沟通风格文献综述
Literature Review on Communication Styles
DOI: 10.12677/SSEM.2023.125048, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 195  浏览: 421 
作者: 高宇航, 涂剑波:北方工业大学经济管理学院,北京
关键词: 沟通风格任务导向社会导向Communication Style Task Oriented Social Oriented
摘要: 沟通风格是从领导风格衍生而来的,是描述销售场景中销售人员与顾客沟通时的互动模型,沟通作为最为重要的交流手段,在销售场景中对营销成功与否有着至关重要的作用,自这一概念产生以来就有很多的学者对其进行了研究,但是就目前而言国内对于这一概念的研究还是相对较少的,但是在不同的文化背景下的沟通风格是有巨大差异的,中国应当有自己的沟通风格的研究,同时国内关于流媒体、社交媒体的迅速发展,沟通不再仅仅发生在面对面的交流中,中国有研究网络中沟通风格的现实背景,因此笔者将过去国外学者对于沟通风格的研究进行了一个详细的梳理,以期望能够为国内营销领域中沟通风格的研究扩展研究角度。本文采用文献资料法,从沟通风格的概念界定、维度划分、影响因素三个方面对国内外的主要研究成果进行了系统的梳理和评析。
Abstract: Communication style is derived from leadership style and is an interactive model that describes the communication between sales personnel and customers in sales scenarios. Communication, as the most important means of communication, plays a crucial role in the success of marketing in sales scenarios. Since its inception, many scholars have studied this concept, but currently there is relatively little research on this concept in China, however, communication styles vary greatly in different cultural backgrounds. China should have its own research on communication styles. At the same time, with the rapid development of streaming media and social media in China, communication no longer only occurs in face-to-face communication. China has a practical background for studying communication styles in the internet. Therefore, the author has conducted a detailed review of previous research on communication styles by foreign scholars. We hope to expand our research perspective on communication style in the field of domestic marketing. This article uses the literature review method to systematically review and analyze the main research achievements at home and abroad from three aspects: the definition of communication style concept, dimension division, and influencing factors.
文章引用:高宇航, 涂剑波. 沟通风格文献综述[J]. 服务科学和管理, 2023, 12(5): 379-386. https://doi.org/10.12677/SSEM.2023.125048

1. 引言

沟通风格是由Sheth (1976) [1] 根据领导风格的相关研究提出的关于买卖双方之家的互动模型,但在实际的营销实景中销售人员往往无法与顾客进行有效的沟通,McQueen (2015) [2] 认为这是服务提供商最常见也是最严重的错误之一,无法采取合适的沟通方式向顾客表达自身的善意和观点成为致使营销失败的重要原因。对于买卖双方的沟通风格也已经有一些学者进行了应用和衍生,但就目前而言关于沟通风格的研究相对比较少,时间分布上也比较零散,且现有的关于沟通风格的研究中也多停留在一线销售中顾客与销售人员面对面的交流,未能够与时俱进,对更广泛维度的沟通风格进行研究,因此在本文中将对过往关于沟通风格的定义与测量,前置和后置因素进行了梳理和述评,以希望能够为沟通风格的研究带来新的研究思路。

2. 沟通风格的定义

沟通风格这一定义是Sheth (1976) [1] 最早基于领导风格提出的,他认为沟通风格是买卖双方在互动和沟通过程中所采取的各种形式、仪式和习惯,Yang et al. (2017) [3] 在后续的研究中认同了这样的观点,Norton (1978) [4] 则将沟通风格定义为口头和准口头互动的方式,以表明应如何理解、解释、过滤或理解字面意义。Chłopicki et al. (2017) [5] 和Brzozowska et al. (2015) [6] 认为沟通风格是一组特征,它们共同规定了语言在交际中的文化特定用法,这些特征既包括技术方面(如话轮长度、话轮转换、语调模式、问题等),也包括与内容相关的方面,如隐喻、社会行为或言语行为,以及对话中的价值表达。Georgeta (2015) [7] 认为沟通风格是指一个人在沟通行为中的一系列言语特征。Mehrdad Sarhadi (2016) [8] 也认为沟通风格是代表了一个人沟通行为特征的整体表现。Georgeta (2015) [7] 认为沟通风格意味着一个人接受信息的具体方式,解读信息的方式,表达回应、反馈的方式,沟通方式是一个人如何构建社会关系世界的指标,也是如何解释信息并将信息转化为社会判断中的积极行为的指标。基于说服理论,Burgoon,Burgoon & Miller (1981) [9] 认为说服是信息发布者向说服对象表达和传递信息,旨在诱导目标对象相应的心理变化和态度变化过程,是一个信息传播的过程,而在这个说服过程中信息发布者始终拥有控制权和主动权,因此在沟通风格在营销中能够对顾客产生显著的影响。

Table 1. Definition of communication styles

表1. 沟通风格定义

3. 沟通风格的维度

3.1. 任务导向型、自我导向型和互动导向型

表1,Sheth (1975) [10] 在提出沟通风格这一理论时就划定了关于销售人员沟通风格的三个维度分别任务导向型、自我导向型和互动导向型。Williams and Spiro (1985) [11] 认为任务型沟通风格是指销售人员在于消费者进行沟通时抱有明确的目的,是以目标为导向的,以尽可能的最低成本、努力和时间来完成任务,达到效率的最大化,Crosby et al. (1990) [12] 认为任务导向型的销售人员努力完成销售时表现出的专业知识和能力,促进消费者对于销售人员的信任。Williams and Spiro (1985) [11] 认为互动导向型销售人员旨在通过个性化、社交化的互动方式与消费者建立关系,并促进消费者对于自身互动的积极配合。Mehrabian (1966) [13] 认为互动型销售人员为了实现自身目标,往往会采取包括言语和非言语的行为,增强身体和心理上的亲密度,这种行为表明沟通发起方的热情、友好、平易近人,直接表达对沟通对象的喜爱或偏好,并增强人际吸引力和建立信任。Campbell & Kirmani (2000) [14] 和Sujan et al. (1986) [15] 认为这是因为采取自我导向型沟通风格的销售人员对销售关注度低,对客户关注度低,主要集中在自身的需求上。

3.2. 其他的维度划分

Norton (1978) [4] 将沟通风格划分陈主导型、戏剧性、控制型、动态型、开放型、争议型、轻松型、友好型、专注型和印象型,Wong & Tjosvold (1995) [16] 和Webster & Sundaram (1998) [17] 则认为这些不同的沟通风格总的来说反映了两种不同且独立的沟通风格,既附属型沟通风格和主导型沟通风格,Ben-Sira, Z. (1980) [18] 认为主导型沟通风格涉及在互动过程中发展和保持对说话者控制的行为。附属沟通风格则涉及与沟通者建立并维持积极的沟通–倾听关系(如友好、热情、关心、鼓励等),从而影响对消费者对服务的看法产生影响。Reece & Brandt (2005) [19] 依据沟通中主导和社交程度,将沟通风格划分为支持型、反思型、导演型和情感型四象限。支持型风格是低主导高社交,支持型沟通风格倾向于专心倾听,避免使用权力,以深思熟虑、审慎的方式做出和表达决策。反省风格是低主导低社交,反思型人以纪律和深思熟虑的方式表达意见,似乎全神贯注,喜欢井然有序。导演风格是高主导低社交,倾向于表现严肃的态度,表达强烈的意见,可能表现冷漠。情绪风格是高主导性高社交,表现出自发、无拘无束的行为,具有自然的说服力。

Baron (2003) [20] 提到沟通风格的非正式性与正式性也是一个被广泛讨论的概念,根据McArthur (2003) [21] 的说法,非正式沟通是普通的、非正式的、熟悉的、随意的,通常是口语化的,在这些意义上与正式沟通形成对比。Weiling & Tianfeng (2020) [22] 认为正式的沟通方式基于对目标的追求和任务效率的实现,它通过正式和高效的语言为消费者提供购物指南。相反,非正式的沟通风格伴随着温暖和纯真的特点,可以更好地激发消费者对温暖的感知。根据框架效应理论在经济学方面的应用Tversky & Kahneman (1986) [23] 提出了以收益为中心和以损失为中心的沟通风格,以收益为中心的沟通风格是指销售人员专注于向消费者介绍可以享受的内容,而以损失为中心的沟通方式的特点是列举消费者如果不这样做将无法再享受的好处。

在本文的研究中我们采用了Sheth (1975) [10] 的三种沟通风格框架,因为它是以营销场景下提出的,适用于销售领域的研究,Williams and Spiro (1985) [11] 发现这些沟通风格是影响销售量的重要因素,而自我导向型沟通风格阻碍了销售,是因为自我导向型的沟通风格注重销售人员自身的需求,Berscheid (1994) [24] 认为这种沟通风格可能会导致对销售人员的负面评价,因此在实际的营销场景中,这种类似的沟通风格并不能得到很好的适用,后续在营销领域的研究中也多是关注任务导向型和互动型沟通风格,Dabholkar et al. (2009) [25] 和Verhagen et al. (2014) [26] 就在研究中将沟通风格分为任务导向型和社会导向型,社会导向的沟通风格在对话中暗示了移情、友好和个性,以任务为导向的沟通风格集中于结构良好、以目标为导向的对话。因此在本文中我们认为沟通风格在营销场景中的应用划分为互动性和任务型两个维度较为恰当。

Table 2. Classification of communication styles dimensions

表2. 沟通风格维度划分

4. 沟通风格的前后置因素

4.1. 沟通风格的前置因素

表2,目前关于沟通风格的前因的研究相对还比较缺乏,仅有少量的研究成果。Sheth (1976) [1] 在研究一线人员沟通风格的维度划分时分析了沟通风格的前因,认为组织因素(组织结构、组织目标等)和个体自身因素(家庭背景和社会经济地位等)共同决定了销售人员的沟通风格。Urea & Muscalu (2012) [27] 从沟通风格的定义出发,认为态度、沟通模式和气质是决定沟通风格的三个基本要素。Hall & Hall (1990) [28] 根据不同的国家文化氛围差异提出了低语境和高语境之分,Gudykunst & Ting Toomey (1988) [29] 认为低语境交际主要用于个人主义文化,而集体主义文化主要用于高语境交际。Zhang, Tao & Kim (2014) [30] 以典型的个体主义文化的国家美国和集体主义文化的国家中国为例,发现在低语境下的企业与消费者沟通时直接传达产品和服务特征以及个人利益的内容更有用,既任务导向型沟通风格。而中国公司可能会更注重和谐和关系,更注重社交情感,采取互动性沟通风格。

4.2. 沟通风格的后置因素

4.2.1. 线下营销场景中沟通风格的后置因素

Giles et al. (1991) [31] 对沟通适应理论的研究表明可以通过调整一个人的语言特征,导致对沟通的积极感知(例如,信息说服力和沟通满意度)、对话者的态度(例如,热情、可信度、信任、社交能力和吸引力),以及关系(例如,关系满意度、亲密度、集体身份和亲密度)。Tversky & Kahneman (1986) [23] 根据框架理论也提出了以不同的方式呈现相同的信息通常会影响消费者的决策,Ball et al. (2004) [32] 认为这些会进一步的影响消费者对公司的信任、满意度和忠诚度。

很多学者认为沟通风格对消费者的作用是来自于消费者自身的不确定,有效的沟通能够有效的减少不确定性,McQueen (2015) [2] 认为无法与顾客之间提供有效的沟通是专业服务提供商最常见和最严重的错误之一,实际上这种问题不仅仅出现在专业服务的提供上,消费者在购买所有产品和服务时都会或多或少的产生不确定性和焦虑,Berger and Calabrese (1975) [33] 根据不确定性理论表明需要减少消费者感知的不确定性和焦虑,才能够更好的销售和服务。Knobloch (2008) [34] 认为由于缺乏相关产品和服务的知识,消费者主要通过与销售人员和服务人员沟通来获取信息,减少不确定性和伴随风险。Webster& Sundaram (2009) [35] 认为尤其是服务提供者的沟通风格尤为重要,能够影响消费者的情绪反应,信任感和连通感。在服务人员和消费者的接触中,采取包含关注、支持客户的关注、表现出同理心这些特征的服务人员,Street (1989) [36] 认为通常会更容易给消费者留下积极印象,缓解焦虑,Carpenter (2012) [37] 认为这是因为它们提供了个人接触,与不确定性减少理论相一致,该行为(如积极的言语内容、声音表达的愉悦性)减少了消费者的不确定性,会更容易引起消费者的积极反应,这些发现在初次服务接触中尤为明显。

4.2.2. 网络环境中沟通风格的后置因素

目前对于销售人员沟通风格的研究还大多是停留在一线营销场景中,对于线上网络环境中的研究还比较少,实际上Michael & Otterbacher (2014) [38] 已经提出由于技术的发展使得在虚拟情境下沟通适应理论也越发的适用,例如在电子邮件、在线社区、社交媒体和虚拟团队等,Carnevale et al. (2017) [39] 认为在社交媒体上品牌与消费者的沟通比线下世界更加依赖语言风格。与面对面交流中的适应一样,在虚拟环境中沟通风格的相似性一样会产生积极的交流效果,Scissors et al. (2009) [40] 认为合适的沟通风格可以提高对话者之间的信任,Muir et al. (2017) [41] 认为有助于建立沟通双方之间的融洽关系,Steinmann et al. (2015) [42] 认为可以增强沟通者的参与。但是由于网络空间的一些特性,网络中的沟通与线下还是存在一定的差异,例如信息的复杂性,Arguello et al. (2006) [43] 将其定义为处理信息和理解信息所需要的努力,Burgers et al. (2015) [44] 认为复杂的信息往往会降低营销的说服力,这很大一部分原因是来自于网络环境下无处不在的信息过载,Ashley & Tuten (2015) [45] 提出消费者在处理社交媒体内容时只花费最小的认知资源,而没有太多关注。Jones et al. (2004) [46] 也认为人们在超负荷的大规模互动中更喜欢简单的信息,并对其做出更多反应。除了复杂程度外,Kissler et al. (2007) [47] 认为情绪化信息(例如,在信息中使用情绪词)能刺激更高的认知参与,投入更多的注意力,Joyce & Kraut (2006) [48] 和Peters et al. (2009) [49] 认为这样也能够增强信息接收者的行为参与和分享行为。例如Stieglitz & Dang Xuan (2013) [50] 就发现带有情绪性的推文比中性推文更频繁、更快地被分享。

沟通的非正式性是一个得到广泛讨论的概念。根据McArthur (2003) [21] 的说法,非正式沟通是普通的、非正式的、熟悉的、随意的,通常是口语化的,他认为非正式沟通风格可用于软化等级权力关系,减少社交距离,传达亲密感,因此,Gretry et al. (2017) [51] 认为沟通者通常可以采用非正式沟通风格来改善关系,软化等级权力关系,减少社交距离,传达亲密感,以增强沟通效果,如消费者参与度。而这种非正式的沟通方式更加偏向于Sheth (1975) [10] 提出的三个沟通风格维度中的互动型沟通方式。

Dabholkar et al. (2009) [25] 在先前的营销研究表明互动型和任务型沟通方式在接受者的心理认知、情感和行为方面存在差异。Darian et al. (2005) [52] 认为虽然一些关于销售人员沟通风格的研究发现,特定任务型沟通风格具有更强的影响,但在大多数情况下,互动型风格能有效地增强说服和信任。Mehrabian (2010) [53] 以互动为导向的销售人员可以通过提高身体和心理亲密度的沟通风格证明他们的热情、友好和平易近人。Verhagen et al. (2014) [26] 发现,更多的互动导向而不是任务导向沟通风格,是因为互动导向创造了更多的社会存在和社交感觉,他们更重视社会情感本质,更多的社会存在,但认知契合表示针对不同特定任务设计定制不同的沟通风格。Jiang & Benbasat (2007) [54] 也提出当人们所希望达到的任务目标和人们对于信息的呈现方式更好的匹配时能够创造更好的契合度,产生更深刻的影响。

5. 述评

本文中通过对沟通风格的定义、维度划分和前后置因素的总结和梳理,发现目前对于沟通风格的定义是具有一致性的,但是对于维度的划分则是从不同的角度出发,在不同的场景下有不同的研究结果,相对而言Sheth (1976) [1] 提出的互动导向型、任务导向型和自我导向型维度划分方式得到了大多数人的认可,并且在实际的营销实践中得到了验证,而自我导向型沟通风格过于关注营销人员自身的需求,这在营销实践中并不能起到什么优势作用。在对沟通风格的前置因素的研究中发现目前的相关研究还比较少,而影响沟通风格的主要因素为个人家庭背景、受教育程度、经济状况、社会地位等个人因素和组织环境、文化氛围等环境因素,但这并不能代表一个人的沟通风格是不易发生改变的,相反根据沟通适应理论研究表明可以通过更改沟通风格来增强对沟通者的积极感知,因此研究销售人员在不同情境下更改自身的沟通风格以达到更好的营销效果是有价值的,并且由于科技的进步营销不仅仅发生在面对面交流的线下,同样发生在社交媒体和流媒体种,而在这种情境下的沟通风格尚未有充分的研究,值得探索。

参考文献

参考文献

[1] Sheth, J.M. (1976) Buyer-Seller Interaction: A Conceptual Framework. In: Anderson, B.B., Ed., Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, Association for Consumer Research, Cincinnati, 382-386.
[2] McQueen, G. (2015) 3 Management Mistakes That Could Destroy Professional Services Businesses. Entrepreneur, No. 16.
[3] Yang, J., Zheng, R., Zhao, L. and Gupta, S. (2017) Enhancing Customer Brand Experience and Loyalty through Enterprise Microblogs: Empirical Evidence from a Communication Framework Perspective. Information Technology and People, 30, 580-601.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2015-0219
[4] Norton, R.W. (1978) Foundation of a Communicator Style Con-struct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99-112.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00600.x
[5] Chłopicki, W. (2017) Communication Styles—An Over-view. Styles of Communication, 9, 9-25.
[6] Brzozowska, D. and Chłopicki, W. (2015) Culture’s Software: Communi-cation Styles. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.
[7] Pânişoară, G., Sandu, C., Pânişoară, I.-O. and Duţă, N. (2015) Comparative Study Regarding Communication Styles of the Students. Procedia—Social and Be-havioral Sciences, 186, 202-208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.066
[8] Sarhadi, M. (2016) Comparing Communication Style within Project Teams of Three Project-Oriented Organizations in Iran. Procedia—Social and Be-havioral Sciences, 226, 226-235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.183
[9] Burgoon, J.K., Burgoon, M., Miller, G.R. and Sunnafrank, M. (1981) Learning Theory Approaches to Persuasion. Human Communication Research, 7, 161-179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00567.x
[10] Sheth, J.N. (1975) Buyer-Seller Interaction: A Conceptual Framework. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 131-140.
[11] Williams, K.C. and Spiro, R.L. (1985) Communication Style in the Salesperson-Customer Dyad. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 434-442.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200408
[12] Crosby, L., Evans, K. and Cowles, D. (1990) Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 68-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400306
[13] Mehrabian, A. (1966) Immediacy: An Indicator of Attitudes in Linguistic Communication. Journal of Personality, 34, 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1966.tb01696.x
[14] Campbell, M.C. and Kirmani, A. (2000) Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.
https://doi.org/10.1086/314309
[15] Sujan, M., Bettman, J.R. and Sujan, H. (1986) Effects of Consumer Expecta-tions on Information Processing in Selling Encounters. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 346-353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300404
[16] Wong, C.L. and Tjosvold, D. (1995) Goal Interdependence and Quality in Services Marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 189-205.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220120304
[17] Webster, C. and Sundaram, D.S. (1998) Service Consumption Criti-cality in Failure Recovery. Journal of Business Research, 41, 153-160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00004-0
[18] Ben-Sira, Z. (1980) Affective and Instrumental Components in the Physician-Patient Relationship: An Additional Dimension of Interaction Theory. Journal of Health and Social Be-havior, 21, 170-180.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2136736
[19] Reece, B.L. and Brandt, R. (2005) Effective Human Relations: Personal and Organizational Application. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
[20] Baron, N.S. (2003) Language of the Internet. In: Farghali, A. (Ed.), The Stanford Handbook for Language Engineers, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 59-127.
[21] McArthur, T. (2003) Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[22] Weiling, Y. and Tianfeng, S. (2020) How a Cute Logo Can Improve the Perceived Quality of a Product. Nankai Business Review, 23, 118-130.
[23] Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, S251-S278.
https://doi.org/10.1086/296365
[24] Berscheid, E. (1994) Interpersonal Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.000455
[25] Dabholkar, P.A., van Dolen, W.M. and de Ruyter, K. (2009) A Dual-Sequence Framework for B2C Relationship Formation: Moderating Effects of Employee Communication Style in Online Group Chat. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 145-174.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20265
[26] Verhagen, T., Van Nes, J., Feldberg, F. and Van Dolen, W. (2014) Virtual Customer Service Agents: Using Social Presence and Personalization to Shape Online Service Encounters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 529-545.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12066
[27] Urea, R. and Muscalu, A. (2012) Professional Motivational Structures Reflected in the Communication Style. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 699-703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.720
[28] Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. Anchor Books/Doubleday, New York.
[29] Gudykunst, W.B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Sage, Newbury Park.
[30] Zhang, X., Tao, W. and Kim, S. (2014) A Comparative Study on Global Brands’ Micro Blogs between China and USA: Focusing on Communi-cation Styles and Branding Strategies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8, 231-249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2014.886251
[31] Giles, H., Coupland, N. and Coupland, J. (1991) Accommo-dation Theory: Communication. In: Giles, H., Coupland, J. and Coupland, N., Eds., Context and Consequence, Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-68.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663673.001
[32] Ball, D., Coelho, P.S. and Machas, A. (2004) The Role of Communication and Trust in Explaining Customer Loyalty: An Extension to the ECSI Model. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 1272-1293.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548979
[33] Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975) Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication. Human Communica-tion Research, 1, 99-112.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
[34] Knobloch, L.K. (2008) Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Communicating under Conditions of Ambiguity. In: Baxter, L.A. and Braithwaite, D.O., Eds., Engaging Theories in In-terpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 133-144.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.n10
[35] Webster, C. and Sundaram, D.S. (2009) Effect of Service Pro-vider’s Communication Style on Customer Satisfaction in Professional Services Setting: The Moderating Role of Critical-ity and Service Nature. Journal of Services Marketing, 23, 103-113.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040910946369
[36] Street, R.L. (1989) Patients’ Satisfaction with Dentists’ Commu-nicative Style. Health Communication, 1, 137-154.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0103_1
[37] Rawi, R., Paul, P. and Viet, N.L. (2022) Professionals’ Inter-personal Communications Style: Does It Matter in Building Client Psychological Comfort? Journal of Services Marketing, 36, 379-397.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2020-0382
[38] Michael, L. and Otterbacher, J. (2014) Write Like I Write: Herding in the Language of Online Reviews. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8, 356-365.
https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14511
[39] Carnevale, M., Luna, D. and Lerman, D. (2017) Brand Linguistics: A Theory-Driven Framework for the Study of Language in Branding. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34, 572-591.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.01.003
[40] Scissors, L.E., Gill, A.J., Geraghty, K. and Gergle, D. (2009) In CMC We Trust: The Role of Similarity. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, 4-9 April 2009, 527-536.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518783
[41] Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R. and Dewdney, N. (2017) Lin-guistic Style Accommodation Shapes Impression Formation and Rapport in Computer-Mediated Communication. Jour-nal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 525-548.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17701327
[42] Steinmann, S., Mau, G. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2015) Brand Communication Success in Online Consumption Communities: An Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Communica-tion Style and Brand Pictorial Representation. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 356-371.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20784
[43] Arguello, J., Butler, B.S., Joyce, E., Kraut, R., Ling, K.S., Rose, C. and Wang, X. (2006) Talk to Me: Foundations for Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online Communities. Pro-ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, 22-27 April 2006, 959-968.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124916
[44] Burgers, C., Konijn, E.A., Steen, G.J. and Iepsma, M.A.R. (2015) Making Ads Less Complex, Yet More Creative and Persuasive: The Effects of Conventional Metaphors and Irony in Print Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 34, 515-532.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996200
[45] Ashley, C. and Tuten, T. (2015) Creative Strategies in Social Media Marketing: An Exploratory Study of Branded Social Content and Consumer Engagement. Psychology & Market-ing, 32, 15-27.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20761
[46] Jones, Q., Ravid, G. and Rafaeli, S. (2004) Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration. In-formation Systems Research, 15, 194-210.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0023
[47] Kissler, J., Herbert, C., Peyk, P. and Junghofer, M. (2007) Buzzwords: Early Cortical Responses to Emotional Words during Reading. Psychological Science, 18, 475-480.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01924.x
[48] Joyce, E. and Kraut, R.E. (2006) Predicting Continued Par-ticipation in Newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 723-747.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00033.x
[49] Peters, K., Kashima, Y. and Clark, A. (2009) Talking about Others: Emotionality and the Dissemination of Social Information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 207-222.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.523
[50] Stieglitz, S. and Linh, D.-X. (2013) Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 217-248.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
[51] Gretry, A., Horvath, C., Belei, N. and van Riel, A.C. (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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.012
[52] Darian, J.C., Wiman, A.R. and Tucci, L.A. (2005) Retail Pat-ronage Intentions: The Relative Importance of Perceived Prices and Salesperson Service Attributes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12, 15-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2004.01.002
[53] Mehrabian, A. (2010) Immediacy: An Indicator of Attitudes in Linguistic Communication. Journal of Personality, 34, 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1966.tb01696.x
[54] Jiang, Z. and Benbasat, I. (2007) The Effects of Presenta-tion Formats and Task Complexity on Online Consumers’ Product Understanding. MIS Quarterly, 31, 475-500.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148804