Najlepsze ceny Specjalne oferty dla członków klubu książki PWE Najtańsza dostawa
DOI: 10.33226/1231-7853.2022.3.2
JEL: M31
Wojciech Kulesza ORCID: 0000-0001-5457-6396 , e-mail: wkulesza|swps.edu.pl| |wkulesza|swps.edu.pl
Paweł Muniak ORCID: 0000-0003-3983-147X , e-mail: pmuniak|swps.edu.pl| |pmuniak|swps.edu.pl
Dariusz Doliński ORCID: 0000-0002-4225-4258 , e-mail: ddolinsk|swps.edu.pl| |ddolinsk|swps.edu.pl
Tomasz Grzyb ORCID: 0000-0002-1080-5000 , e-mail: tgrzyb|swps.edu.pl| |tgrzyb|swps.edu.pl

LOL! Can textual paralanguage be useful in marketing?

LOL! Can textual paralanguage be useful in marketing?

Textual Paralanguage (TPL) is widely used in marketing practice. However, there is no consensus on its effectiveness. Since mimicry is a good proxy for communication effectiveness, we set out to determine if TPL is in fact being mimicked (in spoken or written form: "hm," "aaaa," "lol" which are exemplars of the TPL), and consequently, whether TPL is an effective tool in marketing communication. In three studies, participants took part in interviews and were randomly assigned to two condition groups. In the experimental group, the experimenter incorporated elements of TPL in the conversation. The control group had no exposure to TPL. We used several measures of the tendency to mimic TPL. The experiments were run at a university in Poznań (Poland), at the turn of 2017 and 2018. We found that TPL, often used in marketing communication, was not mimicked at all, and thus may not be beneficial to the agent using it. The findings of this paper contradict the everyday practice of marketing communication. The results are consistent across all three experiments. In light of the reported experiments, people do not imitate TPL in communication, which may signify that the expected benefits are lacking.

Tekstualny parajęzyk (TPL) jest powszechnie stosowany w praktyce marketingowej, lecz nie ma pewności czy jest skuteczny. Ponieważ mimikra jest dobrym wskaźnikiem skutecznej komunikacji, autorzy artykułu postawili sobie za cel zbadanie, czy TPL jest naturalnie naśladowany (w mowie lub piśmie: „hm”, „aaaa”, „lol”), a w konsekwencji czy jest skutecznym narzędziem w komunikacji marketingowej. Uczestnicy trzech opisanych w artykule badań brali udział w wywiadach, gdzie byli losowo przydzielani do jednego z dwóch warunków. W warunkach eksperymentalnych eksperymentator włączał do rozmowy elementy TPL. Warunki kontrolne były wolne od tych ekspozycji. W badaniach mierzono skłonność uczestników do naśladowania TPL. Eksperymenty przeprowadzono na jednej z poznańskich uczelni wyższych na przełomie 2017 i 2018 roku. Uzyskane wyniki są spójne we wszystkich trzech eksperymentach. Stwierdzono, że TPL nie był naśladowany, w związku z czym może nie być korzystny dla osoby stosującej ten element podczas komunikacji. Wnioski przedstawione w artykule zaprzeczają codziennej praktyce komunikacji marketingowej. W świetle raportowanych eksperymentów ludzie nie naśladują TPL, co może świadczyć o braku oczekiwanych korzyści.

Słowa kluczowe: mimicry; imitation; written communication; textual paralanguage; emoji in marketing (mimikra; imitacja; pisemna komunikacja; tekstualny parajęzyk; emoji w marketingu)

Bibliografia

References/Bibliografia

Bowman, A., & Azzalini, A. (2018). Package "sm"[R package].

Cappella, J. N., & Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal conversations III: Interspeaker influence. Human Communication Research, 7(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00564.x

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

Das, G., Wiener, H. J. D., & Kareklas, I. (2019). To emoji or not to emoji? Examining the influence of emoji on consumer reactions to advertising. Journal of Business Research, 96, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.007

Dijksterhuis, A. (2005). Why we are social animals: The high road to imitation as social glue. Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science, 2, 207–220.

Duffy, K. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2015). Mimicry: causes and consequences. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.03.002

Ganster, T., Eimler, S. C., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Same same but different!? The differential influence of smilies and emoticons on person perception. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(4), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0179

Ge, J., & Gretzel, U. (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15–16), 1272–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1483960

Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15(2), 87–105.

Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press.

Guéguen, N. (2009). Mimicry and seduction: An evaluation in a courtship context. Social Influence, 4(4), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802628173

Guéguen, N., Martin, A., Meineri, S., & Simon, J. (2013). Using mimicry to elicit answers to intimate questions in survey research. Field Methods, 25(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12449710

Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.003

Hayes, J. L., Britt, B. C., Applequist, J., Ramirez, A., & Hill, J. (2020). Leveraging textual paralanguage and consumer-brand relationships for more relatable online brand communication: A social presence approach. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2019.1691093

Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., Martin, A., & Boulbry, G. (2011). Retail salespeople's mimicry of customers: Effects on consumer behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.11.006

Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings [of] Roman Jakobson: Word and language. Mouton.

JASP Team. (2021). JASP (Version 0.16)[Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

Johar, S. (2015). Emotion, affect and personality in speech: The bias of language and paralanguage. Springer.

Ki, C., & Kim, Y. (2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers' desire to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21244

Kulesza, W., Szypowska, Z., Jarman, M. S., & Dolinski, D. (2014). Attractive chameleons sell: The mimicry-attractiveness link. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20716

Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025389814290

Leung, C. H., & Chan, W. T. Y. (2017). Using emoji effectively in marketing: An empirical study. Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing, 5(1), 76–95.

Li, X., Chan, K. W., & Kim, S. (2018). Service with emoticons: How customers interpret employee use of emoticons in online service encounters. The Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy016

Luangrath, A., Peck, J., & Barger, V. (2017a). Make your tweety bird tweet: Use of textual paralanguage in brand and spokescharacter online communications. ACR North American Advances.

Luangrath, A., Peck, J., & Barger, V. (2017b). Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing communications. Journal of Consumer Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.002

Martin, A., Gueguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2010). The impact of guilt on mimicry behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(7), 987–991. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.7.987

Mulder, J., Gu, X., Olsson-Collentine, A., Tomarken, A., Böing-Messing, F., Hoijtink, H., Meijerink, M., Williams, D. R., Menke, J., Fox, J.-P., Rosseel, Y., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & van Lissa, C. (2019). BFpack: Flexible bayes factor testing of scientific theories in R. In arXiv [stat.CO]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.07728

Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). "Mood contagion": The automatic transfer of mood between persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.211

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Rivera, K., Cooke, N. J., & Bauhs, J. A. (1996). The effects of emotional icons on remote communication. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 99–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/257089.257180

Rodríguez-Hidalgo, C., Tan, E. S. H., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2017). Expressing emotions in blogs: The role of textual paralinguistic cues in online venting and social sharing posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 638–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.007

Sumer, S. I. (2017). A brief perspective on emoji marketing. International Journal of New Technology and Research, 3(9).

Suvilehto, J. T., Glerean, E., Dunbar, R. I. M., Hari, R., & Nummenmaa, L. (2015). Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(45), 13811–13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112

Swaab, R. I., Maddux, W. W., & Sinaceur, M. (2011). Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 616–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.005

van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501012.x

van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Steenaert, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00014-3

van Swol, L. M. (2003). The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with an imitator, and reciprocity in a group discussion. Communication Research, 30(4), 461–480, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253318

Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Random and mixed effects. In W. N. Venables & B. D. Ripley (Eds.), Modern Applied Statistics with S (pp. 271–300). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2_10

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790

Walther, J. B., & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900307

Yngve, & Victor, H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Chicago Linguistics Society, 6th Meeting, 1970, 567–578.

Cena artykułu
16.00
Cena numeru czasopisma
62.00
Prenumerata
744.00 zł
558.00
zamów prenumeratę