Joshua M. Averbeck

Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective

Online reviews play a significant role in forming and shaping perceptions about a product. With the credibility of online reviewers a frequent question, this research investigates how potential buyers assess the credibility of anonymous reviewers. Technology separates the reviewer from the review, and potential buyers are left to rely on characteristics of the review itself to determine the credibility of the reviewer. By extending the language expectancy theory to the online setting, we develop hypotheses about how expectancy violations of lexical complexity, two-sidedness (highlighting positive and negative aspects of a product), and affect intensity influence credibility attributions. We present an experiment in which favorable experimental reviews were generated based on actual reviews for a digital camera. The results indicate that two-sidedness caused a positive expectancy violation resulting in greater credibility attribution. High affect intensity caused a negative expectancy violation resulting in lower credibility attribution. Finally, high reviewer credibility significantly improved perceptions of product quality. Our results demonstrate the importance of expectancies and violations when attributing credibility to anonymous individuals. Even small expectancy violations can meaningfully influence reviewer credibility and perceptions of products.

Expanding Language Expectancy Theory: The Suasory Effects of Lexical Complexity and Syntactic Complexity on Effective Message Design

This research uses language expectancy theory (LET; Burgoon, Jones, & Stewart, 1975; Miller & Burgoon, 1979) to explore message design effectiveness as a function of syntactic and lexical complexity, in a 2 (lexical: simple vs. complex) × 2 (syntactic: simple vs. complex) design. Pilot test and main study findings indicate optimal message features include the use of lexically simple language combined with syntactically simple sentence structure for receivers who are more likely to think on concrete as opposed to abstract levels, since such an arrangement makes integration of new information easier. Future directions are discussed for message design and for advancement of the theoretical contributions offered by examining syntactic complexity and lexical complexity within the explanatory framework of LET.

The General Content of Postinoculation Talk: Recalled Issue-Specific Conversations Following Inoculation Treatments

For much of inoculation theorys 50-year history, research has focused on intrapersonal processes of resistance such as threat and subvocal counterarguing. More recently, attention has shifted to interpersonal processes of inoculation-conferred resistance, specifically, postinoculation talk (PIT). This study examined the substance of PIT, and how people may talk to one another for reassurance and advocacy following an inoculation. Findings indicate advocacy attempts were significantly greater within the inoculation condition. Those inoculated were more likely to a) pass along material included in the inoculation treatment, b) share issue-relevant novel material, c) talk about topics related to the target issue, and d) be challenged by conversational partners when attempting advocacy. Results help explain what inoculated individuals talk about following an inoculation treatment, and how PIT may spread the process of resistance along social networks.

Patient–Provider Orientation as a Language Expectancy Origin for Controlling Language in Doctor–Patient Interactions

The use of controlling language by physicians is examined to further understand congruence between doctor and patient language use. Language expectancy theory (LET) provides the framework for making predictions about expectations for controlling language. This study adds to our understanding of LET by examining personality variables to predict language expectations. Effects of interactions between expectancy violations and patient–physician orientation on anger, behavior change, source credibility, and controlling language are predicted. Positively violating expectations for controlling language use resulted in less anger, negative behavior change, and higher ratings of controllingness. Future directions are offered studying controlling language in doctor–patient interactions.

Comparisons of Ironic and Sarcastic Arguments in Terms of Appropriateness and Effectiveness in Personal Relationships

Due to frequent confusion over what exactly an ironic argument is and how it differs from sarcasm, this study seeks to distinguish between irony and sarcasm in the interpersonal context. Conceptual differences are offered between irony and sarcasm, and literal, ironic, and sarcastic arguments are compared in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness. Results showed that sarcastic arguments were rated the least effective and least appropriate. Ironic arguments were rated moderately appropriate and most effective. The literal arguments were rated moderately effective and most appropriate. With these distinctions made between irony and sarcasm future directions are offered.

Regulatory Focus and Persuasive Sleep Messages

This study examined a persistent problem among young people across the nation: poor sleep habits. Using regulatory focus as a theoretical framework, this study evaluated components of persuasive sleep fear appeal messages. Specifically, the factor of regulatory focus is evaluated as a component in the processing of sleep deprivation fear appeals. After reporting regulatory focus and hedonic relevance information, participants (N = 306) read fear appeal messages and reported behavior intentions, message complexity, message derogation, persuasiveness, and agitation. Results show participants in a prevention focus, compared to those in a promotion focus, were less agitated by the message and were more likely to be persuaded by the message. Implications for fear appeals research and persuasive sleep messages are discussed.

Family Serial Arguments: Beliefs about the Argument and Perceived Stress from the Argument

One hundred seventeen college students recalled a serial argument with a family member. The type of serial argument (whether a public- or personal-issue argument, Johnson, 2002) and level of argumentativeness predicted beliefs about family serial arguments. Whether the serial argument was believed to be ego-involving, enjoyable, or related to dysfunctional outcomes predicted the level of personal harm (stress and stress-related symptoms) related to the argument.