In this study, we explore the effects of channel choice (e-mail vs. voice mail) and message structure (direct vs. indirect) on the receiver’s perception of bad-news messages. We conducted an experiment in which bad-news e-mails and voice mails were presented to participants who evaluated their response to the messages via a questionnaire. The results indicate that e-mail is more comprehensible, while voice mail is more persuasive and effective for maintaining a personal customer relationship. Furthermore, messages with an indirect structure (explanation → bad news) are valued more highly than direct messages (bad news → explanations). We also found interaction effects of channel and structure, the most important being that the preference for the indirect structure is limited to e-mails.
BaltesB. B.DicksonM. W.ShermanM. P.BauerC. C.LaGankeJ. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179.
2.
BaronN. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of e-mail. Language & Communication, 18, 133-170.
3.
BaronN. (2000). Alphabet to e-mail: How written English evolved and where it’s heading. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BolterJ. D.GrusinR. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5.
BovéeC. L.ThillJ. V. (2000). Business communication today. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BrittM. A.LarsonA. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794-810.
7.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChaikenS.EaglyA. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-256.
9.
CrystalD. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
11.
De JongJaap (ed.) (2002). Handboek bedrijfscorrespondentie [Handbook for Business Correspondence]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhof.
12.
DingwallS. (1992). Leaving telephone answering machine messages: Who’s afraid of speaking to machines?Text & Talk, 12, 81-101.
13.
El-ShinnawyM.MarkusM. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail versus voicemail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 443-467.
14.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: Sage.
15.
Gelinas-ChebatC.ChebatJ.-C. (1992). Effects of two voice characteristics on the attitudes toward advertising messages. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 447-459.
16.
GoutsosD. (2001) Sequential and interpersonal aspects of English and Greek answering machine messages. Pragmatics, 11, 357-377.
17.
JansenF.JanssenD. (2010). Effects of positive politeness strategies in business letters. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2531-2548.
18.
JansenF.JanssenD. (2011). Explanations first: A case for presenting explanations before the decision in Dutch bad-news messages. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25, 36-67.
KeilM.JohnsonR. D. (2002). Feedback channels: Using social presence theory to compare voicemail to e-mail. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13, 295-302.
21.
KnoblauchH.Alvarez-CáccamoC. (1992). “I was calling you”. Communicative patterns in leaving a message to answering machines. Text & Talk, 12, 473-505.
22.
KrugerJ.EpleyN.ParkerJ.NgZ.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 89, 925-936.
23.
LangeI. (1999). Die sequenzielle Struktur von Anrufbeantworter-kommunikation [The sequential structure of voice mail communication]. InList (Issue No. 14). Retrieved from http://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/14/inlist14.pdf
24.
LeveltW. J. (1989), Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25.
LyonsJ. (1977). Semantics I. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RiceR. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-601.
27.
RiceR. E.DanowskyJ. A. (1993). Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voicemail users. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 369-397.
28.
SchererK. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication, 40, 227-256.
29.
ShapiroD. L.ButtnerE. H.BarryB. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346-368.
30.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
31.
TimmermanP. D.HarrisonW. (2005). The discretionary use of electronic media: Four considerations for bad news bearers. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 379-389.
32.
UnnavaH. R.BurnkrantR. E.ErevellesS. (1994). Effects of presentation order and communication modality on recall and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 481-490.
33.
VisserR. (2011). Het gebruik van voicemailberichten in slachtnieuwscommunicatie [The use of voicemail messages in bad news communication] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
34.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-44.
35.
Watts SussmanS.SproullL. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic communication. Information Systems Research, 10, 150-165.
