We'll Be Honest, This Won't Be the Best Article You'll Ever Read: The Use of Dispreferred Markers in Word-of-Mouth Communication

Consumers value word-of-mouth communications in large part because customer reviews are more likely to include negative information about a product or service than are communications originating from the marketer. Despite the fact that negative information is frequently valued by those receiving it, baldly declaring negative information may come with social costs to both communicator and receiver. For this reason, communicators sometimes soften pronouncements of bad news by couching them in dispreferred markers, including phrases such as, "I'll be honest," "God bless it," or "I don't want to be mean, but ..." The present work identified and tested in five experiments a phenomenon termed the dispreferred marker effect, in which consumers evaluate communicators who use dispreferred markers as more credible and likable than communicators who assert the same information without dispreferred markers. We further found that the dispreferred marker effect can spill over to evaluations of the product being reviewed, increasing willingness to pay and influencing evaluations of the credibility and likability of the evaluated product's personality.

[1]  Bertram Gawronski,et al.  The TAR Effect: When the Ones Who Dislike Become the Ones Who Are Disliked , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[2]  Jo Mackiewicz,et al.  Reviewer Motivations, Bias, and Credibility in Online Reviews , 2008, Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication.

[3]  T. Holtgraves Yes, but... , 1997 .

[4]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Classic and Current Social Comparison Research : Expanding the Perspective , 1990 .

[5]  Kay P. Richardson Health risks on the internet: Establishing credibility on line , 2003 .

[6]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[7]  Marsha L. Richins Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers: A Pilot Study , 1983 .

[8]  Zoey Chen,et al.  When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation , 2012 .

[9]  M. Morris,et al.  Person Perception in the Heat of Conflict: Negative Trait Attributions Affect Procedural Preferences and Account for Situational and Cultural Differences , 2004 .

[10]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[11]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

[12]  R. Cialdini Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion , 1993 .

[13]  Andreas H. Jucker,et al.  Discourse markers : descriptions and theory , 1998 .

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  T. M. Amabile Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. , 1983 .

[16]  P. Herr,et al.  Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective , 1991 .

[17]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .

[18]  S. Asch Forming impressions of personality. , 1946, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

[19]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[20]  Yubo Chen,et al.  Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[21]  David Godes,et al.  Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication , 2004 .

[22]  Andreas H. Jucker The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account , 1993 .

[23]  Derek D. Rucker,et al.  What's in a frame anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty , 2008 .

[24]  William Allen,et al.  The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness , 1953 .

[25]  Baba Shiv,et al.  When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information , 2012 .

[26]  Amar Cheema,et al.  The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth , 2010 .

[27]  David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen,et al.  The Accessibility of Source Likability as a Determinant of Persuasion , 1992 .

[28]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .

[29]  T. Holtgraves Preference Organization and Reply Comprehension , 2000 .

[30]  Anindya Ghose,et al.  Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  T. Holtgraves Social Psychology and Language: Words, Utterances, and Conversations† , 2010 .

[32]  Ran Kivetz,et al.  The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice , 2000 .

[33]  Lyle Brenner,et al.  Accentuate the Negative , 2006, Psychological science.

[34]  Sarah J. S. Wilner,et al.  Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities , 2009 .

[35]  E. S. Knowles,et al.  Approach-Avoidance Model of Persuasion: Alpha and Omega Strategies for Change , 2004 .

[36]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[37]  B. Fraser An approach to discourse markers , 1990 .

[38]  Peter H. Reingen,et al.  Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior , 1987 .

[39]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  (Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of Competence and Warmth , 1999 .

[40]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[41]  Wayne D. Hoyer,et al.  An Integrative Framework for Understanding Two-sided Persuasion , 1994 .

[42]  Gregory A Petsko,et al.  A Christmas Carol , 2001, Genome Biology.

[43]  Thomas Holtgraves,et al.  Interpreting Indirect Replies , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  R. Fazio Motives for Social Comparison: The Construction-Validation Distinction , 1979 .