This study aims to illustrate how anonymity, together with affect intensity and message valence, affects message receivers’ responses. A 2 (anonymous vs. revealed identity) × 2 (low vs. high affect intensity) × 2 (positive vs. negative valence) between-subjects experiment was conducted. It was found that when message affect intensity was low, an anonymous message was more effective in generating trust toward the message and message processing depth than a message with an identified sender. However, such a difference was insignificant when affect intensity was high. Moreover, a significant interaction effect between affect intensity and message valence was found on message processing depth. When affect intensity was high, a positive message elicited more message processing. When affect intensity was low, there was no significant difference between positive and negative messages.
AuneR. K.KikuchiT. (1993). Effects of language intensity similarity on perceptions of credibility relational attributions, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 224-238.
2.
BergerJ.SorensenA. T.RasmussenS. J. (2010). Positive effects of negative publicity: When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Science, 29, 815-827.
3.
BloomA.HautaluomaJ. (1987). Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 329-338.
4.
BradacJ. J.BowersJ. W.CourtrightJ. A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
5.
BradacJ. J.BowersJ. W.CourtrightJ. A. (1980). Lexical variations in intensity, immediacy, and diversity: An axiomatic theory and causal model. In St. ClairR. N.GilesH. (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language (pp. 193-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
7.
BurgoonM.DenningP. V.RobertsL. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BurgoonM.JonesS. B.StewartD. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory of persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. Human Communication Research, 1, 240-256.
9.
ChatterjeeP. (2001). Online reviews: Do consumers use them?Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 129-133.
10.
ChesneyT.SuD. (2010). The impact of anonymity on weblog credibility. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 68, 710-718.
11.
CraigT. Y.BlankenshipK. L. (2011). Language and persuasion: Linguistic extremity influences message processing and behavioral intentions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 290-310.
12.
DaughertyT.HoffmanE. (2014). eWOM and importance of capturing consumer attention within social media. Journal of Marketing Communication, 20, 82-102.
13.
DiefendorffJ.RichardE. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.
14.
DouX.WaldenJ. A.LeeS.LeeJ. Y. (2012). Does source matter? Examining source effects in online product reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1555-1563.
15.
FolkesV. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565.
16.
FormanC.GhoseA.WiesenfeldB. (2008). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19, 291-313.
17.
GeuensM.De PelsmackerP.FaseurT. (2011). Emotional advertising: Revisiting the role of product category. Journal of Business Research, 64, 418-426.
18.
HamiltonM. A. (2015). Language intensity as an expression of power in political messages. In SchulzeR.PishwaH. (Eds.), The Exercise of Power in Communication (pp.233-265). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E. (1998). The effect of language intensity on receiver evaluations of message, source, and topic. In AllenM.PreissR. W. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 99-138). New York, NY: Hampton Press.
20.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E.BurgoonM. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235-255.
21.
HamiltonM. A.StewartB. L. (1993). Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41, 231-246.
22.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
23.
HolzwarthM.JaniszewskiC.NeumannM. M. (2006). The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 70, 19-36.
24.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. (1959). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change (3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
JensenM. L.AverbeckJ. M.ZhangZ.WrightK. B. (2013). Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30, 293-323.
26.
JoharJ. S.SirgyM. J. (1991). Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20, 23-33.
27.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
28.
KimJ.BaekY.ChoiY. H. (2012). The structural effects of metaphor-elicited cognitive and affective elaboration levels on attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 41, 77-96.
29.
KimJ.GuptaP. (2012). Emotional expressions in online user reviews: How they influence consumers’ product evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 65, 985-992.
30.
KusumasondjajaS.ShankaT.MarchegianiC. (2012). Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: The roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18, 185-195.
LeeA. M.ChyiH. I. (2015). The rise of online news aggregators: Consumption and competition. International Journal on Media Management, 17, 3-24.
33.
LeeM.YounS. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising, 28, 473-499.
34.
LiC.WangX. (2013). The power of eWOM: A re-examination of online student evaluations of their professors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1350-1357.
35.
LinL. (2011). The impact of advertising appeals and advertising spokespersons on advertising attitudes and purchase intentions. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 8446-8457.
36.
LurieN. H.ChenZ. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 463-476.
37.
MalleB. F. (2011). Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In ChadeeD. (Eds.), Theories in social psychology (pp.72-95). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.
39.
McGuireW. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In GreenwaldA.BrockT.OstromT. (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171-196). New York, NY: Academic Press.
40.
MeyerP. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-574.
41.
MizerskiR. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 301-310.
42.
OmernickE.SoodS. O. (2013, September). The impact of anonymity in online communities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Computing, Alexandria, VA.
43.
RatchfordB. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27, 24-38.
44.
PaigeS. R.KriegerJ. L.StellefsonM. L. (2017). The influence of ehealth literacy on perceived trust in online health communication channels and sources. Journal of Health Communication, 22, 53-65.
45.
PjesivacI.RuiR. (2014). Anonymous sources hurt credibility of news stories across cultures: A comparative experiment in America and China. International Communication Gazette, 76, 641-660.
46.
RainsS. A. (2007a). The anonymity effect: The influence of anonymity on perceptions of sources and information on health websites. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 197-214.
47.
RainsS. A. (2007b). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: A test of two competing hypotheses. Communication Research, 34, 100-125.
48.
SternadoriM. M.ThorsonE. (2009). Anonymous sources harm credibility of all stories. Newspaper Research Journal, 30, 54-66.
49.
WolskiS.NabiR. L. (2000, June). Message processing quality: Confirmatory analysis of an elaboration depth measure. Paper presented at the 50th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
50.
XueF.ZhouP. (2010). The effects of product involvement and prior experience on Chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23, 45-58.
51.
YeQ.LawR.GuB. (2009).The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 180-182.
52.
ZhangH.SunJ.LiuF.KnightJ. G. (2014). Be rational or be emotional: advertising appeals, service types and consumer responses. European Journal of Marketing, 48, 2105-2126.
53.
ZimbardoP. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In ArnoldW. J.LevineD. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
