Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What’s not to like? Negations in brand messages increase consumer engagement

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How do you increase consumer engagement with your marketing communications? We suggest using negations in your brand messaging (e.g., “It doesn’t get any better than this”). Four studies, including field studies that analyzed more than 53 million interactions between consumers and brands, find that consumers are more likely to engage with brands when their messages include negations. This occurs because brands seem more powerful when they use negations in their brand messaging, and consumers generally want to associate with more powerful brands. Moreover, the positive, indirect effect of negations on engagement, through perceived brand power, is stronger among consumers with a higher need for status. These findings deepen our understanding of the often-surprising ways seemingly innocuous language features influence consumers, including how they perceive and interact with brands. The managerial implications are straightforward—incorporate negations in your brand messaging, especially when communicating with those that desire status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adkins, M., & Brashers, D. E. (1995). The power of language in computer mediated groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 289–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustine, A. A., Mehl, M. R., & Larsen, R. J. (2011). A positivity bias in written and spoken English and its moderation by personality and gender. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 508–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 366–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science, 22(7), 891–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.

  • Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020). Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, T. H. A., Leefang, P. S. H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardi, B. G. S., Lemmens, A., & Saffart, P. (2010). Analytics for customer engagement. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, A. D., Webster, G. D., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2011). The big, the rich, and the powerful: Physical, financial, and social dimensions of dominance in mating and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 365–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman’s expert and referent bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, J., Sherman, L. J., & Jones, J. D. (2012). What’s in a word? Linguistic characteristics of Adult Attachment Interviews. Attachment & Human Development, 14(1), 11–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catlin, J. R., Leonhardt, J. M., Wang, Y., & Manuel, R. J. (2021). Landfill or Recycle? Pro-Environmental Receptacle Labeling Increases Recycling Contamination. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(4), 765–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervellon, M. C., & Coudriet, R. (2013). Brand social power in luxury retail. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management., 14(11/12), 869–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapais, B. (2015). Competence and the evolutionary origins of status and power in humans. Human Nature, 26, 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, E. (2018). Naysaying and negativity promote initial power establishment and leadership endorsement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 638–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2020). Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide 2008–2020. Retrieved on July 18, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide-/#:~:text=How/20many-/20users/-20does-0/20Facebook,network/20ever/20to/20do/20so

  • Cruz, R. E., Leonhardt, J. M., & Pezzuti, T. (2017). Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, R., Kordts-Freudinger, R., Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2009). Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Experimental Psychology, 56(6), 434–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, P. S., Clark, E. M., Desu, S., Frank, M. R., Reagan, A. J., Williams, J. R., Mitchell, L., Harris, K. D., Kloumann, I. M., Bagrow, J. P., Megerdoomian, K., McMahon, M. T., Tivnan, B. F., & Danforth, C. M. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2389–2394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047–1062.

  • Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes (2019). Creating a marketing budget for 2020. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2019/12/19/creating-a-marketing-budget-for-2020/

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, E. M., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, H., Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). All that glitter is not gold: How others’ status influences the effects of power distance beliefs on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger-Oneto, S., Gelb, B. D., Walker, D., & Hess, J. D. (2013). “Buying status” by choosing or rejecting luxury brands and their counterfeits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkotsis G, Velupillai S, Oellrich A, Dean H, Liakata M, & Dutta R. (2016). Don't let notes be misunderstood: a negation detection method for assessing risk of suicide in mental health records. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Clinical Psychology (pp. 95–105). San Diego, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Graf, L. K., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S. J., Malaviya, P., & Sternthal, B. (2004). The influence of negation on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Herhausen, D., Ludwig, S., & Villarroel Ordenes, F. (2022). The future of digital communication research: Considering dynamics and multimodality. Journal of Retailing, 98(2), 224–240

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, E. M., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S. H., & Lind, C. J. (2017). Putting powerfulness in its place: A study on discursive style in public discussion and its impact. Argumentation and Advocacy, 53(3), 216–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmeling, C., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Towards a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 312–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Business Review (2018). The basic social media mistakes companies still make. Retrieved September 17, 2020 from https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-basic-social-media-mistakes-companies-still-make

  • Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J., & Hoban, P. R. (2022). Writing More Compelling Creative Appeals: A Deep Learning-Based Approach. Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humberstone, L. (2000). The revival of rejective negation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 331–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J. H. (2018). Automated text analysis for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1274–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, K., & Hoffman, S. (2014). Surprise, surprise: Ambient media as a promotion tool for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iliev, R., Hoover, J., Dehghani, M., & Axelrod, R. (2016). Linguistic positivity in historical texts reflects dynamic environmental and psychological factors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(49), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1697–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014). What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(3), 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., & Lantzy, S. (2017). Doing well versus doing good: The differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labrecque, L. I., Swani, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The impact of pronoun choices on consumer engagement actions: Exploring top global brands’ social media communications. Psychology & Marketing, 37(6), 796–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W. A. (1992). Expressing Negation. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larcker, D. F., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2012). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(2), 495–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. K., & Kronrod, A. (2020). The strength of weak-tie consensus language. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2), 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Larimo, J., & Leonidou, L. C. (2021). Social media marketing strategy: Definition, conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, E. A. C., Lee, Y. H., & Foo, M. D. (2017). Frontline employees’ nonverbal cues in service encounters: A double-edged sword. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 657–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2015). The use of word lists in textual analysis. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J., & Barger, V. A. (2017). Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing communications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marengo, D., Azucar, D., Longobardi, C., & Settanni, M. (2021). Mining Facebook data for Quality of Life assessment. Behaviour & Information Technology 40(6), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1711454

  • Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). “I am not guilty” vs “I am innocent”: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocco, P. J., Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Anderson, E. T. (2012). Direct and vicarious conspicuous consumption: Identification with low-status groups increases the desire for high-status goods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 520–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mochon, D., Johnson, K., Schwartz, J., & Ariely, D. (2017). What are likes worth? A Facebook page field experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 306–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C. (2020). CMO survey report: Highlights and insights. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from https://cmosurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The_CMO_Survey-Highlights-and_Insights_Report-Feb-2020.pdf

  • Na, W. B., Marshall, R., & Keller, K. L. (1999). Measuring brand power: Validating a model for optimizing brand equity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(3), 170–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netzer, O., Feldman, R., Goldenberg, J., & Fresko, M. (2012). Mine your own business: Market-structure surveillance through text mining. Marketing Science, 31(3), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Cass, A., & Frost, E. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 11(2), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, G., & Berger, J. (2020). Thinking of you: How second-person pronouns shape cultural success. Psychological Science, 31(4), 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, G., Moore, S. G., & McFerran, B. (2018). (I’m) happy to help (you): The impact of personal pronoun use in customer–firm interactions. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(4), 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pancer, E., Chandler, V., Poole, M., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2018). How readability shapes social media engagement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2014). Counting little words in big data: The psychology of individuals, communities, culture, and history. In J. P. Forgas, O. Vincze, & J. László (Eds.), Sydney symposium of social psychology. Social cognition and communication. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (2019). Social media fact sheet. Retrieved on April 4, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

  • Pezzuti, T., Leonhardt, J. M., & Warren, C. (2021). Certainty in language increases consumer engagement on social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53, 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogacar, R., Angle, J., Lowrey, T. M., Shrum, L. J., & Kardes, F. R. (2021). Is Nestlé a lady? The feminine brand name advantage. Journal of Marketing, 85(6), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. (2011). On the negativity of negation. Proceedings of Semantic and Linguistic Theory 20 N Li D Lutz Eds. New York: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J. Y., Volkova, S., & Choi, Y. (2017). Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley, D. (2011). Negation, denial, and rejection. Philosophy Compass, 6(9), 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge, its scope and limits. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santini, F. D. O., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: A framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 1211–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Den Besselaar, P., Sandström, U., & Schiffbaenker, H. (2018). Studying grant decision-making: A linguistic analysis of review reports. Scientometrics, 117(1), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villarroel Ordenes, F., Ludwig, S., De Ruyter, K., Grewal, D., & Wetzels, M. (2017). Unveiling what is written in the stars: Analyzing explicit, implicit, and discourse patterns of sentiment in social media. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 875–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, C., Pezzuti, T., & Koley, S. (2018). Is being emotionally inexpressive cool. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Baumgartner, H. (2018). When cheap isn’t the same as not expensive: Generic price terms and their negations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 543–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 571–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zote, J. (2020). 55 critical social media statistics to fuel your 2020 strategy. Retrieved on June 1, 2020, from https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-statistics/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers, the Associate Editor, and the Editor for their recommendations and support throughout the review process. The authors would also like to thank Caleb Warren for his feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, University of Adolfo Ibáñez, Padre Hurtado 750, 2562340, Viña del Mar, Chile

    Todd Pezzuti

  2. School of Business, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89557, USA

    James M. Leonhardt

Authors
  1. Todd Pezzuti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Leonhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd Pezzuti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Brent McFerran served as Area Editor for this article.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 5

Table 5 Bivariate correlations among the indicators of consumer engagement in the Facebook field study (Study 1)
Full size table

Appendix B

Table 6

Table 6 Unstandardized parameter estimates for models without control variables in the Facebook field study (Study 1). See Table 2 in the main paper for model results with control variables
Full size table

Appendix C

Table 7

Table 7 Bivariate correlations among indicators of consumer engagement in the Twitter field study (Study 2)
Full size table

Appendix D

Table 8

Table 8 Unstandardized parameter estimates for models without control variables in the Twitter field study (Study 2). See Table 4 in the main paper for model results with control variables
Full size table

Appendix E

In the main text for Study 3, we report our analyses without controlling for message certainty. However, we found that message certainty varied across conditions, and message certainty has been shown to affect consumer engagement with brand posts on social media (Pezzuti et al., 2021). As a robustness check, we include message certainty in the same models used in Study 3. As detailed below, message certainty did not affect the directionality or significance of the results reported in the main text.

The results of an ANCOVA with negation as the independent variable, consumer engagement as the dependent variable, and message certainty as a control variable show that the negation present message was more engaging (M = 1.76, SD = 1.33, SE = 0.07) than the negation absent message (M = 1.56, SD = 0.97, SE = 0.07, F(1, 563) = 4.49, p = 0.034, ηp2 = 0.008). We then assessed mediation again but with message certainty as a control. Negation increased perceived brand power (b = 0.24, SE = 0.10, t = 2.37, p = 0.018) and perceived brand power increased consumer engagement (b = 0.35, SE = 0.04, t = 9.22, p < 0.001), resulting in a positive, indirect effect of negation, through perceived brand power, on consumer engagement (b = 0.08, bootstrap SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]).

We then assessed parallel mediation again but with message certainty included as a control. Perceived brand power was the only variable that mediated the negation effect on consumer engagement. Even after controlling for brand competence, trust, and message novelty and certainty, negations continued to exert a positive effect on perceived brand power (b = 0.24, SE = 0.10, t = 2.37, p = 0.018) and perceived brand power continued to drive consumer engagement (b = 0.31, SE = 0.05, t = 6.74, p < 0.001); and the indirect effect, through perceived brand power remained significant (b = 0.07, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14]). None of the other indirect effects were significant, including the indirect effect through message novelty (95% CI [-0.03, 0.003]), perceived competence (95% CI [-0.03, 0.01]), and trust (95% CI [-0.02, 0.03]); negation did not relate to message novelty (p = 0.427), nor did message novelty influence consumer engagement (p = 0.189); negation did not increase perceived competence (p = 0.292) nor trust (p = 0.809); competence did not relate with engagement (p = 0.734), but trust positively influenced engagement (b = 0.12, SE = 0.05, t = 2.56, p = 0.011).

Next, we assessed moderated mediation again but with message certainty included as a control. Negation increased perceived brand power (negation: b = 0.24, SE = 0.10, t = 2.38, p = 0.018). Perceived brand power and need for status exerted positive main effects on consumer engagement (perceived brand power: b = 0.33, SE = 0.04, t = 8.87, p < 0.001; need for status: b = 0.09, SE = 0.03, t = 3.33, p < 0.001). The interaction between perceived brand power and need for status on consumer engagement was significant (b = 0.06, SE = 0.02, t = 3.55, p < 0.001). Floodlight analysis revealed that perceived brand power exerted a positive and statistically significant effect on consumer engagement within the observed range of need for status. Accordingly, we ran a spotlight analysis which revealed that perceived brand power had a stronger effect on consumer engagement among participants with higher need for status (blow = 0.24, SE = 0.05, t = 4.89, p < 0.001; bmedium = 0.34, SE = 0.04, t = 9.06, p < 0.001; bhigh = 0.44, SE = 0.05, t = 9.52, p < 0.001). The index of moderated mediation (index = 0.01, SE = 0.009, 95% CI [0.002, 0.036]) was significant. The positive effect of negation on consumer engagement was stronger among participants with a relatively higher need for status (blow = 0.05, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.12]), bmedium = 0.08, bootstrap SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]), bhigh = 0.10, bootstrap SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.20]).

Appendix F

In the main text for Study 4, we report our analyses without controlling for message certainty, processing fluency, and message novelty; however, we found these varied across the negation present versus absent conditions. To assess robustness, we include message certainty, processing fluency, and message novelty in the same models used in Study 4. As detailed below, the inclusion of these variables did not affect the directionality or significance of the results reported in the main text.

The results of an ANCOVA with negation as the independent variable, word-of-mouth intention as the dependent variable, and processing fluency, message certainty, and novelty as controls revealed a significant main effect (F(1, 540) = 6.83, p = 0.009, ηp2 = 0.012); word-of-mouth intention was higher in the negation present condition (M = 3.17, SD = 1.60, SE = 0.091) versus the negation absent condition (M = 2.82, SD = 1.53, SE = 0.091). We then assessed mediation again but with processing fluency, message certainty, and novelty as controls. Negation increased perceived brand power (b = 0.25, SE = 0.10, t = 2.61, p = 0.009), which, in turn, related positively with word-of-mouth intention (b = 0.74, SE = 0.05, t = 15.15, p < 0.001), resulting in a positive, indirect effect through perceived brand power (b = 0.19, bootstrap SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.05, 0.32]).

We then assessed the moderated mediation model again but with processing fluency, message certainty, and novelty as controls. Negation increased how powerful the brand seemed (negation: b = 0.25, SE = 0.10, t = 2.61, p = 0.009). Perceived brand power and need for status related positively with word-of-mouth intention (perceived brand power: b = 0.70, SE = 0.05, t = 14.50, p < 0.001; need for status: b = 0.17, SE = 0.03, t = 5.17, p < 0.001), and the effect of perceived brand power on word-of-mouth intention depended on need for status (binteraction = 0.05, SE = 0.02, t = 2.20, p = 0.028). A floodlight analysis showed that the perceived brand power exerted a positive and statistically significant effect on word-of-mouth intentions across all observed values for the need for status values. Accordingly, we ran a spotlight which revealed that the effect of perceived brand power on word-of-mouth intentions was higher among participants that reported relatively higher levels of need for status (blow = 0.63, SE = 0.06, t = 10.31, p < 0.001, bmedium = 0.71 SE = 0.05, t = 14.74, p < 0.001, bhigh = 0.79, SE = 0.06, t = 12.98, p < 0.001). Again, the index of moderated mediation was significant (index = 0.01, bootstrap SE = 0.008, 95% CI [0.002, 0.037]). The indirect effect of negation, through perceived brand power, was larger for those with higher need for status (bhigh = 0.20, bootstrap SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.05, 0.37], bmedium = 0.18, bootstrap SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32], blow = 0.16, bootstrap SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.04, 0.29]).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pezzuti, T., Leonhardt, J.M. What’s not to like? Negations in brand messages increase consumer engagement. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 51, 675–694 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00894-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00894-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation