Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context

“It is proposed that posters will be influenced by another’s opinion only when it is negative. Negative evaluators are seen as more intelligent, competent, and expert than positive evaluators (Amabile 1983). Although reporting less favorable opinions to a multiple audience will be inconsistent with some members’ opinions, the discrepancy will likely be attributed to the speaker being more knowledgeable or having higher standards. Thus, voicing less favorable attitudes may increase one’s likelihood of being admired and respected.

Such a negativity bias does not occur in all social contexts, however. Certain social contexts—such as those heightening concerns with the quality of one’s opinions—appear to elicit a negativity bias (Amabile and Glazebrook 1982). Knowing that someone had an unfavorable product experience may be one such context. Posters likely view the author of a negative review as intelligent, which may trigger concerns about the quality of their opinion and the resulting social outcomes. For instance, they might wonder if their opinion is too favorable and might give the impression that they have low standards or are indiscriminate. As a result, even if their personal experiences were favorable, they will adjust their public attitudes downward. In contrast, because positive evaluators are seen as less intelligent than negative evaluators (Amabile 1983), a positive review is unlikely to trigger such social concerns. Thus, rather than polarization, in which posters’ public attitudes (or ratings) become more extreme in the direction of a positive or negative review, a negativity bias should occur. Further, if a negative review rather than the social context itself is what triggers such social concerns, then posters’ public ratings should be less favorable when they receive a negative review than no review.

H1: Posters will publicly rate the product less favorably when they receive a negative review than a positive review or no review, whereas their public ratings will not differ when they receive a positive review versus no review.

If the negativity bias is a self-presentational strategy, then it should emerge among those rating the product publicly (posters) but not privately (lurkers). That is, although lurkers likely view a negative reviewer as intelligent, because their ratings are private, they do not feel the social pressures to present themselves as intelligent and discerning. Consequently, they do not lower their rating. Furthermore, if a positive review fails to trigger such social concerns among posters, then posters’ and lurkers’ ratings should not differ when the review is positive.

H2: Posters’ ratings will be less favorable than lurkers’ ratings after reading a negative review, whereas their ratings should not differ after reading a positive review.

Posters’ public explanations for their ratings (i.e., their reviews) will likely acknowledge more than a single side because voicing one side risks alienating at least one audience. Indeed, speakers will send mixed (overt and covert) messages to appeal to multiple audiences (Fleming et al. 1990). Hence, independent of the review read, posters will likely publicly acknowledge other perspectives in addition to theirs (e.g., the product has benefits but also flaws).

H3: Posters will present more than one side in their (public) reviews.

Considering multiple sides of an issue appears to be largely due to anticipated evaluation by others (Simonson and Nowlis 2000). Thus, lurkers’ reasons for their opinions (i.e., their private reviews) are less likely to exhibit a point counterpoint format. In fact, unlike posters, lurkers’ focus may be more on integration than differentiation. Differentiation occurs when individuals recognize at least two different perspectives on an issue, whereas integration represents the development of complex connections among different viewpoints (Tetlock et al. 1989). With differentiation, differing viewpoints are considered in isolation, whereas integration involves identifying interactions or superordinate categories that link these viewpoints. For posters, their audience’s differing viewpoints may remain separate in their minds, and perhaps even irreconcilable. Thus, whereas posters will likely acknowledge different viewpoints, they are less likely to recognize overarching connections between these viewpoints compared to lurkers.

H4: Posters’ reviews will demonstrate less integration than will lurkers’ reviews.”

“The results of two experiments collectively shed light on how consumers broadcast their product experiences on the Internet and indicate that prior research on single audiences does not apply. For instance, cognitive tuning research suggests that speakers exhibit attitude polarization and resist information inconsistent with their attitudes (Guerin and Innes 1989). Yet, posters exhibited a negativity bias rather than polarization, even when their personal experiences with the product were favorable and they were committed to these attitudes. It appears that reading a negative review triggers posters’ concerns with the social outcomes of their public evaluations, thereby causing them to lower their public ratings strategically. In fact, this bias was limited to posters’ public opinions—their private attitudes and thoughts did not differ from those of lurkers.

The results also support the prediction that posters will publicly acknowledge (although not integrate) multiple viewpoints. This is contrary to prior theorizing that speakers think about prototypical, supporting information (Kruglanski and Webster 1996). Whereas focusing upon supporting information may be best when defending an attitude or ingratiating a single audience, acknowledging multiple perspectives is likely best when speaking to a multiple audience.

The findings for lurkers also contrast those of prior reresearch. Specifically, according to cognitive tuning research, receivers suspend judgment and are influenced by additional information more than transmitters are (Cohen 1961; Higgins, McCann, and Fondacaro 1982). The fact that lurkers’ ratings were unaffected by additional information (the reviews) is likely because they did not expect communication. Indeed, one criticism of prior experiments is that receivers were really transmitters who did not begin the conversation (Guerin and Innes 1989). Consequently, they had to have flexible cognitive structures and be receptive to incoming information to prepare for a range of possible messages to which they must respond (Higgins et al. 1982). Lurkers represent a purer form of receiving because the social pressures to respond are negligible. It appears that under such circumstances, their judgments and thoughts are complete and organized.

The present findings also qualify previous theorizing that a negativity bias will not emerge among those anticipating social interaction (Ahluwalia 2002). Consistent with this prior research, a negativity bias did not emerge among those speaking without any audience information and among posters’ private responses. However, the present findings suggest that a negativity bias can emerge among the public opinions of those speaking to a multiple audience.

The findings also appear inconsistent with the cooperative principle of communication, which proposes normative maxims of effective communication (Grice 1975). Specifically, the finding that a negativity bias emerged even when posters’ experiences with the product were favorable violates the maxims of quantity and quality. According to these maxims, the speaker should provide new information (quantity) and be genuine and truthful (quality). Hence, posters should have reported their favorable product experiences (new and genuine information) when receiving a negative review. Ironically, it appears that posters’ motivations to yield favorable social outcomes caused them to violate these normative maxims of conversation.”