Table 3 ADT application study Data...

Table 3

ADT application study


Data collection	January/February 2024; questionnaire, distributed on social networks
Sample	267 active European social media users (60% female, 37% male, 3% diverse, average age 28 years) 81% used social networks several times a day, the others once a day or several times a week
Experimental design	2 (response strategy: reply to negative only vs some positive and negative) × 2 (response type: defensive vs accommodative) × 2 (account type: standard vs humanized) between-subjects
Study context	See Table A1
Procedure	Watching the video with the simulated social media thread (the hotel’s post, the consumer comments and the hotel’s replies) → rating statements measuring the link between the arguments derived from ADT and response strategy, response type and account type (see below) → evaluating scenario realism → providing information about social media usage (see preliminary study) and demographics
Scenario realism across groups	(1) “The described situation was realistic to me”: F = 0.902, p > 0.10(2) “I was well able to put myself in the situation”: F = 0.480, p > 0.10(3) “It is likely that social media users experience such firm response behavior in real life”: F = 0.186, p > 0.10
Social media usage across groups	(1) “I see myself as an active and engaging social media user”: F = 0.647, p > 0.10(2) “I regularly like postings and leave comments on social media”: F = 0.417, p > 0.10(3) “I regularly take part in discussions on social media”: F = 1.398, p > 0.10

Response strategy: “The hotel’s strategy of replying to only negative vs some positive and negative comments…	leaves clear patterns in the social network thread that are easily and quickly recognizable”: M_{neg_only} = 5.82, M_{pos_neg} = 3.96 (t = 15.566, p < 0.001)
	is systematic (consumers quickly understand the hotel’s criteria for replying to comments)”: M_{neg_only} = 5.50, M_{pos_neg} = 3.89 (t = 12.608, p < 0.001)
	shows a consistent approach to addressing consumer feedback”: M_{neg_only} = 5.87, M_{pos_neg} = 4.49 (t = 9.714, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_{neg_only} = 5.62, M_{pos_neg} = 4.24 (t = 10.164, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_{neg_only} = 5.06, M_{pos_neg}= 3.53 (t = 11.342, p < 0.001)
	is diagnostic”: M_{neg_only} = 4.45, M_{pos_neg} = 3.38 (t = 8.099, p < 0.001)
Response type: “The hotel’s strategy of apologizing and showing effort to solve the issues vs rejecting responsibility and showing no effort to solve the issues…	reveals useful and helpful information that is relevant to my situation”: M_def = 2.54, M_acc = 6.00(t = −24.599, p < 0.001)
	offers value to me as a complaining customer”: M_def = 1.76, M_acc= 6.31 (t = −40.515, p < 0.001)
	compensates for the effort I have spent on writing the complaint and addressing related issues": M_def = 2.59, M_acc = 6.02 (t = −25.806, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_def = 1.64, M_acc= 6.31 (t = −40.003, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_def = 4.29, M_acc = 4.50 (t = −1.419, p > 0.10)
	is diagnostic”: M_def = 2.40, M_acc = 6.31 (t = −28.718, p < 0.001)
Account type: “The hotel’s strategy of replying from the standard firm account vs a humanized account (with personal details like photo/name/contact information) …	shows human touch”: M_stand = 2.60, M_hum = 6.14 (t = −33.598, p < 0.001)
	makes the communication partner tangible”: M_stand = 2.44, M_hum = 6.36 (t = −38.522, p < 0.001)
	increases the hotel’s authenticity”: M_stand = 3.19, M_hum = 5.84 (t = −19.519, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_stand = 3.27, M_hum = 5.93 (t = −17.930, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_stand = 3.18, M_hum = 6.20 (t = −25.296, p < 0.001)
	is diagnostic”: M_stand = 3.22, M_hum = 6.01 (t = −20.633, p < 0.001)


Data collection	January/February 2024; questionnaire, distributed on social networks
Sample	267 active European social media users (60% female, 37% male, 3% diverse, average age 28 years) 81% used social networks several times a day, the others once a day or several times a week
Experimental design	2 (response strategy: reply to negative only vs some positive and negative) × 2 (response type: defensive vs accommodative) × 2 (account type: standard vs humanized) between-subjects
Study context	See Table A1
Procedure	Watching the video with the simulated social media thread (the hotel’s post, the consumer comments and the hotel’s replies) → rating statements measuring the link between the arguments derived from ADT and response strategy, response type and account type (see below) → evaluating scenario realism → providing information about social media usage (see preliminary study) and demographics
Scenario realism across groups	(1) “The described situation was realistic to me”: F = 0.902, p > 0.10(2) “I was well able to put myself in the situation”: F = 0.480, p > 0.10(3) “It is likely that social media users experience such firm response behavior in real life”: F = 0.186, p > 0.10
Social media usage across groups	(1) “I see myself as an active and engaging social media user”: F = 0.647, p > 0.10(2) “I regularly like postings and leave comments on social media”: F = 0.417, p > 0.10(3) “I regularly take part in discussions on social media”: F = 1.398, p > 0.10

Response strategy: “The hotel’s strategy of replying to only negative vs some positive and negative comments…	leaves clear patterns in the social network thread that are easily and quickly recognizable”: M_{neg_only} = 5.82, M_{pos_neg} = 3.96 (t = 15.566, p < 0.001)
	is systematic (consumers quickly understand the hotel’s criteria for replying to comments)”: M_{neg_only} = 5.50, M_{pos_neg} = 3.89 (t = 12.608, p < 0.001)
	shows a consistent approach to addressing consumer feedback”: M_{neg_only} = 5.87, M_{pos_neg} = 4.49 (t = 9.714, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_{neg_only} = 5.62, M_{pos_neg} = 4.24 (t = 10.164, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_{neg_only} = 5.06, M_{pos_neg}= 3.53 (t = 11.342, p < 0.001)
	is diagnostic”: M_{neg_only} = 4.45, M_{pos_neg} = 3.38 (t = 8.099, p < 0.001)
Response type: “The hotel’s strategy of apologizing and showing effort to solve the issues vs rejecting responsibility and showing no effort to solve the issues…	reveals useful and helpful information that is relevant to my situation”: M_def = 2.54, M_acc = 6.00(t = −24.599, p < 0.001)
	offers value to me as a complaining customer”: M_def = 1.76, M_acc= 6.31 (t = −40.515, p < 0.001)
	compensates for the effort I have spent on writing the complaint and addressing related issues": M_def = 2.59, M_acc = 6.02 (t = −25.806, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_def = 1.64, M_acc= 6.31 (t = −40.003, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_def = 4.29, M_acc = 4.50 (t = −1.419, p > 0.10)
	is diagnostic”: M_def = 2.40, M_acc = 6.31 (t = −28.718, p < 0.001)
Account type: “The hotel’s strategy of replying from the standard firm account vs a humanized account (with personal details like photo/name/contact information) …	shows human touch”: M_stand = 2.60, M_hum = 6.14 (t = −33.598, p < 0.001)
	makes the communication partner tangible”: M_stand = 2.44, M_hum = 6.36 (t = −38.522, p < 0.001)
	increases the hotel’s authenticity”: M_stand = 3.19, M_hum = 5.84 (t = −19.519, p < 0.001)
	demonstrates the hotel’s genuine care for its customers”: M_stand = 3.27, M_hum = 5.93 (t = −17.930, p < 0.001)
	is accessible”: M_stand = 3.18, M_hum = 6.20 (t = −25.296, p < 0.001)
	is diagnostic”: M_stand = 3.22, M_hum = 6.01 (t = −20.633, p < 0.001)

Note(s):

neg_only: replying to only negative comments, pos_neg: replying to some positive and negative comments; def: defensive, acc: accommodative; stand: standard, hum: humanized; scale: 1 = completely disagree, …, 7 = completely agree, except information accessibility: 1 = not at all accessible, …, 7 = very accessible, information diagnosticity: 1 = not at all diagnostic, …, 7 = very diagnostic

Source(s): Authors’ work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable