utilitarian values.

Since one of the main goals of the research was to investigate the moderating effect of product category, it was important to select one product category that scored high in utilitarian level and one in that scored high in hedonic value. Subsequently, the two selected product categories were to be included in the main questionnaires. Within the pre-test, eight different products categories were measured, where it was presumed that four categories would be rated in a high level of utilitarianism and four in a high degree of hedonism.

The pre-test consisted of thirty-six respondents (58% female, Mage= 31, with different

educational levels and nationalities) who measured eight different categories: shampoo, toothpaste, computer hardware, detergent, perfume, chocolate, jewelry, luxurious watches. The selection of the previous categories was made based on past literature on the field of study (e.g. Batra & Athola, 1991; Cheema & Papatla, 2008; Voss et al., 2003).

An online survey was developed using the platform Qualtrics and data was collected over a period of two days. Completing the questionnaire took participants approximately three to five minutes.

(26)

4.1.1 Measurements

Participants of the pre-test rated each of the product categories on a seven points scale (1=definitely utilitarian, 7=definitely hedonic) taken from Cheema and Papatla (2008). To ensure a good understanding of the concepts and to diminish perception errors, respondents were given with the definition of utilitarian and hedonic products. The definitions used were taken from Cheema and Papatla (2008). Utilitarian products were defined as “products that are instrumental in filling a basic need or accomplishing a functional task.” Hedonic products were defined as “products that fulfill a need for personal expression, convey status, attain social approval or sensory pleasure (look, taste or smell nice), variety or stimulation.”

4.1.2 Results

Based on the Cheema and Papatla (2008) scale, when a product category scores below 4, it is considered to be utilitarian, whereas when it scores significantly higher than 4, it is seen as hedonic.

As expected, four of the tested product categories (toothpaste, detergent, computer hardware and shampoo) scored below four, whereas the others (chocolate, perfume, luxurious watches, and jewelry) scored above 4.

(27)

The table below shows the means of the eight categories measured.

Table 1. Hedonic and Utilitarian Value per Product Category

M Toothpaste 2.57 Detergent 2.62 Computer hardware 2.76 Shampoo 3.11 Chocolate 5.22 Perfume 5.47 Luxurious watches 5.97 Jewelry 6.25

Based on the means-tested, the product category that scored highest on utilitarianism was toothpaste (M= 2.57) whereas the most hedonic were jewelry (M=6.25) followed by luxury watches (M= 5.97). Concerning the selection criteria, the product categories chosen for the main questionnaire were toothpaste and jewelry.

4.2 Procedure Pre-test Brand Personality

The primary objective of the second pre-test was to select two brands from the previously chosen product categories (toothpaste/ jewelry) that would have the same brand personality. The pre-test was done in order to reduce bias in the final results since previous research (Gretry et al., 2017) has suggested that the expectations on communication style are also likely to differ according to brand personality.

Because the final questionnaire would be distributed to participants from different nationalities, only international brands were considered for the pre-test.

(28)

The pre-test consisted of forty-two respondents (57% female, Mage = 30, different educational backgrounds and nationalities) who measured the brand personality of 8 different brands: Colgate, Oral-B, Crest, Sensodyne, Tiffany & Co., Cartier, Chopard, Swarovski. An online survey was developed through the platform Qualtrics. Responses were collected in a period of two days. The questionnaire took participants approximately three minutes to be completed.

4.2.1 Measurements

At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked whether they were familiar with each of the brands tested or not (“I am very familiar with the brand”/ “I am not familiar at all with the brand”). Subsequently, they ranked 5 Aaker’s brand personality dimensions solely per brand they were familiar with.

Participants were asked to think about each of the brands as if it was a person and of each brand personality trait as human characteristics associated with each brand.

To diminish perception errors and to ensure a good understanding of brand personality and each of the five dimensions, a brief explanation was given. The given definition of brand personality was taken from Aaaker (1997) and defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand.” Furthermore, the following brief description of the each of the dimensions was given: the sincerity dimension is associated with traits such as down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful. Excitement dimension with daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date. Competence with reliability, intelligence, and success. Sophistication with the upper class and charming, and ruggedness is associated with traits such as outdoorsy and tough.

(29)

4.2.2 Results

Table 2. Perceived Brand personality mean value

Three (Colgate, Oral-B, and Crest) out of four brands of the toothpaste category, were identified on the dimension of “competence,” while Crest was more seen as a “sincere” brand. On the other hand, in the jewelry category, Cartier and Chopard were identified as “sophisticated,” Swarovski as “sincere” and Tiffany & Co. as “competent.”

Since the goal of the pre-test was identifying two brands from different categories with the same perceived brand personality; Colgate and Tiffany & Co. were selected as they both are seen as “competent” brands.

4.3 PILOT TEST

Once the categories and the brands for the study were selected, a pilot study of the main questionnaire was carried out. The primary goal was to identify potential improvements and to ensure the full understanding of both; the questionnaire and the brand communication style stimuli.

The communication style stimuli were presented as a Facebook post of each of the brands that featured interactions between the brand and four consumers. Both; the questionnaire, as well as the Facebook posts had a Spanish and an English version. They were translated from Spanish to English and back-translated by three Master students. To detect any translation

Brand Personality Colgate Oral-B Crest Sensodyne Tiffany&Co. Cartier Chopard Swarovski

Sincerely 3,05 2,93 3,97 3,62 3,28 2,17 2,05 4,01

Excitement 2,93 4,01 2,37 2,88 2,17 2,22 2,54 3,87

Competence 4,13 4,11 3,42 3,78 4,05 3,62 3,57 1,22

Sophistication 1,37 1,27 2,21 1,07 3,48 4,37 4,05 2,17

(30)

errors, the translated version was checked by two different students who agreed on the final translation.

The pilot test consisted of forty participants (twenty native English speakers and twenty native Spanish speakers, 52% female, Mage=32 years, with different educational backgrounds

and nationalities).

Participants were told about the goal of the pilot test and were asked to give critics and improvement suggestions. As per the feedback received, one of the items of the scale utilized for brand trust, which was the developed by Morgan and Hunt (1994) was not sufficiently clear (“I feel the brand can be counted to help other consumers and me”). Because one of the main goals of the study was to examine brand trust, it was of major importance to ensure a good understanding of the scale. Therefore, the scale was changed to the one developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Participants were presented with the new measurement scale and agreed on fully understanding thereof.

Furthermore, minor improvements on the communication brand stimuli and the clarity of the instructions were modified.

4.3.1 Brand Communication Style Stimuli

After giving feedback on the questionnaire and the Facebook post. Respondents of the pilot study measured the degree of informality of the communication style in order to ensure a correct manipulation of the communication style (informal vs informal) for the main questionnaire. This was done on a three-item measurement (“communicates in an informal way/ communicates in a casual way, “communicates in an easygoing way”) in a 7-point scale. Those three items were averaged to form an informality index (α =.907, M= 4.00, SD= 1.84). The latter measure was taken from Gretry et al. (2017). Participants were randomly assigned

(31)

to one of the two conditions (informal vs. formal communication style). The results showed that the informal condition of the communication style of both brands (Colgate & Tiffany & Co.) was perceived to be significantly more informal compared to the formal condition (Minformal =5.7, Mformal=2.31; F (1,39)= 6.35, p= .016). Therefore, manipulation of the

communication style was successful.

4.4 PROCEDURE MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE

After conducting two pre-tests and a pilot test, a quantitative study was conducted as an experimental study.

The main questionnaire was available in two languages: English and Spanish. After minor changes to the survey and the Facebook post based on the feedback from the pilot test, the main questionnaire was translated again from Spanish to English and back-translated by two students of Masters level. After agreeing on the translation, the translated version was checked by two different students who agreed on the final version. In order to avoid bias, the students who translated the pilot test were different from the ones who translated the final questionnaire.

The data of the main questionnaire was collected through an online survey (Qualtrics) in a period of two weeks. Participants were reached primarily via Facebook pages (personal and public) and email. To ensure unique responses and therefore avoid any bias, participants were only able to fill out the questionnaire once.

Respondents were asked to voluntarily participate in the study for academic purposes by completing an online survey which took approximately three to five minutes. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to one of the four treatments which differ in the brand

(32)

communication style (formal vs. informal) and product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian). The questionnaire was the same for every treatment. The study concluded with a brief demographic section.

The experiment had a 2x2 between-subjects design. The four treatments were identified as follows: a utilitarian brand with informal communication style, a utilitarian brand with formal communication, a hedonic brand with informal communication style, and a hedonic brand with formal communication style.

As previously mentioned, the selection of the hedonic and utilitarian categories was done through a pre-test. Based on the results, two categories were selected: toothpaste and jewelry were the first represented the utilitarian product category and the second the hedonic one. The two brands subject of the study were, on the one hand, Tiffany & Co., and on the other, Colgate. Both brands are marked worldwide under the same brand name respectively. Since the experiment was set in an online context, more specifically in Facebook´s settings., only users of the platform were subject to the experiment. In order to ensure that, the first question of the survey was whether the participant had an active Facebook account or not. As reviewed before, Facebook has over 2 billion users. Therefore, only three participants reported not to have an active account on the platform and were discarded for completing the rest of the survey.

Subsequently, brand familiarity was measured: “I am very familiar with the brand,” or “I am not familiar at all with the brand.” Because the subject of the study were familiar brands, the participants who were not familiar with the given brand were not able to complete the rest of the questionnaire.

(33)

4.4.1 Brand Communication Style Stimuli

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four treatments and were told that they would be reading an excerpt from the Facebook fan page of one of the treatments assigned (utilitarian vs. hedonic / formal vs. informal communication style.). They were asked to imagine they were visiting the Facebook fan page of the given brand and to observe the post and the brand interaction with consumers carefully. Participants were then exposed to an excerpt from a simulated Colgate or Tiffany & Co. Facebook fan page that featured interactions between the brand and four consumers. In order to have a communication style manipulation that is consistent with existing brand communication practices on social media, the expressions, as well as the images used were taken from real brand posts on social networking sites. Moreover, the linguistic features used to manipulate the communication style were taken from Gretry et al. (2017), who identified fifteen linguistic features to operationalize an informal communication style vs. a formal style. The manipulation of the brand communication style was similar to the one of the pilot test.

Table 3.. List of linguistic features used to manipulate the informal style developed by Grety et al., 2017

Linguistic Features Examples from existing brand messages on social media

Informal vocabulary "Great" "Awesome" Informal punctuation "…", "!!!"

Contractions " Thanks", "That´s" Use of first name "Hi John"

Emoticons :) :(

Lexical bundles "That´s awesome" Common verbs "Check out" vs "Visit" First-and second person pronouns "You", "we", "us" Sunds mimicking "Aaaaaw", "soooo"

Active vs passive voice "More information can be found on" vs "You can find more information on" Verb omission "There are no hotels in" vs "No hotels in"

Common expression vs formal "Waiting for you" vs. "Looking forward to hosting you"

Adverbial expressions of stance "Sure" Discourse markers "And" "So" Present vs. Conditional tense "Do" vs "would"

(34)

The design of the brand´s Facebook fan pages was done using the software Adobe PhotoShop. To ensure consistency with existent Facebook fan pages and the brand communication style stimuli, the design was done following the current Facebook font and design guidelines. Moreover, the pictures of each post and brand logos used were taken from the official Facebook fan pages of each of the two brands tested.

The brand communication style stimuli used can be found in Appendix D.

3.4.2 Measurements main questionnaire MODERATING VARIABLE

Product type

After being given with each of each of the definitions. Participants rated whether they perceived the given brands to be hedonic or utilitarian. The same scale from the first pre-test was used (1=definitely utilitarian, 7=definitely hedonic), which was taken from Cheema and Papatla (2008). As previously reviewed, a brand is considered to be hedonic if it scores significantly above four, whereas it is considered to be utilitarian when it scores significantly below four. (M=4.22, SD=2.21)

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: Communication Style

The communication style was rated on three-item measure taken from Gretry et. al 2017: “The brand communicates in an informal way” “The brand communicates in an easy going way,” “The brand communicates in a casual way” in a 7-point scale agree (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). Those three items were averaged to form an informality index (α =.803, M= 4.33, SD= 1.70). A communication style is considered to be informal when it scores significantly higher than four, whereas it is considered to be formal when it scores significantly lower than four.

(35)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Brand Trust

It was measured in a three-item index developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) using a 7-point rating of agreement with three statements: ‘‘I trust this brand,’’ ‘‘I rely on this brand,’’ and ‘‘This is an honest brand”. Participants rated their trust in the brand both before (α =.803, M= 5.17, SD= 1.11) and after (α =.889, M= 4.99, SD= 1.38) being exposed to the brand communication style stimulus.

Brand Attitude

Brand attitude was measured in a three-item index adapted from Gretry et al., 2017: “My attitude towards the brand is positive”, “I like the brand”, “My attitude towards the brand is favorable”, in a 7- point rating of agreement. Brand attitude was measured by participants both, before (α =.893, M= 5.39, SD= 1.13) and after (α =.882, M= 5.23, SD= 1.26) being presented to the brand communication style stimulus.

5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the models and tests used for the statistical analysis are explained. Moreover, statistics of the data set, results, and outcomes of the hypothesis are presented.

The statistical package IBM- Statistical Analysis Software Package (SPSS) was used for the analysis of this study.

5.1 Response analysis

The sample population consisted of participants between the age of 17 and 62. As mentioned previously, questionnaires were available in Spanish and English. Participants were able to

(36)

select their preferred language in which they have a sufficient level of understanding. 51.7% of the questionnaires were responded in Spanish whereas 48.3% in English.

The original sample consisted of three hundred twenty-four participants. However, thirty-four were excluded because of missing data on their responses. Therefore, the final sample consisted of two hundred ninety participants, of which 169 were females and 121 males, respectively 58.5% and 41.4%.

Furthermore, most of the respondents´ age was between 25-30, representing the 51.6% of the total sample, the mean age was twenty-seven. Participants had different educational backgrounds, with 83% of the participants having a level of education of HBO or higher. Finally, because of the worldwide use of the internet, the survey had respondents from thirty different countries. Most of them were from Mexico (N=130) The Netherlands (N= 31) and Canada (N=15).

5.2 Descriptive Statistics

Before analyzing the data, a frequency test was run in order to identify potential errors or missing data. No errors were found. However, as previously mentioned missing values were identified and thirty-four responses were excluded. Therefore, only cases with complete data (no missing data in any variable) were further analyzed. 


For all the variables that were measured (brand trust, communication style, and attitude towards the brand) a normality test was run. Based on the results, all the variables were normally distributed. 


(37)

style stimuli), communication style and attitude towards the brand (before and after the stimuli). A Cronbach ́s alpha of > 0.7 indicates a high level of internal consistency, and it is applied as the ‘rule of thumb’ (George & Mallery, 2003). If below 0.70 a measurement construct should not be considered for analysis.

The results of the reliability check showed that the Cronbach ́s alpha of all the constructs was above 0.7, indicating sufficient reliability; therefore, all could be used for further analysis. Moreover, they all exceeded a Cronbach´s alpha of 0.80 which refers to a good internal consistency. The following table exhibits the Cronbach ́s alpha for every construct.

Table 4. Cronbach´s alpha of constructs 


Construct N of items Cronbach´s Alpha*

Brand Trust Before 3 .803

Brand Trust After 3 .889

Communication Style 3 .802

Brand Attitude Before 3 .893

Brand Attitude After 3 .882

*Cronbach´s alpha should >0.70

Means and correlation test: Scale means were calculated and a correlation test was run, presented below as a correlation matrix.

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender 1.58 0.49 -2. Age 27.17 7.5 .030 3. Language .48 0.50 -.018 -.214** 4. Education 3.23 0.71 -.035 .248** -.008 5. Product Category 4.33 1.70 .034 .110 -.071 .083 6. Communication Style 4.22 2.21 .072 .041 -.018 .066 .040 (0.80) 7. Brand Attitude Before 5.39 1.13 .124* -.073 -.188** -.059 .055 .093 (0.89) 8. Brand Attitude After 5.23 1.26 .144* -.079 -.180** -.119* -.026 -.018 .572** (0.88) 9. Brand Trust Before 5.17 1.11 .063 -.020 -.236** -.045 .106 .101 .835** .535** (0.80) 10. Brand Trust After 4.99 1.38 .095 .000 -.256** -.076 .000 -.073 .539** .873** .580** (0.88) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

(38)

In order to revise the relationship between variables, the Pearson ́s correlation coefficient was calculated. Based on the correlation that was carried out, the variable attitude towards the brand is the strongest predictor of brand trust. Moreover, there is an interesting correlation between brand attitude and gender.

5.3 Manipulation Check

Before running the hypothesis testing, manipulations checks on product category type and communication style were done.

5.3.1 Hedonic vs. Utilitarian

A manipulation check was done in order to ensure that the two brands selected for the study (Colgate and Tiffany Co.) were perceived to be utilitarian and hedonic respectively.

Table 6. Independent T test between Utilitarian and Hedonic brand.

Mean

Colgate Tiffany & Co. t df p

Utilitarian/Hedonic Value

2.11 6.24 44.3 288 <0.001

(.72) (.85)

Note. Standard deviations appear parenthesis below means.

According to the results of the independent t-test that was run the manipulation of the product type was successful. Colgate was perceived to be a utilitarian brand, scoring significantly below four on the scale taken from Cheema and Papatla (2008). On the other hand, Tiffany & Co. was considered to be a hedonic brand, scoring significantly above four. (MColgate=2.11,

(39)

5.3.2 Communication Style

An independent t-test was used to test if the communication style was perceived differently between formal and informal conditions. Consistent with prior results on the pilot test, the manipulation of brand communication style was successful.

Means on communication style were measured on the informal communication style index previously discussed. Participants exposed to the informal communication style conditions perceived it to be significantly more informal than the ones exposed to the formal conditions (Minformal=5.37, Mformal=3.27; F(1,289 = 16.37, p=0.00)

Table 7. Independent T test between formal and informal communication

Mean Formal Informal t df p Communication Style 3.27 5.37 -13 288 <0.001 (1.52) (1.12)

Note. Standard deviations appear parenthesis below means.

Moreover, means were tested in order to ensure that the communication style stimulus was consistent between product categories. No significant differences were found. In the informal manipulation, (Minformalhedonic=5.40, Minformalutilitarian=5.34, p=>0.001) neither in the

formal one (Mformalhedonic =3.23, Mformalutilitarian =3.31, p p=>0.001). The total mean of

(40)

Table 8. Independent T-test between hedonic and utilitarian mean communication style

Mean

Hedonic Utilitarian t df p

Communication Style 4.36 4.31 .240 288 >0.001

(1.75) (1.65)

Note. Standard deviations appear parenthesis below means.

Finally, since both, the questionnaire and communication style stimulus were done in English and Spanish. The means between those groups were similarly compared. Results showed that there were no significant differences between two groups (MEnglish =4.31, MSpanish=4.36;

F(1,288 = 1.90, p=0.061). Therefore, manipulations style was consistent in both languages.

Table 9. Independent T-test between Spanish and English mean communication style

Mean

Spanish English t df p

Communication Style 4.36 4.31 .309 288 >0.05

(1.67) (1.73)

Note. Standard deviations appear parenthesis below means.

In conclusion, results indicate that both of the manipulations: product type and brand communication style were successful.

5.4 Hypothesis Testing

In order to examine the impact of the communication style on brand trust, and the moderating effect of product type, a two-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted. The two independent factors: communication style and product category were re-coded in order to be

(41)

informal communication as 1; whereas the hedonic dimension was coded as 0 and the utilitarian as 1.

As previously mentioned, participants measured their brand trust before and after being exposed to the communication brand stimuli. Therefore, in order to measure the impact of the stimuli on brand trust, the difference between brand trust after and before the stimuli was calculated (Brand Trust After – Brand Trust Before). The difference was used as the dependent variable. A positive result on the difference would represent an increase in brand trust whereas a negative result would represent a decrease.

The first hypothesis to be tested was the following:

- H1: The communication style used in social media has a positive direct effect on

brand trust.

Table 10. Two- way ANOVA on brand trust

As previously mentioned, a two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of communication style and product category on levels of brand trust.

SS DF MS F η2 Sig.

Communication Style 25.22 1 25.22 21.82 .071 .000**

Product Type 5.32 1 5.32 4.61 .016 .033*

Communication Style * Product Type 32.90 1 32.90 28.46 .091 .000**

Error 330.58 286

Total 405.11 290

*Significant at the p<.05 level

(42)

From Table 10, it can be concluded that there is a significant effect of communication style on brand trust, F(2, 288) = 21.82, p < 0.05, n² = 0.07. Considering the n², the effect size of the communication style on brand trust is moderated: .06< n²<.14. However, the effect on brand trust is negative (Mdifbrandtrust=-0.175) Therefore, hypothesis 1 is not supported. Moreover, there is a significant effect of product type on brand trust F (2, 288) = 4.61, p < 0.05, n²= 0.01. However, the effect size is low, n²<.06. Finally, there is a significant interaction effect between communication style and product type on the perceived brand trust F (2,288)=28.46, p=<0.05, n²= .091, with a moderated size effect .06 <n² <.14. The latter indicates a moderation effect of product type.

Moreover, in order further investigate the moderation effect of product type and to test the following hypothesis a moderation analysis was conducted.

- H3a: The use of informal communication style (formal communication style) in

hedonic brands will increase (decrease) brand trust.

- H3b: The use of formal communication style (informal communication style) in

utilitarian brands will increase (decrease) brand trust.

The PROCESS Model 1 Macro by Hayes (2013) was used. In which, product category type represents the moderator, communication style the independent variable, and the difference of brand trust (After- Before) the dependent variable. As in the previous analysis, the independent variables were re-coded; product category (0= hedonic, 1= utilitarian) and communication style (0= formal, 1= informal).

(43)

Table 11. Moderator analysis on Brand Trust Coefficient SE t p Intercept i1 .338 0.12 2.63 0.008 Communication Style (X) c2 -1.26 0.19 -6.54 <0.001 Product Type (M) c1 -0.40 0.16 -2.44 0.015 Product Type * CS (XM) c3 0.45 0.16 2.69 <0.001 R²=0.165 p <0.001 F(3,187)= 15.17

The regression coefficient for XM is c3= 0.45 and is statistically different from zero, t (3, 187)= 2.69, p <0.001. Thus, it corroborates that the effect of communication style on brand trust depends on product type.

Table 12. Conditional Effect of Moderator

Conditional effect of Product Type (X) on Brand trust (Y) at levels of Communication Style

Effect SE t p

Hedonic -1.264 0.193 -6.545 <0.001

Utilitarian 0.083 0.1630 0.514 0.6072

A closer inspection of the conditional effects indicates that the relationship between communication style and brand trust is only significant <0.001 within the group of hedonic products (effect= 16.545, SE= 0.19, CI: -1.64 to -.884) in comparison to the utilitarian group which effect is not significant (p= 0.6072, >0.001), (effect=0.54, SE= 0.1630, CI= -0.23 to 0.40). However, as it can be seen from probing the interactions, the slope linking communication style and brand trust is different between the two groups. While the use of

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

To achieve positive impacts on human well-being, WLE scientists research the: (i) ecosystem structures and functions that underpin service provision; (ii) threats and critical

The analyzed characteristics were: maximum diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), maternal age (years), Caucasian maternal ethnicity (native Dutch and other white women or

[r]

Specifically, we propose a two-stage hybrid test design using a Bayesian approach to combine text mining and item response modeling in one systematic framework, where an automated

For the values close to the threshold Bond number Bo t , Surface Evolver cannot resolve the smooth transition of the contact angle along the chemical step, but if we apply a

In this paper, our main contribution is that we present combinations of measurements for error modeling that can be used to estimate the quality of arbitrary GNSS receivers

In a previous study, we showed that healthy people were able to control an active trunk support using four different control interfaces (based on joystick, force on feet, force

Scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for 8 component endpoints (CEs): need for redo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year, minor stroke