Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust
Morality is an abstract consideration, and language is an important regulator of abstract thought. In instances of moral ambiguity (e.g., ethically ambiguous business practices), individuals may pay particular attention to matters of interactional justice (i.e., how consumers are treated with politeness and dignity by the brand in question). Politeness in language has been linked to greater perceptions of social distance, which we contend is instrumental in regulating attitudes toward a brand. We posit that politeness in a brand’s advertising will impact consumers who are attuned to violations of interactional justice [i.e., those with low belief in a just world (BJW)]. In three studies, we demonstrate that the politeness used in advertising as well as consumers’ individual differences in BJW affect judgments and attitudes toward brands. Specifically, individuals with a low just world belief are more likely to harbor negative attitudes towards a brand with ethically ambiguous business practices if the language used in advertising is impersonal (politer) than when the language used in advertising is personal (less polite). Importantly, for individuals with a low BJW, lowered trust due to the advertisement’s language mediated the relationship between politeness and attitudes toward the brand. Theoretical and managerial implications of this research are discussed.
KeywordsPoliteness theory Interactional justice Belief in a just world
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43–55.Google Scholar
- Blodgett, J. G., & Tax, S. S. (1993). The effects of distributive and interactional justice on complainants’ repatronage intentions and negative word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6(1), 100–110.Google Scholar
- Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Crawford, E. (2018, January 25). Consumers increasingly reward sustainable companies, punish those that are not socially responsible. Food Navigator USA. Retrieved from https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2018/01/25/Consumers-increasingly-reward-sustainable-companies-punish-those-that-are-not-socially-responsible.
- Farrell, H., & Farrell, B. J. (1998). The language of business codes of ethics: implications of knowledge and power. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 587–601.Google Scholar
- Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–245). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- GlobeScan. (2017, October 10). Trust is down, expectations are up as brands take center stage in cultural divides. Press Release. Retrieved from https://globescan.com/trust-is-down-expectations-are-up-as-brands-take-center-stage-in-cultural-divides/.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation (Vol. 1975, pp. 41–58).Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf.
- Helm, A. (2004). Cynics and skeptics: Consumer dispositional trust. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 31, pp. 345–351). Valdosta: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, & J. P. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions and implicatures (pp. 79–106). Arlington, VA: Centre for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Langreth, R., & Harper, M. (2010, December 31). The planet versus Monsanto. Forbes Magazine.Google Scholar
- Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon, D. (1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sass, E. (2016, June 28). Consumers punish brands for deceptive behavior online. The Social Graf. Retrieved from https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/279170/.
- Stack, L. S. (1978). Trust. In H. London & J. E. Exner Jr. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 561–597). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sundar, A. (2018). Brand touchpoints. Hauppague, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Sundar, A., Dinsmore, D., Paik, S., & Kardes, F. R. (2016). Metaphorical communication, self-presentation, and consumer inference in service encounters. Journal of Business Research, 72(1), 136–146.Google Scholar