How effective is expressive? Consumer perceptions of new vernacular features in Facebook webcare responses

Abstract

We investigate how intensifying (e.g. deliberate repetition of punctuation symbols) and non-intensifying (e.g. emoji or chatspeak abbreviations) new vernacular features in responses to consumer complaints on corporate Facebook pages influence perceptions of conversational human voice, interactional justice and corporate credibility, and whether company type and new vernacular usage in the complaint itself moderate these effects. We carried out a 3 (new vernacular features in response: absent, intensifying, non-intensifying) × 2 (new vernacular features in complaint: absent, present) × 2 (company type: progressive, traditional) between-subjects experiment with 718 Flemish consumers. Findings show that organisational responses containing non-intensifying features generate equally positive ratings as those without new vernacular. This points towards an extended norm of appropriate language use in webcare, i.e. adherence to (somewhat informal) Standard Dutch, but with some room for non-intensifying new vernacular. Intensifying expressive compensation strategies, however, negatively impacted conversational human voice, interactional justice and corporate credibility perceptions. The effect on the latter two is mediated to a certain extent by the perceived appropriateness of these features, highlighting the importance of Language Expectancy Theory and Role Theory as underlying frameworks in this field. No clear moderation of company type or new vernacular usage in the consumer complaint was observed.