Need Help due in 10 hours

Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Journal of Business Ethics (2020) 164:39–60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4060-6

O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

Aparna Sundar1 · Edita S. Cao2

Received: 31 March 2018 / Accepted: 3 November 2018 / Published online: 13 November 2018 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract 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.

Keywords Politeness theory · Interactional justice · Belief in a just world

Introduction

Brands are deliberate in their use of language in advertis- ing and communications. In 2014, Monsanto, the behemoth agrochemical company with various allegations of unethical behaviors (see Langreth and Harper 2010), created a website (http://disco ver.monsa nto.com) to address consumers’ con- cerns over genetically modified foods. The following is an excerpt from the website:

At Monsanto, we’re all about sustainable solutions. That’s why we’re committed to getting the public involved in a global conversation about the methods we’re using in order to help grow enough food for a growing world. These methods not only have direct

applications for our food supply, but warrant a con- versation about global sustainability and biodiversity, too—which is why if you’ve got questions, we’ve got answers. Ask your own question regarding anything from honey bee health, to the effects of GMOs, to sus- tainability in agriculture and more.

The language used in this excerpt includes various fea- tures of conversational language, such as idioms, contrac- tions, and personal pronouns such as we. Such language is often used among speakers who are socially close and per- sonalizes the speaker to reinforce such closeness (Brown and Levinson 1987). It is evident that Monsanto and other controversial brands attempt to use language in a way that can shape consumer attitudes towards the brand. What is less evident is whether such tactics are successful in gain- ing consumer trust and whether such efforts help or hurt the brand in the consumer’s eyes.

Politeness as a communication strategy can be effec- tive under certain circumstances and has important impli- cations for both consumers and brands (Dillard and Shen 2005; Fitzsimons and Lehmann 2004; Kronrod et al. 2012a). An effective communication strategy may enhance con- sumers’ perceptions of a brand and affect their subsequent

* Aparna Sundar [email protected]

Edita S. Cao [email protected]

1 Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

2 University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

40 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

decision-making. For example, politeness in online reviews can help reviewers seem more credible and likeable (Ham- ilton et  al. 2014). Politeness in advertising could cause consumers to purchase certain products or make more environmentally-friendly decisions (Kronrod et al. 2012a, b). However, when consumers are exposed to their ethically ambiguous practices, brands may face the risk that their intentions are doubted. In particular, brands may find it advantageous to use language to distance themselves in cer- tain circumstances in a strategic effort to refocus consumer attention on their abstract or primary characteristics (such as brand personality). This could be an effective alternative to the default focus of a consumer on contextual details (such as recent negative publicity or questionable business prac- tices). One way to regulate social distance is by adjusting the level of politeness in language (Brown and Levinson 1987; Stephan et al. 2010).

The present research is the first to examine how advertis- ing that adopts politeness in its language can influence atti- tudes toward a brand. We are specifically interested in how consumers respond when a brand behaves in an ethically ambiguous manner. When practices are ambiguous, consum- ers are more likely to be swayed by the language used by advertising. Specifically, the research question we examine is whether more (vs. less) polite language used in brand advertising would lead consumers to harbor more negative attitudes toward brands (e.g., desire to punish a brand for its actions) when they encounter ethically ambiguous brand practices like the ones discussed on consumer blog sites or online reviews. Critically, it is important to understand when and why consumers would be more likely to harbor nega- tive attitudes toward a brand. One such characteristic that consumers differ on regarding their beliefs related to ethi- cal behavior is belief in a just world (BJW). Therefore, we examine how a consumer’s BJW affects his or her negative attitudes towards a brand. Critically, we investigate the role of brand trust as an underlying mechanism that influences attitudes.

In this article, we start by presenting a review of polite- ness theory in communications. We then propose the link between politeness and attitudes toward a brand. Specifi- cally, we demonstrate that the politeness used in advertising can affect consumers’ perceptions of the brand, which can make them want to punish the brand for ethically ambiguous practices. Critically, we explore the role of a BJW, which is a belief that people get what they deserve (Lerner 1980). Finally, for individuals who do not have strong beliefs that the world is just, we demonstrate that brand trust drives their attitudes and desire to see the arguably transgressing brand punished.

Communication Tactics Reflective of Politeness in Advertising

The use of language in communication is both meaning- ful and often intended to change perceptions of ethical, or unethical, behaviors of an organization (Farrell and Far- rell 1998; Hoover and Pepper 2014; Schwartz 2004; Ste- vens 1999; Sundar 2018, p. 20; Sundar et al. 2016; Winkler 2011). The two assumptions that make language meaningful are (1) communications should clearly and concisely convey information (Grice 1975; Lakoff 1975) and (2) communica- tions should be polite in order to deliver negative or incon- veniencing information without hurting the speaker’s public image (Lakoff 1975). The underlying motivation of polite- ness in speech is to avoid the risk of potentially negative social outcomes if speakers are impolite to those that wield power over them (Riley 1993). Specifically, such negative social outcomes threaten others’ perceptions of the speaker’s self-image. Politeness in language, used strategically, helps speakers manage how others perceive them in specific social contexts.

Politeness is a linguistic tool to regulate self-image and to minimize interpersonal threats (Brown and Levinson 1987). People in general are concerned about the way others think about them. In other words, they care about their public image in a given social context (Brown and Levinson 1987; Fraser 1990; Goffman 1967). In general, individuals coop- erate to maintain each other’s positive self-image. When it comes to the use of language in transactional contexts (such as consumer–brand interactions), individuals may be concerned about being perceived to be too harsh or direct (e.g., asking for a favor, requesting information, criticizing another, or some other imposition; Brown and Levinson 1987). Therefore, phrasing transactional acts in a way that mitigates perceptions of such directness is desirable. Indeed, keeping positive social value is intrinsically important and requires maintenance throughout a transactional interaction (Fraser 1990). Politeness is often adopted as a strategy in social interaction that minimizes the directness and impo- sition in communications to maintain others’ social worth (Brown and Gilman 1960).

Politeness is commonly assumed in conversations, and one only notices its absence when a speaker is violating this social expectation (Fraser 1990). That said, politeness can- not be explained as a straightforward social norm; rather, it is governed by the underlying psychological mechanisms and specific expectations in a given interaction (for a review, see Eelen 2014; Watts 2003). As suggested by politeness theory, there are two ways in which politeness is incorpo- rated in language (Brown and Levinson 1987). An imper- sonal (or politer) form of speech is adopted when there is a threat to being respected and acknowledged by others (Fraser

41Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

1990). In contrast, a more personal (or less polite) form of speech is adopted when there is a threat of not being per- ceived positively or appreciated by others (Fraser 1990). The key difference between the two types of tactics (i.e., personal vs. impersonal language) is the level of social dis- tance maintained between the speaker and hearer, along with the accompanying expectations for the respective dis- tance. Impersonal speech establishes greater social distance between the speaker and hearer; personal speech establishes a sense of familiarity (Brown and Levinson 1987). Because greater social distance often leads to abstract moral thought (Eyal et al. 2008), language tactics that reinforce greater social distance (i.e., impersonal language) may be of par- ticular interest when examining ethical judgments.

Operationalizing Politeness in Communications

Politeness encompasses a variety of communication and behavioral tactics that are adopted in different social situ- ations. The use of specific tactics in language is a way of accomplishing the goals of a given social situation. Brown and Levinson (1987) operationalized such tactics in terms of honorifics, verb tense, pronouns, word choice, phrasing, and other parts of speech. A sentence that communicates the same informational content can therefore be varied based on the social intentions of the speaker. Several impersonal and personal tactics are mirrors of one another. For example, when using honorifics, addressing another with the formal title of Sir or Mister is an impersonal communication tactic that gives deference, but addressing another with the familiar dude or mate is a marker of in-group identity that reflects a personal communication tactic (Brown and Levinson 1987; Morand 2000). Similarly, using formal and grammatically correct language is another impersonal tactic designed to show deference, whereas the use of contractions or slang is a personal tactic that also represents in-group language, reflecting solidarity with the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987; Morand 2000). Another common impersonal com- munication tactic is using the subjunctive mood (e.g., “You might say”), which reflects pessimism as to whether the hearer will agree or comply and also minimizes the size of the imposition on the hearer, mitigating discomfort to both the speaker and the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987). Another common personal communication tactic is phras- ing statements to pre-suppose common ground (e.g., “You know how we all”) or the hearer’s needs (e.g., “Wouldn’t you like”), suggesting that the speaker understands the hearer and reinforcing familiarity (Brown and Levinson 1987; Morand 2000). In sum, impersonal tactics assume and use language to soften imposition, whereas personal tactics assume and use language to reinforce solidarity.

Politeness, Social Context, and Attitudes toward a Brand

In all social interactions, we have expectations of how con- versations should flow. These expectations also hold true for brand communications with consumers, a socially dis- tant context of interaction. Because of such expectations, how polite speech is influences the audience’s evaluations of the speaker (Eelen 2014). Indeed, those who use language that violates understood social rules (i.e., speech deemed impolite or inappropriate) may be evaluated negatively and socially sanctioned (Eelen 2014; Lakoff 1977). Therefore, we understand that we risk negative evaluation if we pre- sent language that is less polite. As with much of our moral reasoning, morality, as associated with appropriate levels of politeness, is ingrained from childhood. Parents either encourage or discourage speech as good or bad based on whether such speech is polite or impolite (Gleason et al. 1984; Snow et al. 1990). Our judgments of whether speech is polite, impolite, or overly polite are largely a function of our perceptions of the speaker’s intentions, and judgments of such intentions are highly variable (Haugh 2010). Speech must cause offense for one to sanction it (Haugh 2015). The link between offensive acts of speech and desire to see the offender punished is particularly salient for strangers, and care is generally taken to avoid offending the listener (Haugh 2015). We therefore suggest that politeness in language should be particularly influential in shaping judgments and perceptions about a source in socially distant contexts.

When an individual considers a brand as socially close, he or she may have a high degree of familiarity with the brand and is more likely to anchor onto and utilize prior attitudes about the brand (Hoyer and Brown 1990; Keller 1993). In fact, consumers with prior experience with a brand rely on those earlier memory-based judgments when making subsequent evaluations of the brand and purchase decisions (Kardes 1986). It is then very possible for these people to infer that the brand had innocent intentions. In contrast, if consumers rely on negative prior attitudes toward a brand, they may infer that the brand acted on unethical intentions. Established heuristics about a brand will then be more criti- cal than nuances in the brand’s advertising messages. How- ever, consumers do not have such prior attitudes with lesser known brands. In such cases, we suggest that individuals may consider the brand as socially distant. In such situations, exposure to the brand’s ethically ambiguous practice would lead to heavy reliance on the impression the brand makes through its messaging. Therefore, the question at hand is what types of communication tactics would influence atti- tudes toward the brand and hence influence judgments of punishment in the eyes of the consumers.

Prior literature has shown that the greater the social distance between speakers, when one of them has morally

42 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

transgressed, the more morally wrong the transgression is perceived to be (Eyal et al. 2008). This harsher judgment is due to the difference in the aspect of a situation on which one focuses. Specifically, people tend to interpret socially distant situations based on abstract moral principles instead of nuances of the specific situation at hand (Eyal et  al. 2008). Because it is more difficult to imagine or predict how socially distantly others will behave (Eyal et al. 2008), people retain the essential meaning of a transgression (e.g., stealing should generally be punished) and neglect the spe- cifics of the particular transgression (e.g., a parent stole to feed his or her starving child). It therefore follows that polite speech that increases social distance (i.e., the use of imper- sonal communication tactics) should increase the desire to see the offender punished in an ethically ambiguous situa- tion. Likewise, less polite speech that reduces social distance between speakers (i.e., personal communication tactics) should decrease the desire to punish in the same situation. If this is the case, the tactics that brands tend to use (i.e., impersonal communication tactics that are generally con- sidered politer) may actually hurt consumer perceptions of a brand whose ethically ambiguous business practices are publicized.

Politeness and Justice

Of relevance to the current work is one component of inter- actional justice: interpersonal justice, which refers to how people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by those with authority or those involved in determining an outcome (Bies and Moag 1986; Bies and Shapiro 1987; Greenberg 1993). Although an outcome may be perceived as fair (i.e., distributive justice), individuals may still feel they are treated unfairly (i.e., interactional injustice; Bies and Shapiro 1987). Interactional justice is more valuable to a brand than other types of justice, particularly in mollifying consumers after a complaint (Blodgett et al. 1997). Indeed, higher perceptions of interactional justice have been shown to increase customer satisfaction (Goodwin and Ross 1992; Kau and Loh 2006) and decrease negative word-of-mouth (Blodgett and Tax 1993). Importantly, when interactional justice is violated, there are negative impacts in the form of a desire to see a transgressor punished. For example, if a sub- ordinate in the workplace perceives interactional injustice, he or she will resent his or her supervisor or the institution and will seek to retaliate (Aryee et al. 2007). In such a situa- tion, retaliation occurs because there is a specific entity (i.e., the supervisor or the institution) to blame. When individuals believe an entity deliberately acted unfairly, they believe that it is deserving of punishment (Folger et al. 2005). These examples suggest that interpersonal acts impact individuals’ perceptions of justice and desire to punish those who are to blame. In the present context, a brand is a clearly defined

entity, and brand communication is a clearly defined act. Therefore, perceptions of unfairness may translate to nega- tive attitudes toward the brand (i.e., a desire to punish the brand).

Indeed, the predictions of politeness on consumers’ neg- ative attitudes toward a brand are not so straightforward. Importantly, perceptions of interactional justice and morality are often orthogonal, such that justice concerns are not nec- essarily moral concerns (Folger et al. 2005). For instance, injustices are perceived in varying degrees (Gilliland et al. 1998). For example, an employee who is terminated and receives a generous severance package but is also escorted off the premises may view the entire process as unfair (but not as a violation that is sufficiently serious that it can be deemed immoral) due to the interactional injustice of being escorted away. However, such a situation may rise to a moral transgression if an employee is wrongfully terminated, receives no compensation, and is escorted off the premises. Through these contrasting examples, there is a clear distinc- tion between merely wanting justice and judging immoral- ity. By this logic, an injustice may be perceived as unfair without necessarily being immoral. Similarly, a misfortunate situation in which all involved are blameless can be judged as unfair without rising to the level of immoral (Greenberg 1993). Therefore, it is critical to understand when an injus- tice leads to the desire to see a transgressor punished. Impor- tantly, such judgments are based on prior beliefs surrounding the brand. One belief that addresses when and how people react to such information is the BJW.

Belief in a Just World and Punishment

BJW is the belief that people get what they deserve (Lerner 1980). In general, when we encounter an injustice, BJW motivates us either to punish a victimizer or, if this is not possible, to blame the victim of an injustice (Lerner 1980). BJW can be measured as a consistent individual difference and is positively correlated with conservative social atti- tudes, deference to authority, and conformity to social norms (Rubin and Peplau 1975). The basic human value of con- formity is defined as the protection of order and harmony in relations (Schwartz 1992). This value, in which politeness is an intrinsic component, is also positively correlated with BJW (Feather 1991). The relationship between wrongdoing and punishment is predictable for those high in BJW: They are more likely to punish those who violate social norms (Zhu et al. 2012). Those high in BJW are more likely to strive for justice as an end in itself. BJW can be viewed as a kind of personal contract; the more people wish to be treated justly by others, the more they feel obligated to behave justly themselves (Lerner 1980).

Although those high in BJW strive for justice and tend to punish those who violate social norms, they tend to perceive

43Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

interactions to have a greater sense of interactional justice than those low in BJW. For example, pupils with a high BJW evaluate their grades and the attitudes of their teach- ers and parents toward them as just (Correia and Dalbert 2007; Dalbert and Stoeber 2006). Likewise, prisoners who are high in BJW believe that their legal proceedings and their treatment by corrections officers are more just than those low in BJW (Dalbert and Filke 2007). Importantly, those low in BJW are more sensitive to interactional justice (Lipkus 1992). Specifically, those low in BJW perceive oth- ers as more motivated by self-interest and believe that people often exploit others to their advantage, particularly those of higher power and status (Lipkus 1992). Thus, those low in BJW are more cautious of the actions of those in high-power positions (Lipkus 1992). Such caution and lowered sense of trust of others may lead those low in BJW to behave in ways hostile to such others relative to those high in BJW (Nudel- man 2013). On the other hand, those high in BJW are also more likely than those low in BJW to positively evaluate others who are more powerful than themselves (Rubin and Peplau 1975). Indeed, those high in BJW associate higher status with positive characteristics to a greater extent than individuals low in BJW (Dion and Dion 1987).

Because those low in BJW are more sensitive to inter- actional justice concerns and tend to be wary of those with high power or status, we expect that those low in BJW will be more attuned to communication tactics and therefore have more negative attitudes on how polite brand communica- tion is than those high in BJW. Specifically, we predict that those low in BJW will harbor more negative attitudes toward ethically ambiguous brands that communicate with politer (impersonal) communication tactics, as they may view such tactics as a self-serving means to deflect immoral behaviors (i.e., to save face). We expect that those high in BJW are more likely to believe that others will behave in an interac- tionally just way. Further, if those high in BJW believe that a brand fails to be just, they may believe that the brand will compensate through other means that promote interactional justice (e.g., communicate politely). Because they are less sensitive to violations of interactional justice, those high in BJW may deem brands that communicate with impersonal or personal communication tactics to be polite. Therefore, we expect the effects to be attenuated for those high in BJW. Formally,

H1 There is a significant interaction of consumer just world beliefs and advertising language politeness on nega- tive brand attitudes such that consumers with low BJW are more likely to harbor negative attitudes toward a brand for ambiguous business practices when the advertising language is more polite (i.e., uses impersonal communication tactics) than when it is less polite (i.e., uses personal communication

tactics). However, this effect is attenuated for consumers with high BJW.

Next, we seek to examine the underlying process that would influence a consumer to harbor negative attitudes toward a brand. We turn to the concept of trust, as it is an important component of decision-making in situations related to morality and ethics (Turner and Valentine 2001). Specifically, we examine the role of brand trust as the media- tor of communication tactics’ and BJW’s effects on negative attitudes. In the next section, we develop the argument for why brand trust—in particular, the violation of such trust— would spur certain consumers to harbor negative attitudes toward a brand.

Brand Trust

Trust is the belief that others’ motives will be beneficial to one’s own interests (Robinson 1996; Turner and Valentine 2001). Trust (or distrust) is expectancy in nature, reflecting the extent to which an individual believes that another entity can be relied on (Rotter 1980; Stack 1978). Brand trust is the ability of a brand to elicit trust from consumers (Chaud- huri and Holbrook 2001) and is a key mediating variable in building relationships with customers (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Specifically, shared values, such as a sense of what is right or appropriate and what is wrong or inappropriate, are positively related to trust, which in turn is positively related to relationship commitment (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Fur- thermore, trusting consumers are often motivated by a desire to reward trustworthy brands (Helm 2004). However, brands that violate consumers’ sense of trust may motivate such consumers to want to punish such untrustworthy brands (Helm 2004). In particular, a brand that communicates in a way that violates such sense of trust may spur those with low BJW to become more disillusioned and critical. In other words, when a brand communicates with impersonal com- munication tactics under conditions of potentially negative publicity, those with low BJW may view such tactics as self- serving. Although those with low BJW are less motivated than those with high BJW to act to correct an injustice, they tend to behave in a more hostile manner towards those they trust less than those high in BJW (Nudelman 2013). Specifi- cally, consumers with low BJW may be hostile to a brand that facilitates those feelings by harboring negative attitudes toward the brand. Therefore, we predict that those who are most prone to being critical (i.e., those with low BJW) who view an advertisement with impersonal communication tac- tics (interpreted as inappropriately polite) are more likely to harbor negative attitudes toward a brand because they trust the brand less. Formally,

44 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

H2 Brand trust mediates the interaction between consumer just world beliefs and advertising language politeness on negative brand attitudes. Specifically, consumers with low BJW (but not consumers with high BJW) who view a more (vs. less) polite advertisement will trust the brand less and subsequently will harbor more negative attitudes toward the brand.

Overview of Studies

In the following three studies, we demonstrate that the politeness of the language used in advertising can bring about different consumer reactions toward a brand. Specifi- cally, we examine consumer reactions to unethical business practices, such as harboring negative attitudes and making moral judgments. Our main prediction is that consumers low in BJW will be more inclined to question a polite brand’s intentions and will ultimately harbor negative attitudes (i.e., want harsher punishments) toward the brand. In the first study, we ask consumers to consider an ethically ambiguous brand practice and then expose them to an advertisement in which communication tactics (i.e., impersonal or personal) are varied. Based on our theorizing, we also explore the key moderator of BJW and the underlying mechanism of trust toward the brand. Specifically, in Study 1, we test whether individuals’ expectations that an insurance brand with poten- tially unethical business practices will be punished more severely are dependent on their reported BJW and the polite- ness of the language used in its advertising. In Study 2, we replicate and extend our findings from Study 1 using a dif- ferent measure of negative attitude and by adopting similar communication tactics for advertising in a different product category (coffee). Lastly, in Study 3, we identify the underly- ing process of the observed effect by manipulating BJW and adopting communication tactics in advertising for a clothing brand. Specifically, we find that brand trust mediates the observed effect.

Study 1

The objective of Study 1 was to evaluate whether consumers would change their attitudes toward a brand based on the communication tactics employed in its advertising copy. We hypothesized that individuals with a low BJW would doubt a brand adopting an impersonal communication tactic in its advertising and would thus want to penalize the brand. This effect would not exist for individuals with a high BJW, as they would consider any communication tactic in advertising as befitting a brand that has engaged in a questionable ethical practice. In this study, we operationalize negative attitudes in the form of how much consumers expect the brand to be fined for its behavior.

Design and Participants

Participants (N = 423; 54.1% female; Mage = 35.60) were recruited on an online panel to participate in a survey on an insurance brand. Participants were provided monetary compensation for participating in the survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (com- munication tactic: impersonal vs. personal vs. control) in a between-subjects experiment. A fictitious insurance brand named Aviator was used for this study. Participants were first asked to review an advertisement of the fictitious insurance company with a tagline that varied depending on the type of communication tactic. Three pre-tests were conducted for this study.

Pre‑test: Politeness in Ad Copy

Two pre-tests were conducted to finalize the manipulation of politeness for this study. We specifically wanted to test communication tactics in a social vacuum to show how tac- tics typically viewed as more or less polite might be modu- lated in a specific social context by different types of people. Previous research has shown that personal communication tactics are considered less polite in general than impersonal communication tactics (Holtgraves and Joong-Nam 1990). According to Brown and Levinson, the use of contractions is a personal communication tactic. Contractions represent in-group language, which is designed to show solidarity with the hearer, while using more formal and grammati- cally correct language is an impersonal communication tac- tic designed to show deference (Brown and Levinson 1987). Eight sets of taglines were created for the fictitious brand of insurance, Aviator, and then varied on politeness using different impersonal and personal communication tactics. The first pre-test (n = 414; 59.2% female; Mage = 36.20) captured the communication tactics used in each of the cre- ated taglines. Participants were first asked to review one of the 16 statements and to rate how polite the statement was on a 7-point Likert scale (anchored: 1 = extremely impolite; 7 = extremely polite; adapted from Holtgraves and Joong- Nam 1990; Stephan et al. 2010). The perceived politeness of each tagline is reported in Appendix A.

Of the tactics tested, the ones used in the two taglines that were adapted for this study were the use of a modal verb that suggests hedging and pessimism (representative of an impersonal communication tactic; Morand 2000) and the use of a modal negation that suggests pre-supposition of concern for the hearer (representative of a personal commu- nication tactic; Brown and Levinson 1987). Three advertise- ments were created using these taglines. The tagline that was selected for the impersonal condition was, “Would you like insurance?” The tagline that was selected for the personal condition was, “Wouldn’t you like insurance?” In the control

45Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

condition, no tagline was used. A second pre-test (n = 95; 44.2% female; Mage = 34.87) was conducted to ensure that the advertisements created captured the intended level of perceived politeness. The results confirmed that the polite- ness manipulation was effective for both the impersonal (Mimpersonal= 6.10, SD = 1.10; Mcontrol = 5.45, SD = 1.45; t(60.92) = 2.07, p < 0.05) and the personal (Mpersonal= 4.52, SD = 1.45; Mcontrol = 5.45, SD = 1.45; t(60.79) = 2.66, p < 0.01) condition. Hence, these advertisements were used as the politeness manipulations for this study (Appendix B).

Pre‑test: Ethicality of Business Practice

We wanted to identify an ambiguous business practice with which Aviator could be associated. Sundar and Kellaris (2015) noted that many common practices are ambiguous and can be accepted as more or less ethical (Dubinsky and Levy 1985). Our rationale was to adopt a statement that is ambiguous, so the participants would base their expected punishment on their perception of the brand and what it deserved rather than on an absolute moral judgment of the practice itself. We therefore ran a pre-test in which the fic- titious brand Aviator was described as having taken part in different business practices. Ten statements describing insurance practices were adapted from the Better Business Bureau website on insurance brands, which allows consum- ers to document their grievances with a brand. To deter- mine whether the practice used in the study was perceived as ethical or unethical, we conducted a pre-test (n = 292; 54.1% female; Mage = 37.40). We wanted to select a practice that was rated at the median of the scale to represent an ethically ambiguous practice. In this pre-test, participants were asked to review one of the 10 practices that Aviator ostensibly used and then rate the ethicality of the practice. Results of the pre- test are presented in Appendix D. The ambiguous practice that was selected for this study read, “Aviator hires women who work in cooperatives; however, these women are some- times homeless people who don’t pay their taxes” (pre-tested M = 4.28; SD = 1.73).

Procedures and Measures

Each participant viewed an ad with a tagline that corre- sponded to his or her randomly assigned condition. Then, he or she was presented with the statement that described Avia- tor’s business practice, as described in the pre-test. Partici- pants were told that a fine was to be levied for the company’s misconduct and were asked to indicate what this fine should be (in the range between $0 and $500,000; this measure was modified from previous research in which consumers levied fines for brand misconduct, e.g., Ashton-James and Tracy 2012; Rosenblatt et al. 1989). Following this, par- ticipants were asked to fill out a 16-item scale measure of

BJW (Rubin and Peplau 1973). Then, manipulation checks of politeness were captured as in the pre-test. Finally, par- ticipants were asked to provide demographic information.

Results

Manipulation Check: Politeness in Ad Copy

An analysis of perceived politeness in the advertisement worked as intended (F(1, 420) = 7.98, p < 0.001), with the more personal tagline (M = 4.82, SD = 1.37) being seen as less polite that the control (M = 5.15, SD = 1.31; F(1, 420) = 4.25, p < 0.05), which was in turn seen as less polite than the impersonal tagline (M = 5.44, SD = 1.23, F(1, 420) = 3.66, p < 0.05).

Fine Levied

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with the com- munication tactic used in the ad copy (coded: − 1 = per- sonal, 0 = control; 1 = impersonal), the composite score of BJW (a = 0.89), and the product of the two as predictors of fines indicated by the participants (Mfine = $51,131.26; SD = 115,181.63). Outliers (21 responses) at two stand- ard deviations (i.e., fines greater than $281,494.53) were removed from the analysis. The analysis yielded a signifi- cant model (F(3, 398) = 3.63, p < 0.05, r = 0.16) such that the individual effect of communication tactic (b = 37286.88, SE = 13128.77, p < 0.005) was significant, and the effect of BJW (b = 4771.10, SE = 2765.40, p = 0.08) was marginal. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between communication tactic and BJW (b = 9140.85, SE = 3404.88, p < 0.01). A follow-up spotlight analysis conducted per Krishna (2016) revealed that when BJW (coded: 1 = high BJW; 0 = low BJW) was high (+ 1 SD), the fine did not vary significantly between the two communication tactics (p = 0.85). Specifically, the fine levied in the impersonal (politer) condition (M = $35,176.94, SD = 12,702.97, n = 20) did not vary from that in the control (M = $44,043.04, SD = 79,369.01, n = 23; p = 0.62) or the personal (less polite) condition (M = $36,529.27, SD = 67,565.91, n = 18; p = 0.75). However, it was only when the BJW was low (–1 SD) that the fine levied varied based on the communication tactic (F(2, 398) = 5.36, p < 0.005). The nature of the inter- action was such that the fine was higher for the impersonal condition (M = $59,665.00, SD = 106,985.99, n = 17) in comparison to the control (M = $6,445.00, SD = 12,151.85, n = 24, F(1, 398) = 5.89, p < 0.05) or the personal condition (M = $7,613.56., SD = 20,539.63, n = 23; F(1, 398) = 5.23, p < 0.05). There was, however, no significant difference between the personal condition and the control (p = 0.81). Critically, this result was not predicated on differences in explicit morality judgments, as the effect of the interaction

46 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

between communication tactic and BJW on morality judg- ments was not significant (p = 0.91).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the communication tactic in an advertisement can indeed cause different levels of negative attitudes toward a brand’s ambiguous manufac- turing practices depending on the consumers’ BJW. Indi- viduals high in BJW showed no significant difference in the fines as a measure of negative attitudes between two advertisements with varied communication tactics. How- ever, individuals with low BJW levied higher fines for a brand’s practices when the brand used an impersonal com- munication tactic (i.e., going to) than when it used a personal communication tactic (i.e., gonna). In other words, when an impersonal communication tactic is used (i.e., one generally deemed politer), greater social distance is established; there- fore, those low in BJW are more likely to harbor negative attitudes toward a brand with ethically ambiguous practices. Thus, our hypothesis that consumers would penalize brands differently based on the communication tactic used in an advertisement was supported.

It seems plausible that when individuals believe that people get what they deserve, their negative attitudes are diminished. By the same token, individuals who do not hold such beliefs (i.e., low BJW) probably view the advertise- ment with impersonal communication tactics as an attempt at misleading consumers. As previously mentioned, those high in BJW are more likely to want to punish those who violate social norms. Those low in BJW, on the other hand, are less likely to want to punish, but they tend to be more susceptible to changes in the psychological distance between themselves and the brand. Specifically, when impersonal communication tactics are used, and thus greater social dis- tance is created, those low in BJW are more likely to want to punish. Thus, our hypothesis that consumers would penalize brands differently based on the communication tactics used in advertising copy was supported. As expected, we found that individuals with varying levels of BJW reacted differ- ently to a brand with questionable business practices based on the type of communication tactic used in its advertising language. Further, even though the effects of both communi- cation tactic and BJW on negative attitudes were small, these two variables are of interest, as they could be reasonably easy to incorporate into advertising copy. Importantly, and based on Cohen’s (1988) rule of thumb, the results of this study indicate a small effect size. Specifically, the effect size of politeness was small (partial eta-square score = 0.032), as was that of BJW (partial eta-square = 0.062). However, small effect sizes do not preclude interest in the phenom- enon observed: These variables are of importance theoreti- cally because language concerns (including communication

tactics) are a central component of branding, and brands should understand how consumers perceive their commu- nications. Prior research has shown that small modulations in communication tactics in brand communication, such as using we vs. you and I, can influence consumers’ inferences of the brand’s trustworthiness as well as their satisfaction with the brand and their purchase intentions (Packard et al. 2018; Sela et al. 2012). Additionally, BJW is an important individual and situational difference variable in business eth- ics, as it is a predictor of how people globally view justice concerns. Managerially, politeness can thus be more stra- tegically employed in brand communication to help sway consumers’ judgments and decision-making. Additionally, brands may be able to target their messages to specific audi- ences. Indeed, BJW is associated with other characteristics, such as conservative social attitudes (Rubin and Peplau 1975), and can thus be reflective of important demographic variables (e.g., political affiliation). Therefore, it is impor- tant to examine how the communication tactics that brands employ may also impact consumers’ negative attitudes and downstream punishment behavior, particularly based on con- sumers’ BJW. Because these variables are of both theoretical and managerial importance, we conducted a second study to replicate hypothesis 1 for a different product category: coffee.

Study 2

In this study, we aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 by manipulating BJW rather than just measuring it. As before, our prediction was that only for those individuals who were primed to have a low BJW would the variation in communication tactic matter. We expected that participants primed to have a lower BJW would hold greater negative attitudes toward a brand when presented with a tagline using an impersonal (vs. personal) communication tactic in the advertisement.

Design and Participants

Participants (N = 300; 52.7% female; Mage = 36.31) were recruited in an online panel to participate in a survey about a coffee brand. Participants were provided monetary com- pensation for participating in the survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 3 (communi- cation tactic: impersonal vs. personal vs. control) × 2 (BJW: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment. The fictitious brand selected was a coffee brand called Jaunt. Like in Study 1, we asked participants to first review an advertisement of the fictitious coffee brand with a tagline that varied depend- ing on the communication tactic. Three pre-tests were con- ducted for this study.

47Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

Pre‑test: Politeness in Ad Copy

Two pre-tests were conducted to finalize the manipulation of politeness in this study. Eight sets of taglines were cre- ated for the fictitious coffee brand Jaunt and then varied on the two levels of politeness using different communication tactics. A pre-test (n = 368; 63.3% female; Mage = 37.59) was conducted to evaluate the level of politeness of each of the 16 taglines created, using the same measure as described earlier in Study 1. The perceived politeness of each tagline is presented in Appendix D.

Of the tactics tested, the two that were adapted for the taglines in this study contrasted on contractions, with the absence of contractions signifying an impersonal commu- nication tactic and the presence of contractions signifying a personal communication tactic (Brown and Levinson 1987; Morand 2000). Three advertisements were created using these taglines. The tagline that was selected for the impersonal condition was, “Are you going to have a cup of coffee?” The tagline that was selected for the personal condition was, “Gonna have a cup of coffee?” In the control condition, no tagline was used. A second pre-test (n = 99; 61.6% female; Mage = 34.62) was conducted to ensure that the advertisements created captured the intended level of perceived politeness. After viewing the ad with the tagline, participants rated the perceived politeness of the ad. The results confirmed that the politeness manipulation was effec- tive for both the impersonal (Mimpersonal= 5.82, SD = 1.18; Mcontrol = 5.25, SD = 1.04; t(62.47) = 2.05, p < 0.05) and the personal (Mpersonal= 4.68, SD = 1.19; Mcontrol = 5.25, SD = 1.04; t(63.65) = 2.07, p < 0.05) condition. Hence these advertisements were used as the politeness manipulations for this study (see Appendix E).

Pre‑test: Ethicality of Business Practice

Like in the previous study, a number of ethically ambigu- ous coffee practices were pre-tested. To determine whether a practice was perceived as ethical or unethical, 10 state- ments describing Jaunt’s business practices were pre-tested (n = 330; 60.9% female; Mage = 35.82). Again, we wanted to select a practice that was rated at the median of the scale to represent an ethically ambiguous practice. In this pre-test, participants were asked to review one of the 10 practices that Jaunt ostensibly used and then rate the ethicality of the practice. Results of the pre-test are presented in Appendix F. The ambiguous practice that was selected for this study read, “Jaunt donates coffee trees to local farmers, but they do not ensure that the trees are disease-resistant” (pre-tested M = 3.74; SD = 1.87).

Procedures and Measures

After providing consent, participants were told that they were to write a short essay to evaluate their grammar. The participants assigned to the low- (high-) BJW condition were asked to remember an event in which they felt that the world was un(just). They were then asked to write an essay to explain to us how the world was (un)fair and (un)just. We asked them to draw from their personal experience and elaborate on their arguments. This manipulation was adopted from past literature (Wilson and Darke 2012).

Once the BJW manipulation was complete, participants were asked to review an advertisement for a coffee brand called Jaunt. The ad consisted of a mascot and a tagline that addressed the viewer. Participants were randomly assigned to view an ad with a tagline varying depending on the type of communication tactic. Then, participants were asked to consider a practice that Jaunt was responsible for and to indicate how much they agreed with the statement, “I feel that Jaunt did something morally wrong” (anchored: 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; adapted from Cheng et  al. 2013). Then, they were asked to “Rate the degree of punishment for such behavior” (anchored: 1 = leni- ent; 7 = severe; adapted from Cheng et al. 2013). Following this, manipulation checks of politeness similar to those in the pre-test were captured. Then, we captured two measures as manipulation checks of BJW by asking participants to rate the extent to which they agreed that the world was a fair/just place (anchored: 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Finally, participants were asked to provide demographic information and thanked for their participation in the survey.

Results

Manipulation Check: BJW Manipulation

A composite score of the three-item measures of BJW was created. An analysis of the composite score (r = 0.86) as a function of levels of politeness and BJW indicated that the manipulation worked as intended (F(1, 294) = 18.84, p < 0.001; η2 = 0.060), such that participants primed to have a high BJW indicated higher BJW (M = 4.66, SD = 1.37) than participants primed to have a low BJW (M = 3.94, SD = 1.47). Importantly, no other effects were significant (p = 0.41).

Manipulation Check: Politeness in Ad Copy

An analysis of perceived politeness in the advertisement as a function of type of communication tactic used and BJW indicated that the manipulation worked as intended (F(2, 294) = 11.17, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.071), with individuals in the impersonal condition rating the advertisement as politer

48 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

(M = 5.05, SD = 1.25) than those in the control (M = 4.70, SD = 1.21; F(1, 294) = 4.02; p < 0.05), and the individuals in the personal condition rating the advertisement as less polite (M = 4.30, SD = 0.88) than those in the control (F(1, 294) = 7.12; p < 0.01). Importantly, no other effects were significant (p = 0.14).

Punishment and Morality Judgments

An analysis of variance of the measure of punishment judg- ments as a result of type of communication tactic and BJW indicated that there was a main effect of communication tactic (F(2, 294) = 3.72, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.025) and a signifi- cant effect of BJW (F(1, 294) = 3.75, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.013) on severity of punishment judgments. Importantly, there was a significant interaction between communication tactic and BJW (F(2, 294) = 3.79, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.025). Follow- up analyses revealed that for those individuals primed to believe that the world was just (i.e., high BJW), the pun- ishment judgments did not vary significantly among the three ads (p = 0.69). Specifically, the impersonal (politer) condition (M = 3.80, SD = 1.76) did not vary from the con- trol (M = 3.56, SD = 1.84, p = 0.50), which in turn did not vary from the personal (less polite) condition (M = 3.84, SD = 1.95, p = 0.45). However, it was only when they were primed to believe that the world was unjust (i.e., low BJW) that participants increased the severity of their punishment judgments when they viewed the impersonal ad (M = 4.84, SD = 1.62) relative to the control (M = 4.06, SD = 1.62; F(1, 294) = 5.73, p < 0.05) or the personal ad (M = 3.50, SD = 1.86, F(1, 294) = 14.58, p < 0.001). The punishment judgments dealt when the ad was personal did not vary from the control (p = 0.11). This result was despite the fact that the effect of the interaction between communication tactic and BJW on morality judgments was not significant (p = 0.78).

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 using a different fictitious brand, business practice, and dependent measure (i.e., punishment ratings). Importantly, we were able to obtain the same results by manipulating BJW. The main find- ing was that the communication tactic used in advertising language can indeed cause different punishment levels for a brand’s ethically ambiguous business practices depending on what consumers are led to believe. It seems plausible that when individuals have a higher BJW, they are motivated to find a reason to trust the brand. An advertisement that uses language that promotes deference and respect (i.e., imper- sonal communication tactics) would therefore reinforce trust in the brand. Past research indicates that when trust in a brand is high, the brand is rewarded by consumers (Sundar et al. 2015). By the same token, we propose that greater trust

in a brand causes such individuals to be more forgiving of the brand. Due to their distrust of the brand, individuals who do not hold such beliefs probably view advertising copy with impersonal communication tactics as an attempt to mislead consumers. To investigate why those with high vs. low BJW have different perceptions of politeness in advertising lan- guage, we conducted one more study to explicitly test the role of brand trust as the underlying process.

Study 3

The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of trust in a brand as it influences the observed brand condemnation by consumers. In this study, we first wanted to replicate the findings of the previous studies. Secondly, per our theoriz- ing, we wanted to evaluate the role of trust (or a lack of trust) in a brand as an underlying driver of intentions to forgive (or punish) a brand with ethically ambiguous business practices.

Design and Participants

Participants (N = 534; 50.7% female; Mage = 37.1) were recruited on an online panel to participate in a survey on an existing brand. Participants were provided monetary com- pensation for participating in the survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: impersonal vs. personal. Given that the previous studies indicated that the effects in the control condition were similar to those in the personal condition, we only retained the personal condition in the politeness manipulation. A fictitious apparel brand, CJ, was used in this study. As before, three pre-tests were conducted for this study.

Pre‑test: Politeness in Ad Copy

Two pre-tests were conducted to finalize the manipulation of politeness in this study. Eight sets of taglines were created for the fictitious apparel brand CJ and varied on two levels of politeness using different communication tactics. The first pre-test (n = 399; 61.2% female; Mage = 35.92) captured the perceived politeness of each of the 16 taglines created, using the same measure as described in Studies 1 and 2. The per- ceived politeness of each tagline is presented in Appendix G.

Of the tactics tested, the two that were adapted for tag- lines in this study contrasted in the title used to address the audience, a common way to incorporate impersonal or per- sonal communication tactics (Brown and Levinson 1987; Morand 2000). The tagline selected for the impersonal com- munication tactic condition used honorific language (sir) in addressing the viewer. The tagline selected for the personal communication tactic condition used intimate language (dude) in addressing the viewer. A second pre-test (n = 63;

49Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

50.8% female; Mage = 37.03) was conducted to ensure that the advertisements created captured the intended level of perceived politeness (Mimpersonal= 5.88, SD = 1.31; Mpersonal= 4.57, SD = 1.45, t(58.75) = 3.74, p < 0.01). Hence, these advertisements were used as the politeness manipulations for this study (Appendix H).

Pre‑test: Ethicality of Business Practice

Ten business practices were created from complaints on consumer blog sites. As in Studies 1 and 2, we conducted a pre-test to determine whether the practice used in the study was ethically ambiguous (n = 309; 41.4% female; Mage = 34.27). Again, we wanted to select a practice that was rated at the median of the scale to represent an ethically ambig- uous practice. In this pre-test, participants were asked to review one of the 10 practices framed as CJ’s practices and rate them on ethical perception. Results of the pre-test are presented in Appendix I. The ambiguous practice selected for this study read, “CJ was recently in the news. The press report stated that CJ purchases clothes from manufacturers that do not use child labor; however, the manufacturers do not provide health care benefits to their employees” (pre- tested M = 3.93, SD = 1.34).

Procedures and Measures

After providing consent, participants viewed an ad with a tagline that corresponded to their randomly assigned con- dition. Then, they were presented with the statement that described CJ’s business practices. Participants were asked to rate the morality and punishment judgments of CJ’s practice as described in Study 2. Then, as in Study 1, participants were asked to fill out the 16-item scale measure of BJW (Rubin and Peplau 1973). Following this, brand trust was captured using three items: “I trust CJ”; “CJ is an honest brand”; “CJ is a safe brand” (anchored: 1 = strongly disa- gree; 7 = strongly agree; adapted from Chaudhuri and Hol- brook 2001). The manipulation checks of politeness as used in Studies 1 and 2 were captured. Finally, participants were asked to provide demographic information.

Results

Manipulation Check: Politeness in Ad Copy

An analysis of perceived politeness in the advertisement worked as intended (Mimpersonal= 4.83, SD = 1.60; Mpersonal= 4.20, SD = 1.78; t(532) = 4.31; p < 0.001).

Punishment and Morality Judgments

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with the com- munication tactic used in the ad copy (coded: − 1 = personal, 1 = impersonal), the composite score of BJW (a = 0.90), and the product of the two as predictors of punishment judgments. The analysis yielded a significant model (F(3, 530) = 13.78, p < 0.01, r = 0.26) such that the individual effects of communication tactic (b = 0.97, SE = 0.26, p < 0.01) and BJW (b = 0.31, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01) were significant. Importantly, there was a significant interac- tion between communication tactic and BJW (b = 0.20, SE = 0.06, p < 0.005). In a follow-up spotlight analysis con- ducted per Krishna (2016) when BJW (coded: 1 = high BJW; 0 = low BJW) was high (+ 1 SD; n = 76), the punishment judgments did not vary significantly between the two lev- els of politeness (p = 0.94). However, those with low BJW (–1 SD) increased the severity of punishment judgments if they viewed the ad copy with an impersonal (politer) tac- tic (M = 4.31, SD = 1.78, n = 32) compared to those who viewed the ad with a personal (less polite) tactic (M = 3.27, SD = 1.42, n = 36; F(1, 530) = 6.65, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.045). Importantly, this result was despite the fact that the effect of the interaction between communication tactic and BJW on morality judgments was not significant (p = 0.26).

Brand Trust

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with the communication tactic used in the ad copy, the composite score of BJW, and the product of the two as predictors of trust in the brand (a = 0.88). The analysis yielded a signifi- cant model (F(3, 530) = 16.52, p < 0.01, r = 0.29) such that the individual effects of communication tactic (b = 0.53, SE = 0.20, p < 0.001) and BJW (b = 0.30, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01) were significant. Importantly, there was a significant inter- action between communication tactic and BJW (b = 0.09, SE = 0.05, p = 0.08). A follow-up spotlight analysis con- ducted similarly to that for punishment judgments indicated that individuals with high BJW (+ 1 SD) were not affected by the politeness in the ad (p = 0.12). However, those with low BJW (–1 SD) trusted the brand less when viewing the ad with an impersonal communication tactic (M = 2.45, SD = 1.13, n = 36) than when viewing the ad with a per- sonal communication tactic (M = 3.25, SD = 1.21, n = 32; F(1, 530) = 4.99, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.034).

Mediation Analysis

To determine whether trust accounted for the effect of communication tactic on the punishment judgments dealt to CJ, we conducted a mediation analysis with BJW as a continuous moderator (Hayes 2012; Model 5; bootstrapped

50 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

with 5,000 draws). The analysis revealed that the trust in the brand mediated the effect of communication tactic on the level of punishment judgments imposed. The nature of the mediation was such that trust mediated the effect of the communication tactic used in the ad tagline at low levels of BJW (95% CI = [–1.42, –0.68]) and at the mean level (95% CI = [–0.80, –0.27]), but not at high levels of BJW (95% CI = [–0.38, 0.35]). See Fig. 1.

Discussion

The results of this study replicated the findings of Study 1 and 2, indicating that when BJW is low, individuals base their judgments of punishment on the communication tactic used in the brand’s advertisement. Importantly, this study revealed that trust in the brand, especially when little about the brand is known (i.e., in the case of a fictitious brand), drives the level of punishment individuals think the brand deserves. When BJW is low, and when presented with ad copy language employing an impersonal (versus personal) communication tactic (i.e., addressing consumers as sir vs. dude), individuals seem to indicate lower trust in the brand, ultimately resulting in more negative attitudes, which they believe the brand deserves. Importantly, this study indicates that the main effect of communication tactic on negative attitudes that we saw in Studies 1 and 2 was also a result of trust in the brand.

General Discussion

Across the three studies, we found that the communication tactics used in advertising for a brand with ethically ambigu- ous business practices as well as consumers’ individual BJW impact consumers’ negative attitudes toward the brand. In the first two studies (Study 1 and Study 2), we demonstrated the importance of politeness in ad copy language and how it can impact consumers’ negative attitudes (but not moral judgments) toward a brand with an ambiguous  business practice. We found that individuals differentially want to punish a brand for its practices depending on the communi- cation tactic used in the brand’s ad copy and the individual’s

BJW. Study 1 showed that when an ad copy for an insur- ance brand incorporated an impersonal communication tac- tic (i.e., would), individuals with low BJW indicated higher levels of negative attitudes (e.g., a higher fine as a penalty) compared to the case when the ad copy incorporated a per- sonal communication tactic (i.e., wouldn’t). For the indi- viduals with high BJW, this difference was not significant. In Study 2, we replicated the result of Study 1 with another brand category (i.e., coffee), a different measure of negative attitudes (i.e., intentions to punish), a different communi- cation tactic (i.e., going to vs. gonna), and a manipulation of BJW instead of a scale measure. Specifically, we found that only the individuals with low BJW were more likely to harbor negative attitudes toward the brand when the ad copy incorporated an impersonal communication tactic (i.e., going to) compared to when the ad copy incorporated a per- sonal communication tactic (i.e., gonna). Again, those with higher BJW did not show a difference in negative attitudes. Lastly, in Study 3, we found further support for hypothesis 1 with a different brand category (i.e., clothing) and commu- nication tactic (i.e., sir vs. dude). Further, we found support for our mediation hypothesis (hypothesis 2), that brand trust is the process underlying these effects.

Theoretical Contribution

Early work on politeness theory states that politer speech can be a signal of greater social distance and social status (Brown and Levinson 1987). However, past research has shown that politeness can also cause the opposite effect, as generally polite language can be decoded differently depend- ing on the context (Locher 2004; Mills 2003; Watts 2003). Our judgment of a speaker’s intention regarding polite speech can vary greatly based upon the context (Haugh 2010). If a speaker is overly polite given the context, it can cause us to question the speaker’s motive (Haugh 2015). In the present research, we examined the role of politeness on negative attitudes toward a brand, specifically in the form of judgments of and desire to punish the brand. While prior research has suggested that what is deemed polite is based on contextual factors (Culpeper et al. 2003; Locher 2004; Mills 2003; Watts 2003), we extend such theorizing

Fig. 1 Moderated mediation (Hayes 2012; Model 5)

51Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

in several ways. First, we extend the politeness literature by showing how brand communication, through the use of different communication tactics reflecting different levels of politeness, can lead to punishment judgments for socially distant brands (i.e., unfamiliar brands) with ethically ambig- uous business practices. While prior work has suggested that politeness may be useful in evaluations of morality (Eelen 2014), we find that when actual information about ethical business practices are ambiguous, the communication tactic used in business communication can sway consumers’ per- ceptions of the brand and subsequent desire to see the brand face punishment. Second, we examine politeness through the lens of interpersonal justice in order to further under- stand how perceptions of the brand are inferred through communication tactics. Interpersonal justice refers to how people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by those with authority (Bies and Moag 1986; Bies and Shapiro 1987; Greenberg 1993). This facet of justice is particularly relevant in consumer contexts when consumers are dissat- isfied with a brand (Blodgett et al. 1997). Specifically, we theorize and find that those who are particularly attuned to interpersonal justice (i.e., those with low BJW) are more attuned to differences in brands’ communication tactics and more likely to harbor negative attitudes toward brands that attempt to communicate with tactics that reinforce social distance (i.e., impersonal communication tactics).

Furthermore, we contribute to the literature on the link between politeness and social distance. Specifically, we sug- gest that when a socially distant brand (that is, a brand that is unfamiliar to a consumer) has committed a potentially morally wrong act, it will attempt to compensate by using impersonal communication tactics (i.e., tactics that maintain social distance) in its communications. Because people have expectations of how others communicate, politeness helps them evaluate others’ moral nature (Eelen 2014). Therefore, politeness should be of particular importance when other information to infer morality is ambiguous (i.e., when a brand has ethically ambiguous business practices). Brands may tend to use impersonal communication tactics (i.e., tac- tics that reinforce social distance), since hearers perceive greater distance when speakers use such tactics (Holtgraves and Joong-Nam 1990; Holtgraves and Yang 1992). Greater social distance focuses attention on essential and abstract characteristics (i.e., global evaluations of the brand) instead of contextual details (i.e., recent news about a brand) (Ste- phan et al. 2010). Importantly, we find that such tactics may hurt the brand depending on the consumer’s BJW.

Based on past research on BJW, our findings show that the language used in a brand’s advertising to indicate politeness and thereby maintain a more distant vs. intimate relation- ship with consumers can potentially harm the brand when it behaves in an ethically ambiguous way (i.e., ambiguous business practice reported by media). Although the business

practices were ambiguous in terms of ethical ratings, indi- viduals in our studies consistently showed that they would more likely harbor negative attitudes toward a brand that used politer language (i.e., impersonal communication tac- tics) in its advertising compared to one that used less polite language (i.e., personal communication tactics). Importantly, this difference was only significant when individuals had low BJW. Since BJW is correlated with reactions to wrongdoing and punishment, past research has shown that individuals with high BJW were more likely to want to punish those who violate social norms (Zhu et al. 2012). However, our results show that the influence of the politeness of the language used in advertising was only significant for individuals with low BJW (i.e., those who do not expect justice). These results correspond to prior work showing that those with low BJW believe people often exploit others to their advantage, particularly those of higher power and status (Lipkus 1992). We further theorize that those low in BJW are more attuned to the tactics a brand uses in its communication and will thus react to its unethical business practice differently. Because those low in BJW are more critical of such others, we expect that they view the use of impersonal communication tactics (that emphasize social distance) to be self-serving in main- taining the brand’s face. Indeed, across our three studies, we found that those low in BJW wanted to punish a brand that used politer language (i.e., impersonal communication tactics) more than one that used less polite language (i.e., personal communication tactics). Conversely, those high in BJW believe that the world is just (Lerner 1980) and are less sensitive to variance in interactional justice (Lipkus 1992). Therefore, we theorize that if a brand is behaving in an ethically ambiguous way, those high in BJW will infer that any communication tactic used in brand communication is a means of compensating and maintaining their face with consumers. Indeed, we found that communication tactics did not differentially affect the negative attitudes of those high in BJW.

This work also contributes to the literature on brand trust. Brand trust is based on the expectancies we have of others (Rotter 1980; Stack 1978). Past research has demonstrated that by increasing trust through metacognitive manipula- tions (e.g., fluency), brands could be rewarded (Sundar et al. 2015). In this research, we theorized that politeness (also based on expectations in an interpersonal context) would affect brand trust for those particularly attuned to violations of expectations. Prior work has found that trusting consum- ers want to reward brands perceived as trustworthy and punish brands perceived as untrustworthy (Helm 2004). We extend this literature by examining nuances in brand com- munication and consumer individual differences and find that this prediction is not so straightforward when a brand behaves in an ambiguously untrustworthy way (i.e., ethi- cally ambiguous business practices). Specifically, we find

52 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

that brand trust underlies consumer negative attitudes toward such brands only for consumers that tend to be more criti- cal (i.e., those low in BJW) when brands communicate in socially distancing, polite ways (i.e., using impersonal com- munication tactics).

Managerial Contribution

Aspects of language can shape consumers’ perceptions of brands. Variations in the communication tactics a brand uses in its communications can affect consumers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of a brand (Gretry et al. 2017; Kro- nrod et  al. 2012; Packard et  al. 2018; Sela et  al. 2012). Importantly, the language brands use may influence con- sumers’ trust of a brand (Gretry et  al. 2017; Sela et  al. 2012). When consumers harbor negative attitudes, they often punish a brand due to lowered trust. In fact, 28% of consumers in 2017 (up by 9% since 2013) reported that they had punished companies for their behavior (GlobeS- can 2017). Consumer punishment manifests in avoiding a brand’s social media communications (Sass 2016) and boycotting a brand entirely (Crawford 2018). Therefore, trust is particularly valuable when a brand is behaving in an ethically ambiguous way, when ethically questionable business practices are brought to light and the brand is more susceptible to potential punishment. The findings of our study show that a brand should be particularly cautious with the language in its messaging (i.e., the communication tac- tics it employs in its advertising) under such circumstances. Our results show that if the language used in advertising is politer (i.e., impersonal communication tactics), the dam- age from a publicized ambiguous business practice can be amplified, as it can increase certain consumers’ desire and intentions to punish the brand. To our knowledge, this is the first work to conceptualize how brand messaging can impact consumers’ perceptions of interactional justice for a brand. Specifically, brands should be cautious in using impersonal communication tactics with consumers low in BJW. Such consumers are sensitive to interactional justice concerns and are thus more attuned to communication tactics. If a brand uses distancing language (i.e., impersonal communi- cation tactics), such consumers may be wary that the brand is using such language to save face under such extenuating circumstances. Therefore, our research suggests that brands either use personal communication tactics under such cir- cumstances to mitigate negative consumer judgments or to tailor communication tactics appropriately given the con- sumer in individualized or targeted brand communication. This research thus opens an avenue for further research on brand reputation management.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of the current research, which can serve as the basis of future research. The first limitation is that the effect sizes of our results are relatively small (η2s between 0.01 and 0.03). This limitation could be explained as a function of the subtlety of language effects, as this is effect size range is in line with effect sizes seen in prior literature examining language and politeness effects. For example, multiple meta-analyses on gender and language effects found comparably small effect sizes (Leaper and Ayres 2007; Leaper and Robnett 2010; Newman et  al. 2008). Indeed, there may be relatively small perceived dif- ferences between variants of one linguistic element (e.g., going to vs. gonna) if participants are not highly moti- vated to process information or if the language cue is not the most salient heuristic. Both such explanations could be possible in our case, such that there is always a distribu- tion of how attentive participants are, and our stimuli also included visual elements. Importantly, the fact that these effects emerged reflects the strength of communication tac- tics. Future research can examine whether using multiple communication tactics (vs. one tactic) would strengthen the effects. Additionally, future research could examine a corpus of existing advertising copy with tools such as Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) by coding the copy for communication tactics.

A second limitation of the present research is that all brand communication was online in nature (e.g., display ads). Brands can communicate with customers over various media, including in-person customer service interactions and real-time chat platforms. Future research would benefit from examining the effect of communication tactics used by brands in such other media. From a theoretical perspective, media richness theory, in which certain media contain more social information than others (e.g., computer-mediated communication is not as information-rich as face-to-face communication), has shown that communicating over dif- ferent media can elicit different responses and perceptions (for reviews of the literature, see Daft and Lengel 1986; Valkenburg et al. 2016). Because other forms of brand com- munication would include different levels of social informa- tion (e.g., facial expressions and vocal tone during in-person customer service interactions or response time and personal- ized messages in real-time chat platforms), one might predict that communication tactics may be deemed less important in richer communication media. On the other hand, because there are richer social cues in such media, communication tactics may be even more salient. Because brands commu- nicate with consumers in various ways, this research opens up many opportunities to examine the effects of brands’ use of communication tactics on consumer perceptions.

53Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

A third limitation of the present research is that we only operationalized BJW in two ways: as a measure of individual difference (Rubin and Peplau 1973) and as a manipulation (i.e., priming the world as just or unjust). Future research can examine more specific contexts in which BJW is gener- ally higher or lower. For example, future research can exam- ine consumer perceptions of brands undergoing a lawsuit. Within the context of the judicial system, consumers may be primed with the notion that justice is always served under the law (high BJW) or that the criminal justice system is bro- ken (low BJW). Other potential avenues for future research would be to incorporate communication tactics within the language of BJW operationalizations. For example, com- munication tactics could be baked into a lawsuit document, an internal report, or other common publicly available infor- mation. Such varied contexts would lend greater nuance in understanding the effects of communication tactics on con- sumer perceptions and judgments of a brand behaving in an ethically ambiguous way.

A final limitation of this work is that we exclusively examined ethically ambiguous business practices that did not necessarily cause direct inconvenience or outrage for consumers (e.g., not creating sustainable infrastructure for farmers). Therefore, future research could examine another pervasive context surrounding interactional justice concerns: service failure. Indeed, customers have expectations of how they should be treated (e.g., whether they are treated with respect and politeness), particularly when facing a service failure (Tax et al. 1998). In recent years, many service fail- ures have been publicized and have impacted consumer per- ceptions of a brand (e.g., airline experiences; Migacz et al. 2018). We would expect that certain types of service fail- ures may be more or less saliently connected to violations of interactional justice. Furthermore, different failures could represent violations of different moral pillars (e.g., viola- tions of care or fairness vs. violations of loyalty, sanctity, or authority; Haidt and Graham 2007; Wheeler and Laham 2016). In sum, this research poses various new questions to be answered in future work with important theoretical contributions and managerial implications.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix A: Communication Tactics for Aviator’s Insurance Brand

Tagline for Aviator’s Insurance Ad

Politeness rating Communication tactic

1. Do you need some insurance, sir?

M = 5.81 SD = 1.52

Impersonal tactic: “give deference” vs. Personal tactic: “use in-group identity markers”

2. Do you need some insurance, dude?

M = 3.50 SD = 1.65

3. Are you going to buy insurance?

M = 5.40 SD = 1.38

Personal tactic: “use in- group identify markers”

4. Gonna buy insur- ance?

M = 4.19 SD = 1.87

5. We all need insur- ance

M = 5.44 SD = 1.28

Personal tactic: “presuppose/raise/assert common ground”6. You know how we

all need insurance M = 4.63 SD = 1.54

7. Ask us about our insurance to get a great deal

M = 5.15 SD = 1.40

Personal: tactic: “assume or assert reciprocity”

8. Ask us about our insurance and we’ll make sure you get a great deal

M = 5.58 SD = 1.23

9. You know, this insurance is the best in the world

M = 4.92 SD = 1.38

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants”

10. You might say, this insurance is the best in the world

M = 5.04 SD = 1.13

11. The law requires you to get insurance

M = 4.23 SD = 1.79

Impersonal tactic: “state the face-threating-act as a general rule”12. You need to get

insurance M = 4.27 SD = 1.93

13. Would you like a new insurance policy?

M = 5.96 SD = 0.93

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic”

14. Do you want a new insurance policy?

M = 5.20 SD = 1.22

15. Would you like insurance?

M = 5.64 SD = 1.18

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “seek agreement,” assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants,” give or ask for reasons”

16. Wouldn’t you like insurance?

M = 4.92 SD = 1.46

54 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

Appendix B: Ads Used in Study 1

Control

Impersonal

Personal

Ads Used in Study 1

Appendix C: Pre‑test of Ethical Ratings of Aviator’s Practices

Statements of aviator’s business practices (adapted from consumer blog sites, Twitter and Better Business Bureau)

Ethical ratings

1. This company hires women who work in cooperatives, however these women are some- times homeless who don’t pay their taxes

M = 4.28; SD = 1.73

2. This company compensates people according to the policy that they have. However, there is no guarantee the company will cover all accidents

M = 3.26; SD = 1.87

3. This company is endorsed by celebrities that have been caught for indecent behavior

M = 3.17; SD = 1.65

Statements of aviator’s business practices (adapted from consumer blog sites, Twitter and Better Business Bureau)

Ethical ratings

4. This company uses a gecko as it’s mascot but does nothing to protect the gecko in the natural environment

M = 3.28; SD = 1.65

5. This company tweets about tips for pet parents, yet they do not allow pets in their corporate offices

M = 4.86; SD = 1.16

6. This company uses a caveman in some of its commercials which can be offensive to a caveman

M = 5.30; SD = 1.53

7. When a consumer adds a child to their customer’s policy, this company changes the premium on every car that the customer has insured through this company, because the risk is higher for younger drivers

M = 4.75; SD = 1.86

55Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

Statements of aviator’s business practices (adapted from consumer blog sites, Twitter and Better Business Bureau)

Ethical ratings

8. This company adds customers’ kids, who are eligible to get a permit, to their customer’s policy, without the customer’s consent. This is since there is a high likelihood that the kids will drive the customer’s car

M = 3.17; SD = 1.90

9. When a customer was involved in a car crash caused by his apartment complex’s security gate, this company told the customer that they could not help defending the customer against the apartment complex

M = 2.34; SD = 1.56

10. This company charges a premium to cus- tomers who note that a roommate uses their vehicle from time to time

M = 3.70; SD = 2.01

Appendix D: Communication Tactics for Jaunt’s Coffee Brand

Tagline for Jaunt’s coffee ad

Politeness rating Communication tactic

1. Do you want some coffee, sir?

M = 6.00 SD = 1.02

Impersonal tactic: “give deference” vs. Personal tactic: “use in-group identity markers”

2. Do you want some coffee, dude?

M = 3.45 SD = 1.40

3. Are you going to have a cup of coffee?

M = 5.29 SD = 1.30

Personal tactic: “use in-group identify mark- ers”4. Gonna have a cup of

coffee? M = 4.50 SD = 1.14

5. I want to ask you to have this coffee

M = 5.17 SD = 1.11

Impersonal tactic: “hedge”, minimize the size of imposition on hearer”

6. I just want to ask you to have this coffee

M = 4.57 SD = 0.99

Tagline for Jaunt’s coffee ad

Politeness rating Communication tactic

7. I don’t suppose you mind trying this coffee

M = 4.33 SD = 1.71

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pes- simistic,” “minimize the size of imposition on hearer” vs. Personal tactic: “assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants”

8. I’m sure you won’t mind trying this coffee

M = 4.36 SD = 1.56

9. You know, this cof- fee is the best in the world

M = 4.83 SD = 1.07

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants”

10. You might say, this coffee is the best in the world

M = 5.25 SD = 1.26

11. It would be appreci- ated if you tried this coffee

M = 4.30 SD = 1.76

Impersonal tactic: “impersonalize speaker and hearer avoiding pronouns “I” and “you”

12. I would appreciate it if you tried some coffee

M = 4.50 SD = 1.56

13. Would you like a cup of coffee?

M = 5.92 SD = 1.58

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pes- simistic”14. Do you want a cup

of coffee? M = 5.54 SD = 1.31

15. Would you like a cup of coffee?

M = 6.50 SD = 0.59

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “seek agreement,” assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants,” give or ask for reasons”

16. Wouldn’t you like a cup of coffee?

M = 4.88 SD = 1.70

56 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

Appendix E: Ads Used in Study 2

Ads Used in Study 2

Control

Impersonal

Personal

Appendix F: Pre‑test of Ethical Ratings of Jaunt’s Practices

Statements of Jaunt’s business practices Ethical ratings

1. Jaunt teaches local farmers new innovative technology and data platforms, but they do not implement these technologies locally

M = 4.09; SD = 1.56

2. Jaunt donates coffee trees to local farm- ers, but they do not ensure that the trees are disease-resistant

M = 3.74; SD = 1.87

Statements of Jaunt’s business practices Ethical ratings

3. Jaunt pays their employees fairly, but they have been accused of tax evasion

M = 3.21; SD = 1.83

4. Jaunt collaborates with local farmers who promote gender equality, but some of the women employed by these farmers are under age

M = 3.12; SD = 1.53

5. Jaunt collaborates with local farmers in Peru, but they do not contribute to infrastructure improvement in Peru

M = 4.00; SD = 1.67

57Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

Statements of Jaunt’s business practices Ethical ratings

6. Jaunt uses environmentally-friendly natural pesticides, but they have lower quality coffee by clearing all native trees to plant as many coffee trees as possible

M = 3.38; SD = 1.94

7. Jaunt coffee beans are hand-picked which ensure the best quality, but they do not check whether the farmers compensate their workers fairly

M = 2.79; SD = 1.40

8. Jaunt is committed to fair trade practices, but they do not disclose the price of their green coffee beans

M = 4.28; SD = 1.42

9. Jaunt increases the price of coffee based on the tariffs of international imports instead of purchasing local coffee

M = 3.97; SD = 1.61

10. The mobile app of Jaunt offers coupons that are not applicable in store

M = 4.88; SD = 2.11

Appendix G: Communication Tactics for CJ’s Apparel Brand

Tagline for CJ’s apparel ad

Politeness rating Communication tactic

1. Do you want some clothes, sir?

M = 5.21 SD = 1.79

Impersonal tactic: “give deference” vs. Personal tactic: “use in-group identity markers”

2. Do you want some clothes, dude?

M = 4.56 SD = 1.63

3. Are you going to buy some clothes?

M = 4.20 SD = 1.75

Personal tactic: “use in-group identify mark- ers”4. Gonna buy some

clothes? M = 4.35 SD = 1.41

5. You need some new clothes

M = 4.58 SD = 1.60

Personal tactic: “Give gifts to hearer (e.g., goods, sympathy, understanding, coop- eration)”

6. You look like you could use some new clothes

M = 3.58 SD = 1.41

7. Try on our clothes to look great

M = 4.42 SD = 1.47

Personal tactic: “assume or assert reciprocity”

8. Try on our clothes and we’ll make sure you look great

M = 5.16 SD = 1.57

9. You know, these clothes are the best in the world

M = 4.60 SD = 1.32

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants”

10. You might say, these clothes are the best in the world

M = 4.44 SD = 1.22

11. It would be appreci- ated if you tried on these clothes

M = 5.81 SD = 0.89

Impersonal tactic: “impersonalize speaker and hearer avoiding pronouns “I” and “you”

12. I would appreciate it if you tried on our clothes

M = 5.50 SD = 1.28

Tagline for CJ’s apparel ad

Politeness rating Communication tactic

13. Would you like some clothes?

M = 5.27 SD = 1.15

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pes- simistic”14. Do you want some

clothes? M = 4.42 SD = 1.30

15. Would you like some clothes?

M = 4.92 SD = 1.31

Impersonal tactic: “hedge,” “be pessimis- tic” vs. Personal tactic: “seek agreement,” assert or presuppose concern for hearer’s wants,” give or ask for reasons”

16. Wouldn’t you like some clothes?

M = 4.73 SD = 1.51

Appendix H: Ads Used in Study 3

Ads Used in Study 3

Impersonal

Personal

58 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

Appendix I: Pre‑test of Ethical Ratings of CJ’s Practices

Statements of CJ’s business practices Ethical ratings

1. CJ purchases clothes from manufacturers that do not use child labor, however the manufac- tures do not provide health care benefits to their employees

M = 3.93; SD = 1.34

2. CJ pays men and women employees equally; however, they have more men in managerial positions than women

M = 4.41; SD = 1.41

3. CJ manufactures regular clothes and clothes for oversized people, however their oversized clothing is expensive due to the extra fabric used

M = 5.00; SD = 1.50

4. CJ hires women who work in cooperatives, however these women are sometimes crimi- nals who don’t pay their taxes

M = 2.77; SD = 1.17

5. CJ collaborates with local farmers in Peru, but they do not contribute to infrastructure improvement in Peru

M = 3.64; SD = 1.51

6. CJ uses low impact dyes, but the colors fade in clothing and is not durable

M = 4.25; SD = 1.54

7. CJ helps disadvantaged communities, but the help is only through volunteer service and not monetary in nature

M = 5.16; SD = 1.41

8. CJ uses recycled plastic in its product line, but they do not use rubber or metal which have been proven to be safe to use in recycled fabrics

M = 4.83; SD = 1.34

9. CJ is inspired by authentic culture in design- ing garments, but their fashion is seen as dated

M = 4.84; SD = 0.91

10. CJ offers long term relief for victims of sexual exploitation, yet they have not tried to influence policy measures to ban such exploitation

M = 4.53; SD = 1.65

References

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Anteced- ents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.

Ashton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Pride and prejudice: How feelings about the self influence judgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 466–476.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43–55.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199–218.

Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of dis- tributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 185–210.

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 Satisfac- tion, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6(1), 100–110.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. The Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.

Cheng, J. S., Ottati, V. C., & Price, E. D. (2013). The arousal model of moral condemnation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1012–1018.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Correia, I., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Belief in a just world, justice con- cerns, and well-being at Portuguese schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 421–437.

Crawford, E. (2018, January 25). Consumers increasingly reward sustainable companies, punish those that are not socially respon- sible. Food Navigator USA. Retrieved from https ://www.foodn aviga tor-usa.com/Artic le/2018/01/25/Consu mers-incre asing ly- rewar d-susta inabl e-compa nies-punis h-those -that-are-not-socia lly-respo nsibl e.

Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10), 1545–1579.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Dalbert, C., & Filke, E. (2007). Belief in a personal just world, justice judgments, and their functions for prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1516–1527.

Dalbert, C., & Stoeber, J. (2006). The personal belief in a just world and domain-specific beliefs about justice at school and in the fam- ily: A longitudinal study with adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(3), 200–207.

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Mono- graphs, 72(June), 144–168.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1987). Belief in a just world and physi- cal attractiveness stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 775–780.

Dubinsky, A. J., & Levy, M. (1985). Ethics in retailing: Perceptions of retail salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(1–2), 1–16.

Eelen, G. (2014). A critique of politeness theory (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and dis- tant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204–1209.

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.

Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteem, and belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 83–107.

Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recom- mendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(Winter), 82–95.

Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the rela- tionship between justice and morality? In Handbook of organi- zational justice (pp.  215–245). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236.

59Punishing Politeness: The Role of Language in Promoting Brand Trust

1 3

Gilliland, S. W., Benson, L., & Schepers, D. H. (1998). A rejection threshold in justice evaluations: Effects on judgment and deci- sion-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 76(2), 113–131.

Gleason, J. B., Perlmann, R. Y., & Greif, E. B. (1984). What’s the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Dis- course Processes, 7(4), 493–502.

GlobeScan. (2017, October 10). Trust is down, expectations are up as brands take center stage in cultural divides. Press Release. Retrieved from https ://globe scan.com/trust -is-down-expec tatio ns-are-up-as-brand s-take-cente r-stage -in-cultu ral-divid es/.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behav- ior. Garden City: Anchor Books.

Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to service fail- ures: Influence of procedural and interactional fairness percep- tions. Journal of Business Research, 25(2), 149–163.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment ineq- uity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103.

Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N., & van Riel, A. C. R. (2017). “Don’t pretend to be my friend!” When an informal brand communication style backfires on social media. Journal of Business Research, 74, 77–89.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation (Vol. 1975, pp. 41–58). Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Con-

servatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.

Hamilton, R., Vohs, K. D., & McGill, A. L. (2014). We’ll be honest, this won’t be the best article you’ll ever read: The use of dis- preferred markers in word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 197–212.

Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Polite- ness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 7–31.

Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interac- tions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.afhay es.com/ publi c/proce ss201 2.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.

Holtgraves, T., & Joong-Nam, Y. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 59(4), 719–729.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to cul- ture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 246–256.

Hoover, K. F., & Pepper, M. B. (2014). How did they say that? Ethics statements and normative frameworks at best companies to work for. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 605–617.

Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Con- sumer Research, 17(2), 141–148.

Kardes, F. R. (1986). Effects of initial product judgments on subse- quent memory-based judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 1–11.

Kau, A. K., & Loh, W.-Y., E (2006). The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: A comparison between complainants and non-complainants. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), 101–111.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Krishna, A. (2016). A clearer spotlight on spotlight: Understanding, conducting and reporting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 315–324.

Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Enjoy! Hedonic consumption and compliance with assertive messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 51–61.

Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.

Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In D. J. Hockney, W. L. Harper, & B. Freed (Eds.), Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguis- tic semantics (pp. 221–271). Dordrecht: Springer.

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, presup- positions and implicatures (pp. 79–106). Arlington, VA: Centre for Applied Linguistics.

Langreth, R., & Harper, M. (2010, December 31). The planet versus Monsanto. Forbes Magazine.

Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gen- der variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363.

Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2010). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quar- terly, 35(1), 129–142.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. In The belief in a just world (pp. 9–30). New York: Springer.

Lipkus, I. M. (1992). A heuristic model to explain perceptions of unjust events. Social Justice Research, 5(4), 359–384.

Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication (Vol. 12). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Migacz, S. J., Zou, S., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). The “terminal” effects of service failure on airlines: Examining service recovery with justice theory. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 83–98.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness (Vol. 17). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Morand, D. A. (2000). Language and power: An empirical analysis of linguistic strategies used in superior–subordinate communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 235–248.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211–236.

Nudelman, G. (2013). The belief in a just world and personality: A meta-analysis. Social Justice Research, 26(2), 105–119.

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.

Riley, K. (1993). Telling more than the truth: Implicature, speech acts, and ethics in professional communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3), 179–196.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

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.

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1–7.

60 A. Sundar, E. S. Cao

1 3

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29(4), 73–93.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Jour- nal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89.

Sass, E. (2016, June 28). Consumers punish brands for deceptive behavior online. The Social Graf. Retrieved from https ://www. media post.com/publi catio ns/artic le/27917 0/.

Schwartz, M. S. (2004). Effective corporate codes of ethics: Percep- tions of code users. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 321–341.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Sela, A., Wheeler, S. C., & Sarial-Abi, G. (2012). We are not the same as you and I: Causal effects of minor language variations on con- sumers’ attitudes toward brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 644–661.

Snow, C. E., Perlmann, R. Y., Gleason, J. B., & Hooshyar, N. (1990). Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children’s knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 289–305.

Stack, L. S. (1978). Trust. In H. London & J. E. Exner Jr. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 561–597). New York: Wiley.

Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psycho- logical distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268–280.

Stevens, B. (1999). Communicating ethical values: A study of employee perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(2), 113–120.

Sundar, A. (2018). Brand touchpoints. Hauppague, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Sundar, A., Dinsmore, D., Paik, S., & Kardes, F. R. (2016). Metaphori- cal communication, self-presentation, and consumer inference in service encounters. Journal of Business Research, 72(1), 136–146.

Sundar, A., Kardes, F. R., & Wright, S. A. (2015). The influence of repetitive health messages and sensitivity to fluency on the truth effect in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 4(4), 375–387.

Sundar, A., & Kellaris, J. J. (2015). How logo colors influence shop- pers’ judgments of retailer ethicality: The mediating role of perceived eco-friendliness. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 685–701.

Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.

Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fundamental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale development. Jour- nal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 123–136.

Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 315–338.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wheeler, M. A., & Laham, S. M. (2016). What we talk about when we talk about morality: Deontological, consequentialist, and emo- tive language use in justifications across foundation-specific moral violations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1206–1216.

Wilson, A. E., & Darke, P. R. (2012). The optimistic trust effect: Use of belief in a just world to cope with decision-generated threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 615–628.

Winkler, I. (2011). The representation of social actors in corporate codes of ethics: How code language positions internal actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 653–665.

Zhu, L. L., Martens, J. P., & Aquino, K. (2012). Third party responses to justice failure: An identity-based meaning maintenance model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(2), 129–151.

Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2020. All Rights Reserved.