Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0253983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253983

Persuasive linguistic tricks in social media marketing communication—The memetic approach

Krzysztof Stepaniuk 1,*, Katarzyna Jarosz 1
Editor: Stefano Cresci2
PMCID: PMC8248608  PMID: 34197549

Abstract

The paper reports the results of a study into the use of linguistic cues defined as Persuasive Linguistic Tricks (PLT) in social media (SM) marketing communication. It was assumed that the content shared on Social Networking Sites (SNS) could be perceived as specific sets of meanings (memeplexes), where a single component, also PLT, may function as their part. Following an original typology of PLT, created based on an emotional factor, the research focused on whether and how the number of positive, neutral and negative PLT used in Facebook posts impacted the behaviour of content recipients. These activities, including liking, commenting and sharing, are strictly connected with post spreading and range. The data analysis focused on 167 Facebook posts shared by five leading Polish travel agencies and 1911 responding comments. The quantitative content analysis method and Spearman’s correlation tests were used. A relationship was observed between the number of emotionally positive and neutral PLT and the increase in the range of content with these PLT. The use of PLT by post recipients was also observed in their comments. This phenomenon is possibly related to the memetic nature of PLT. From the perspective of marketing messages, the obtained results contribute to and guide the textual content-building with a high spreading potential owing to the memetic capability of PLT. Further elaborations were made on the assumption for the evolutionary approach in social media content transfer and its processing.

1. Introduction

Social networking sites (SNS) are platforms enabling user interactions and information diffusion [1]. The latter was defined by Rogers [2] as a process of information spreading from a source to a recipient or groups of recipients through communication channels. Such spreading is based on specific relationships established between network members [3]. Enterprises in a marketing communication use the specificity of relations resulting from common interests, social affiliations, attitudes, and behaviours to target messages at specific recipients using a mix of text elements, graphical and/or multimedia content [4].

Language is the basic carrier of information [5] and the tool for the expression of meanings. It consists of semantic signals (expressed as written or spoken content), stimulating human minds to build abstract and structured representations of presented elements in a sequence [6]. Language is a verbal representation of transferred meanings. It enables linguistic manipulation and impacts recipient actions [7]. Such manipulation often uses persuasive linguistic tricks (PLT), i.e., short phrases that contain hidden meanings. Messages with PLT aim to promote recipient behaviour desired by the source of the message [8] or, according to van Laer et al. [9], affective, cognitive and attitudinal reactions of recipients.

First, the study aimed to demonstrate that PLT could have a memetic character, as maintained by Vaneechoutte & Skoyles [10], because of a particular form, the ability to be transferred, and meaningfulness. The theoretical framework used to achieve this aim was based on the sender–recipient–effect model [11] and the SNS persuasion modelling proposed by Hong et al. [12]. The effect could be recognised as a specific recipient behaviour, expressed as commenting on the shared source content that directionally uses PLT.

Second, the study aimed to analyse the relationship between the PLT frequency of three emotional categories (positive, neutral and negative) [13] and the behaviour of the message recipients in SNS. According to Djukic [14], Wang and McCarthy [15], a strong correlation exists between the content range and behaviour of recipients, i.e., liking, posting, commenting and sharing the content [16, 17]. PLT present in the textual content could be one among different types of factors promoting such recipient behaviours.

The research has a utilitarian character as results can be incorporated into a process of the textual content creation in social networks marketing communication focused on increasing the content range and specific recipient behaviour connected with the further use of PLT as components of the primary transmission. This study of persuasive language tricks and their use in marketing communication in social media represents a new, interdisciplinary approach to linguistic persuasion from the evolutionary perspective.

The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the theory; Section 3 introduces hypotheses and the aims of the work; Section 4 contains the data and methodology; Sections 5 lists the study results; and Section 6 gives the discussion. The article ends with a description of research limitations, a short description of possible future research and conclusions.

2. Literature overview

2.1. Memes and marketing communication

Memes [18, 19], like words, are information carriers, representing particular meanings. They are defined as “bits of behaviourally transmissible information” [15]. Consequently, memes are the direct factor shaping the perception of surroundings (entities, products, services, etc.) and enabling the expression of attitudes towards them [20] as well as specific behaviours due to their “capability of affecting individuals” [21].

Thus, marketing communication concerning a specific product, service, entity, phenomena or ideas can be described using sets of particular meanings (memes). First, such sets can provide a semantic description of a product, service, entity or phenomena as a whole. Second, components of those sets are present in different frequencies and, therefore, are subjects of the cultural selection processes [22]. According to Barnes [7], the language we speak shapes our reality, as the perception of the world and expression of our thoughts about it correlate with the words we use. Furthermore, the words we use influence recipients. According to the standard linguistic theory, meanings are attached to linguistic artefacts, and those meanings are materialised, transmitted and decoded by the speaker/writer and hearer/reader using the same mental machinery inside their brain [23]. Marketing communication in SM was analysed from the perspective of several aspects. In the case of politics and SM communication, De Paula et al. [24] showed the colossal role of symbolic acts (among others symbols, cultural references which are not directly related to politics) in the creation and dissemination of the shared content as well as the development of the relationship between the content source and the recipient. Sheng [25] and Saboo et al. [26] investigated the entity–customer relation from the perspective of the online activeness of firms influencing comment-posting. Simultaneously, Kujur & Singh [27] described the vividness, interactivity, entertainment and information as characters of SNS marketing content directly influencing online consumer participation. All of the mentioned factors were crucial for creating recipient/user engagement using specific jargon, symbols, activities, etc. All of these elements were typical from the perspective of memes.

The theory of memes can significantly impact the creation and maintenance of customer relations in the contemporary and competitive market. Falát et al. [28] suggested that “the main goal of marketing communication is the transfer of the message between the sender and the recipient”. The most apparent marketing communication role is to create and maintain customer relations and spread information about products or services. Simultaneously, marketing communication is connected with the creation of a semantic description of an image. Thus, due to the transfer of specified meanings, marketing communication is partly connected with shaping customer behaviour according to the wants of the message sender.

The memetic approach, despite the reservations expressed by Plotkin [29], is simple and compatible with the sender–channel–message–recipient–effect model [16, 30, 31]. It gives a wide range of possibilities for a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the content shared in social networks. Besides, it gives rise to the theoretical basis for scientific investigations concerning the present and later perceptions of the shared data.

Content posted on social networking sites is built from several sets of meanings expressed in different forms, which could be described as sets of memes—cultural semi-replicated information carriers. According to Heylighen & Chielens [32], such type of sets could be defined as memeplexes. Like genes, memes can change their frequency and range through their transferability within social groups “from one’s memory to another’s memory” [33]. Schlaile et al. [34] analysed the concept of a memeplex based on the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge diffusion process and stated that it was a recombination of meme-based and Internet-inspired behaviours: cold water challenge and neknomination. Thus, memes could be perceived as factors based on imitation [35] that shape or influence a wide spectrum of recipient activities (affective, cognitive and behavioural) among individuals and groups in real and digital life. From the perspective of content diffusion effectiveness, the range is a crucial aspect. Thomas and McDonogh [36] suggested that the range was strongly correlated with “how” and “what” source wanted to communicate and share. Communication, which is directly focused on activities generated in relation to transferred meanings, is also the basis for creating a web of relationships that can grow dynamically from the perspective of an increasing frequency of interactions between SNS users [37]. From the perspective of SNS, the description of recipient (user) activities was presented using the AIDAT model [13] and the COBRA model [14]. It refers to the creation of a hierarchical relationship between a cognitive stage (viewing content, which stimulates the recipients’ attention), a behavioural stage with a moderate level of content consumption (liking, commenting, sharing), and a behavioural stage with a high level of content consumption (creating and sharing User-Generated Content based on the original message). All types of activities are derivative effects of the communication process, mainly including content formation, content transfer and processing, as well as its further spreading and range. From the perspective of the latter, the key issue is the frequency of meanings in SM communication.

All activities mentioned above mutually integrate virtual users based on Secondary Social Bonds (SSB)—weak relationships that lack a strong emotional context and are particular to group members clustered around common interests and related activities [38] and bear the marks of homophily [39]. These activities relate to communication, commenting, exchanging and sharing information in forms of text, graphics and multimedia.

2.2. Linguistic tricks as an element of persuasive language

Hatim and Mason [40] suggested that advertisement content should be constructed as a specific continuum between informational and manipulative content and could be perceived as persuasive language. According to Labrador et al. [41], three-quarters of online advertisements include explicit persuasive phrases, which results from an attempt to draw the attention of recipients using affective words, informal expressions and metaphors.

Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion (ELM) [42], besides the central route of the persuasion process, mainly connected with deep analysis and processing of a message by a recipient, a peripheral route of the process exists, strictly associated with an emotional undertone of the message and its influence on the recipient’s behavioural or attitudinal change.

McInerney [8] defined linguistic tricks as a meaning “that cannot be clearly discerned within the text”. Linguistic tricks are hidden in the text and can be found only by an aware recipient. The use of such valuable resources inside the text aims to intensify the effect of marketing communication and make customers choose whether to take a particular course of action.

The intensity of linguistic tricks and the final result of their use vary and depend on their emotional character and frequency of occurrence. Xu et al. [10] suggested the typology of the content shared in social media and divided it into elements having a positive, neutral and negative character. Hong et al. [17] used Hovland’s model of persuasion to describe several main elements acting in the process of content transmission: a persuader (SNS source of the message) [43]; persuading information(SNS message); the situation of persuasion (the whole content of an SNS webpage); and the recipient of the message (SNS user). Such an approach corresponds with the communication process theory according to Berlo [30] or other authors [31], [16].

Due to the properties mentioned above, positive, negative and neutral linguistic tricks in SNS marketing communication as persuasive language elements play a crucial role in the peripheral route of persuasion and could be perceived as a crucial factor in persuasive marketing communication in SNS.

For the sake of the current and future studies, a synthetic definition of PLT as an element of persuasive language was formulated, basing on the definition of persuasiveness according to Gilly et al. [44]: “the change in attitude and/or behavioural intention resulting from an interpersonal informational exchange”. PLT are the semantic accidents with different emotional connotations, containing hidden meanings which might be specific descriptors of content they are representing and expressing as well as triggers stimulating specific activities or behaviours of recipients. Except for the holistic perspective on the perception of the phenomenon or the entity in social media described by the available content, PLT are a component of memeplexes and could also be perceived as elements influencing and modifying behaviours in the real world (mainly consumer behaviours) and the digital world (through user behaviour). Thus, their frequency of presence and emotional connotations are important.

Based on the analysis of linguistic and psychological literature [45, 46] and other resources mentioned in Table 1, a typology of PLT as elements of persuasive language according to the affective factor [10] was created.

Table 1. Typology of persuasive linguistic tricks.

Persuasive Linguistic Tricks with positive emotional connotations
“Agreement frames”: I agree … and I want to add [47];
“Amendment technique”: information about a previous (higher and current) lower price of the product [48];
“And that’s not all”: i.e., a special bonus is introduced [49];
“Authority”: people changing their decision-making process when confronted with the opinion of authority [50];
“Cueing”: a product associated with something from the environment [51];
“Fun (anecdotes)”: a product associated with the feeling of joy caused by a funny advertisement [51];
“Group”: becoming a part of a particular group by buying the product/service [52];
“Elite (exclusivity)”: becoming a member of an elite group by buying the advertised goods [53];
“Hypnosis”: using suggestions to create vivid pictures/emotions/sounds in a person’s mind [54];
“Independent point of view”: the author of a message seems to have no intention of changing the reader’s opinion [55];
“Known”: making an association with a similar product or with a person who uses the product/service and is well known, liked, and respected [52];
“Majority”: the text might give an impression that everybody thinks this way or that the majority shares the presented view [56];
“Name”: the name of the product should attract the attention of the customer [51];
“Problems and solutions”: presenting a common problem and showing the solutions [47];
“Quotation”: quotations about the content being trustworthy [56];
“Rivalry”: showing the advantage over other people, group, society, and companies which would be gained after buying the product [57];
“Similarity”: people like those who resemble them; using similarities as a wording strategy [58];
“Uniqueness”: products/services which are in limited edition are more desired [52];
“VAKOG”: content as a factor stimulating senses [59];
“Visualisation”: an imagined act of using the product [52];
“Persuasive words”: making the text more persuasive by using such words as you, discovery, easy, guarantee, safety, to save, health, love, new, proven, results, free [60];
“Yet”: this word suggests openness for change [60].
Persuasive Linguistic Tricks with neutral connotations
“Arguments”: general arguments, arguments of the majority, the argument of a single case when something helped achieve the goal of a person [61];
“Associations”: words and phrases are associated with events, feelings and emotions [62];
“Attention getter”: attractive headline, subheadings, and short slogans drawing the attention of a reader [63];
“Because”: people are ready to do something on request when a person uses the word “because” [64];
“But”: this word allows the reader to consider only the last part of a sentence [46];
“Comparing”: comparing and contrasting objects allows consumers to make one of them easier to choose [47];
“Emotion”: arousing emotions in a person is a key factor in persuading somebody to make a particular decision [52];
“Generalisation”: may be linked to superstitions and stereotypes [65];
“Imperative”: the persuasive power of orders [46];
“Metaphor”: a figurative expression that easily creates a mental picture and shapes one’s vision of reality [66];
“Passive voice”: suggestion that the course of events is or was unavoidable [67];
“Precision”: details make the decision-making process easier [52];
“Presupposition”: the presence of presupposition(s) in an utterance suggests that the statement is true and acceptable [68];
“Redefinition”: Basu [60] defined it as a pattern: “The problem is not about X, but about Y, and this means that…”;
“Repetition”: a repeated statement is easier to understand and remember [69];
“Slogans”: shortened, generalised, and simplified expressions, easy to notice and remember; they seem to be true [46];
“Story”: the recipient’s identification with the product [46];
“String of nouns”: many nouns in a sentence can bind together several ideas, events and opinions [70];
“Superlative”: the message might seem to be emotional. It can be achieved either through the use of superlative, e.g., the best, or through the use of some prefixes, e.g., super-rich [53];
“The truth effect”: information is not perceived as inaccurate, so it is treated as verified and true [71];
“Vicious circle”: a statement that aims to define a term and repeat this term in the definition [72].
Persuasive Linguistic Tricks with negative emotional connotations
“Cognitive dissonance”: the creation of a need to change the element which disturbs internal coherence [55];
“Limited choice”: limitation of choice to a few alternatives [52];
“Pain vs. pleasure”: buying the product/service to avoid something unpleasant [52].

3. Hypotheses and the aims of the work

Marsden [73] defined memetics as a paradigm of all expressed human behaviours, i.e., all of them are influenced by transferable cultural traits, reaching from the surrounding socio-cultural environment. Thus, every topic, i.e., phenomena, entity, service, product, etc., could be perceived and described as “sets of interlocking memes” [74], or memeplexes, i.e., meanings present in textual or visual content. From the perspective of the communication process, such a memeplex determines the perception of the topic represented by the source of content. Also, it could contain PLT related specifically to the topic as it is desired by the source of content. Thus, direct meanings and the PLT are present in specific frequencies forming a holistic message.

On the other hand, recipients consuming the source content also formulate their representations of the topic. Simultaneously, recipients acquire and accept or reject a part of transferred meanings and, through this process (similar to cultural selection), change the original frequencies of particular meanings (memes) and PLT and use the accepted meanings (and PLT) to express their perception further. Formation, transfer, exchange of memeplexes and possible effects of such processes are basic components of communication and simultaneously are the characters of WEB 2.0/3.0 technology where users and their perception and expression of the surrounding reality are crucial in the context of information and experience exchange. It mainly depends on user preferences and experiences, i.e., customer experiences. Also, it is directly connected with the phenomenon of collective intelligence [75]. In the case of online communities, Mačiulienė & Skaržauskienė [76] recognised and described three main dimensions of the collective intelligence in online groups: capacity (user activities and interactions), emergence (the ability to self-organise communitarians, based mainly on motivation), and social maturity (including the intellectual influence of a user group on the remaining society in the context of new knowledge/new attitudes/behaviour formation and further dispersion).

The presented research is located in the capacity dimension framework, defined as actions of individual users resulting in vast interactions and development as well as a spread of new knowledge and competencies—ideas, points of view [76, 77]—in the context of “observing the actions of others” and “decisions about activity”. The communication theory is also crucial considering that all user activities are manners of the communication process and content dissemination is its effect. Thus, from the perspective of multiple transfer acts and memeplex processing, the collective intelligence concept could be a key research issue on content decomposition, content management and the impact on consumer behaviour.

The added emotional factor concerning objects/phenomena/products or services may result in their improper perception and a limited content range. Atadil et al. [78] maintained that the meanings expressed by individuals in relation to objects determine behaviour towards them. The frequency of occurrence and emotions attached to PLT in an SNS marketing message may contribute to their memetic transfer and further use by recipients as well as the content range. Simultaneously, Aronson et al. [79] suggested that emotions made advertisements effective due to the ability to capture the attention of recipients. All the above-mentioned activities of SNS users are related to content virality—a multi-level phenomenon focusing on several aspects, including, i.e., the issues of content spreading, the emotional component(s) of the content, and the emotional reactions of the audience and/or changes in their attitudes and behaviour (Strapparava et al., 2011) [80].

Thus, emotions and linguistic tricks used in a marketing message can contribute to stimulating the behavioural activities of recipients and increase the range of shared content. The frequency of occurrence could be the crucial factor for the continuous duration and use of PLT. According to DeLosh & McDaniel [81], the frequent use of a word or phrase in the source content increases the probability for the further and more frequent use of the content by recipients. Thus:

H1: In a holistic approach to persuasive SNS communication, the greater is the number of PLT used in memeplexes, the more frequent is the subsequent use of the message by recipients.

Based on Méndez-Bértolo et al. [82], the emotional undertone is also significant. The authors stated that negative content determined faster recognition and processing of words. However, in the communication process, a positive emotional factor is also relevant. Gatti et al. [83] described the role of the speaker’s accurate wording in connection with the specific/desired emotional tone and the impact of both on the elicitation of similar affective attitudes in recipients of the presented content. Based on political speech analysis, Guerini et al. [84] showed that despite the declared positive attitudes to the speaker, recipients still tended to react emotionally to signals of persuasive communication. These results suggest that the emotional overtone of the message is taken over by the audience. However, Ferrara & Yang [85] and Naveed et al. [86] showed that in Twitter, negative content tended to spread faster, but its range was smaller compared to positive content mainly due to positive bias (the tendency of recipients to share and like positive content). Thus, the 2nd hypothesis was formulated as follows:

H2: In the holistic approach, i.e., concerning the whole volume of content shared by an entity in the communication process, the presence of persuasive language expressed as PLT with a positive emotional undertone triggers more recipient behavioural than the negative and neutral messages.

4. Data and methodology

Five leading Polish travel agencies were surveyed (all of them had active Facebook profiles and were top travel agencies in 2014) [87]. For the research we had not consult with Ethics or Data Protection Committee. In Poland, such consents are not required. We used only world-wide available text content shared by five leading Polish Travel Agencies as well as comments posted by users. Due to their marketing properties the posts as well as comments could not threaten personal privacy or damage the reputation of content authors and commenting users.: (1) Itaka, (2) Rainbow Tours, (3) TUI Poland, (4) Wezyr Holidays, and (5) Grecos. The shared textual content was searched for the presence of PLT—based on the typology showed in Table 1 —and the frequency of positive (variable c_I), neutral (variable c_II), and negative (variable c_III) PLT.

Simultaneously, to demonstrate the possible memetic character of PLT, the semantic content was analysed, focusing on 1911 comments posted by Facebook users in response to posts by travel agencies. The analysed comments were posted in the summer period, i.e., July–August 2015 (1104), and in the autumn and winter period, i.e., December–February 2015 (807). The researchers collected the comments posted in response to a specific shared item and analysed them in detail. One researcher noted the presence and the number of PLT found in each post. The recorded PLT strictly corresponded to the patterns indicated in the typology (Table 1). PLT were summarised and saved in a spreadsheet according to positive, neutral and negative emotional overtones.

Then, the content of the comments was checked. The presence of identical elements was also noted. According to assumptions of memetics, where imitation plays a major role in the transmission of content, such a result indicates the probable memetic nature of the transfer between the sender and the recipient. This can be the basis for a scientific theory concerning a memetic shaping of the reality perception (including products, brands and companies) and behaviour in SNS.

Aiming to determine a possible impact of emotive PLT on the post range, the assumptions of the Facebook Interactivity Index (FII) were used where each individual behaviour of social network users has a different weight. According to FII, one “like” is weighted as 1, a comment—as 4, and a share—as 16 [11]. Stepaniuk [88] measured the potential of content spread among users based on the sum of weights assigned to the total number of likes, comments and shares for a single post using the formula m_a_i = n_li+4*n_co+16*n_sh, where: m_a_i—the potential of the content range; n_li—total number of likes; n_co—total number of comments; n_sh—total number of shares. It should be noted that in the formula, the number of likes does not refer to the emotional variants “like it” button, but to their total number, as having a direct impact on the spread and range of content. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the presence or absence of the normal distribution of all analysed variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to verify differences in the quantity of emitted emotive PLT by the analysed travel agencies [89]. Nonparametric correlation tests that are widely used in social networking exploratory data analysis [90] were used to assess the impact of the seasonality on the PLT frequency in published posts. The same method was used to analyse the relationship between the number of positive, negative and neutral PLT, the behaviour of social media users, and the content range, as well as for determining the potentially memetic character of PLT.

The data collection process and research were conducted between March 2016 and October 2017. The statistical analysis was performed using STATISTICA 13.3.

5. Findings

In the summer season, the analysed travel agencies publicised 72 posts (variable n_p_s). They were pictures with text (60), hyperlinks (10), hyperlinks with text (1), and short videos with text (1). The presence of PLT was noticed in 63 of them (Itaka—22; Grecos—15; Rainbow—15; Wezyr—6; TUI—5), which is 87.5% of all posts (Table 2). The autumn–winter season (variable n_p_w) saw 95 posts (TUI—22; Rainbow—17; Wezyr—14; Grecos—13). Most of them were pictures with text (n = 76), hyperlinks (n = 11), short videos with text (n = 7), and hyperlinks with text (n = 1). PLT were present in 87 of the posts, which is 91.6% (Table 1). None of the analysed variables had normal distribution, except for several summer–season posts (variable n_p_s; W = 0.93; p = 0.60) and some posts of the autumn–winter season (variable n_p_w; W = 0.87; p = 0.26).

Table 2. Number of PLT with different emotional character in the content shared by the analysed travel agencies.

Summer season Winter season
Category I (c_I) (number of linguistic phrases with positive emotional-memetic connotations) n = 109 n = 129
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
45 13 9 2 40 16 19 50 18 26
Category II (c_II) (number of linguistic phrases with neutral emotional-memetic connotations) N = 143 N = 146
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
65 26 6 4 42 28 34 46 8 30
Category III (c_III) (number of linguistic phrases with negative emotional-memetic connotations) N = 11 N = 18
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
2 3 1 1 4 4 0 8 4 2

Note. (1) Itaka, (2) Rainbow Tours, (3) TUI Poland, (4) Wezyr Holidays, (5) Grecos.

The analysed content contained 556 PLT varying in their emotional tone. 238 PLT (variable c_I; x¯=1.58;SD=1.31) had a positive emotional connotation, 289 (variable c_II; x¯=1.92;SD=1.53) were neutral, and 29 (variable c_III; x¯=0.19;SD=0.44) had a negative association. Each travel agency as a message source used a different number of PLT varying in their emotive character (Table 2).

The results of the t-test (c_I (t = -3.49; p = 0.0008), c_II (t = 0.088; p = 0.89), c_III (t = -2.003; p = 0.049)) and the Kruskal-Wallis (c_I (H = 20.38; p = 0.004), c_II (H = 16.4; p = 0.0025), c_III (H = 3.24; p = 0.5)) comparison of ranks indicate the existence of statistically significant differences among the mean values of the number of the tricks among the travel agencies and depending on the season.

For summer, in terms of positive phrases (c_I), the multiple comparison tests showed that statistically important differences existed among the mean values of PLT publicised by (1) and (4) (R = 2.9; p = 0.03), (2) and (5) (R = 3.29; p = 0,009). The analysis (c_II) into neutral PLT revealed the differences in average values among the messages of travel agencies: (1) and (4) (R = 3.31; p = 0.009). In the analysis of the negatively associated PLT (c_III), no statistical differences in the average values were found.

In winter, statistically significant differences concerning the average content of the PLT of neutral character (c_II) applied to the posts of: (1) and (4) (R = 3.03; p = 0.02), (2) and (4) (R = 2.93; p = 0.03); (3) and (4) (R = 2,82; p = 0.047); (3) and (5) (R = 3.6; p = 0.003). For the positive (c_I) and negative (c_III) transfer, no statistically significant differences were found. The content shared by the analysed travel agencies (including LT) was received differently by recipients (Table 3).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics concerning recipient behaviour of the content shared by travel agencies on Facebook.

n_li n_co n_sh
s_s w_s s_s w_s s_s w_s
Ʃ 10529 8040 1104 807 1076 1126
Average 167.1 92.41 17.52 9.27 17.08 12.94
SD 232.3 133.6 232.3 14.48 33.3 29.57
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max 1000 567 105 66 147 235

Note. s_s–summer season; w_s–winter season; n_li–no. of likes; n_co–no. of comments; n_sh–no. of shares.

5.1. The number of PLT and behavioural activities of recipients in SNS

The analysis of the content containing PLT (n = 63) shared in the summer season proved a link between the number of the positive PLT (c_I) with the number of likes (n_li; ρ = 0.45; p < 0.0001), the number of comments (n_co; ρ = 0.29; p < 0.02), and the number of shares (n_sh; ρ = 0.36; p < 0.003). For neutral PLT (c_II), the occurrence of statistically important correlation with the number of likes (n_li, ρ = 0.3; p < 0.01) and the number of shares (n_sh, ρ = 0.4; p < 0.001) was observed.

In the winter season (n = 87), the statistically important correlation was found only between the number of neutral tricks (c_II) and the number of comments (n_co, ρ = 0.22; p < 0.03), and the number of shares (n_sh, ρ = 0.32; p < 0.002). Details are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Spearman’s correlation coefficient values for the number of emotive PLT and their influence on the behaviour of SNS users (*—significant correlation; p<0.05).

Correlation analysed Summer season Winter season
N ρ t(N-2) p N ρ t(N-2) p
c_I & n_li 63 0.46* 4 0.00* 87 -0.12 -1.13 0.26
c_I & n_co 63 0.29* 2.35 0.02* 87 -0.21 -1.96 0.05
c_I & n_sh 63 0.36* 3.04 0.00* 87 -0.21 -1.97 0.05
c_II & n_li 63 0.31* 2.55 0.01* 87 0.23* 2.16 0.03*
c_II & n_co 63 0.21 1.69 0.10 87 0.18 1.69 0.09
c_II & n_sh 63 0.40* 3.43 0.00* 87 0.32* 3.15 0.00*
c_III & n_li 63 -0.01 -0.07 0.94 87 -0.12 -1.07 0.29
c_III & n_co 63 0.03 0.24 0.81 87 -0.13 -1.24 0.22
c_III & n_sh 63 0.08 0.63 0.53 87 -0.19 -1.81 0.07

Note. c_I–number of linguistic phrases with positive emotional-memetic connotations; c_II–number of linguistic phrases with neutral emotional-memetic connotations; c_III–number of linguistic phrases with negative emotional-memetic connotations; n_li–no. of likes; n_co–no. of comments; n_sh–no. of shares.

5.2. The number of emotional PLT and the post range

For the summer season, a positive, statistically important, weak correlation was proven between the number of emotive PLT and the range of the post, calculated based on the sum of weights assigned to the total number of likes, comments and shares for a single post (m_a_i variable). It was found both for positive (c_I) (ρS = 0.41; p < 0.05) and neutral PLT (c_II) (ρS = 0.35; p < 0.05). Although the relationship was weak, the greater was the number of positive and neutral PLT included in a post, the wider was the range of the post. For the winter season, similar positive and weak correlation exists only for neutral PLT (c_II) (ρS = 0.27; p < 0.05). Details are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Spearman’s correlation coefficient values for the number of emotive PLT and their influence on the post range (*—significant correlation; p<0.05).

Correlation analysed Summer season Winter season
c_I & m_a_i 0.41* -0.20
c_II & m_a_i 0.36* 0.27*
c_III & m_a_i 0.03 -0.19

Note. m_a_i—the potential of the content range; c_I–number of linguistic phrases with positive emotional-memetic connotations; c_II–number of linguistic phrases with neutral emotional-memetic connotations; c_III–number of linguistic phrases with negative emotional-memetic connotations.

5.3. Emotional PLT and the memetic transfer

72 posts publicised by the researched travel agencies in the summer season received 1104 comments. The semantic content analysis showed that phrases containing PLT were found in 395 (i.e., 36%) of them (positive—353 (32.2%), neutral—40 (3.6%), and negative—2 (0.2%)).

For the summer season, there was a positive, weak relationship between emitting positive PLT and their presence in recipient comments (c_I_us, ρS = 0.39; p < 0.05). Probably, it suggests the memetic character of the PLT transfer. The relationship was statistically insignificant for the presence in comments of neutral (c_II_us, ρS = 0.05; p < 0.05) and negative (c_III_us, ρS = 0.1; p < 0.05) tricks,. Details are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Spearman correlation coefficient values for the number of emotive PLT and their presence in users comments (*—significant correlation; p<0.05).

Correlation analysed Summer season Winter season
c_I & c_I_us 0.39* -0.15
c_II & c_II_us 0.05 0.04
c_III & c_III_us 0.16 0.00

Note. c_I–number of linguistic phrases with positive emotional-memetic connotations; c_II–number of linguistic phrases with neutral emotional-memetic connotations; c_III–number of linguistic phrases with negative emotional-memetic connotations; c_I_us−number of linguistic phrases with positive emotional-memetic connotations present in recipient comments in summer season; c_II_us−number of linguistic phrases with neutral emotional-memetic connotations present in recipient comments in summer season; c_III_us−number of linguistic phrases with negative emotional-memetic connotations present in recipient comments in summer season.

For the winter season, the researched travel agencies shared 95 different posts on Facebook. In response, the social network users posted 807 comments. 127 (i.e., 16%) had identical phrases as in the source message (c_I_uw—positive: 12% and c_III_us—negative: 4%). No statistically significant relationship was observed between emitting PLT and their presence in recipient comments.

In terms of holistic results, representing each travel agency separately but without the division into summer and winter seasons, the moderate relationship (c_I, ρS = 0.58; p < 0.05) was found in the case of Grecos Travel Agency, and the weak relationship was present in the case of Rainbow Tours (c_I, ρS = 0.26; p < 0.05).

6. Discussion

The research results showed that the analysed travel agencies used a varied number of emotional PLT as an element of persuasive language in SNS marketing communication. Depending on the season, a smaller or larger number of PLT were used, which suggests that the autumn–winter period requires greater efforts in terms of SNS marketing communication. Using the evolutionary approach, it can be perceived as an adaptive strategy to the dynamically changing and competitive market.

Regardless of the season, the majority of PLT used in marketing communication were phrases with a neutral emotional undertone (c_II). The content with neutral PLT affects the behaviour of SNS recipients (perceived from the perspective of the number of likes, comments and shares). Consequently, the organic range of the post was increased. A similar but weak relationship was observed for positive tricks (c_I). No such correlation was observed for elements with a negative undertone (c_III), which were the least frequently represented in the sample.

Lim [91] stated a rational marketing message was more effective than emotional (emotionally neutral) from the point of view of shaping positive customer attitudes towards products or services.

According to Schiffman and Kanuk [92], rational messages, i.e., without an emotional undertone, were more acceptable and more influential for adult and well-educated customers from the perspective of purchasing decisions.

Thus, a positive emotional factor (c_I) connected with persuasive language could be viewed as a trigger for customer interest. A neutral message related to information about products or services (c_II) may be associated with building positive attitudes directly towards these products or services.

The obtained results suggest that the 1st hypothesis is most likely true. Although the number of emotionally positive PLT has a positive correlation with their use in recipient comments posted in response to the source message, the application of numerous PLT, tripartite in emotional character, could be perceived as modifiers of memeplexes of the entity/brand/product in SNS as well as a factor that creates and enhances their holistic representation and expression. At the same time, these sub-pools can be used as a tool for expressing the identity of a specific issue.

The 2nd hypothesis is also most likely true. Depending on the season, positive correlations between the number of positive and neutral PLT and the content range were observed. This is probably another confirmation of the truth of Pollyanna’s hypothesis [93]—the tendency of humans to favour and use positive rather than neutral or negative items in communication processes.

No relationship was observed between the number of negative PLT and the content range resulting from users; behaviour, mainly due to a diverse number of analysed PLT within emotive groups. However, full verification of both hypotheses requires further, more detailed research.

The way the recipient reacts to the message containing linguistic tricks is different each time and depends on the “phenotype” of the recipient defined as a set of socio-economic and cultural characteristics [15] based on Ridley [94]. It must also be stated that marketing communication is usually profiled and aimed at a particular group of recipients. A target group can be described in terms of their attitude towards certain values, behaviour, etc. The criteria for the classification of target groups can include linguistic tricks and susceptibility to them. A similar view on a brand personality is presented by Ivens & Valta [95], suggesting that its perception depends on the subjective evaluation of the message content and a way of interpretations by recipients.

In particular, it should be highlighted that the obtained correlation coefficients have low values for all analyzed variables. This may be due to the limited size of the research sample. It is possible that for larger samples the values of the correlation coefficients would be different. This may be explained by the fact that every post is not only text but also graphics and/or multimedia. These are factors that have a holistic impact on the recipients, possibly reducing the isolated impact of the text message alone. It should also be emphasized that every recipient may perceive and react to the shared content in a different way. This may also be the reason for low values of correlation coefficients.

PLT could also be used as elements of specific jargon—special expressions, typical for groups of users with specific interests and/or activities—to develop communities connected with brands, products, activities and/or services. According to Muniz & O’Guinn [96], such a type of practices might be perceived as an element building the sense of collectiveness and loyalty of groups. Simultaneously, a proper set of PLT could be a factor that somehow connects the brand/product, etc., with an online consumer community, and, thus, a factor distinguishing it from others through the use of such specific phrases.

PLT are also a type of information carriers with an impact on the recipients’ behaviour in SNS. Their presence in user comments can be perceived as memes because they have been processed, adopted and manifested later. This process was observed only in summer, in the context of positive PLT. As similarly created patterns of behaviour can spread in a group of people thanks to imitation processes, they can be defined as memes. They are expansive (i.e., if they guarantee to obtain a subjective evolutionary advantage for their senders and users), and the frequency of their occurrence and spreading can be high.

7. Limitations of the study and future research

The presented results concern general issues related to isolation and the analysis of the influence made by three main emotional groups of PLT. This is one of the main limitations of the study. Moreover, due to the low representation of negative PLT, it is not possible to fully determine their actual role in disseminating the marketing message in the SNS. This justifies the need for further, more detailed research. At the same time, the investigated issues were related to marketing communication on one social media platform. The textual content was, therefore, relatively short. It is likely that some new, different relationships can be shown by analysing longer fragments of text, other SNS platforms or communication channels, as well as the spoken language. It may be important to examine the role of the syntax of marketing messages, and its modification in relation to the presence of PLT indicated in the proposed typology. Similar research in relation to marketing messages on Facebook was presented by Atalay et al. [97]. The authors showed that the modification of the syntax of marketing messages directly influenced the attitudes declared by the recipients of the message as well as Facebook click-through rate (CTR). Further research should also focus on systematising the typology of persuasive language in the context of PLT used for SNS marketing communication. Moreover, researchers should undertake qualitative and quantitative analysis of the influence made by PLT on recipient activities, the range of the content and their memetic character in specific recipient groups. This will create a scientific basis for building the theory of memetic content transfer and their processing and management (in SNS but not only). Furthermore, it would be interesting to consider an evolutionary approach in future research. Assuming that PLT are parts of memeplexes, they probably spread according to the rules of evolution. Thus, some PLT could have more spreading potential than others. Some of them could have more spreading potential than others. Therefore, further research could integrate the evolutionary and management perspectives into one theoretical and methodological approach and, thus, open a new interdisciplinary research field.

Although most English phrases have equivalents in other languages, due to the specificity of national languages, the current typology, based on English-language scientific literature, may not be complete. In order to avoid the possible omission of certain phrases specific to national languages, the typology used should be expanded in further research.

8. Conclusions

Persuasive linguistic tricks with an emotional undertone in the content shared on social media can influence the activities of recipients and the organic range. Furthermore, in the case of positive PLT, the transfer between the source of the message and the recipient probably has a memetic character. Differently than in the case of negative content, a positive, emotional undertone of persuasive linguistic tricks, as a consequence of the real message hidden between the lines, is also a factor having an impact on the perception of the shared content. The behavioural reactions and activities of users vary according to topicality and scope of the shared content, which is supported by the results of analysis concerning the issue of seasonality, PLT and user behaviour. The summer season implies a positive relationship between the number of positive messages and user activities. From the perspective of the winter season, a similar relationship was observed in relation to neutral PLT.

The reflections presented above have a utilitarian character as they can be incorporated into social media content management or in the field of managing any published linguistic content. When used in marketing communication, small language components that have an element of persuasive language, such as PLT, may possibly influence the spread of shared content. In this case, which is supported by obtained results, the crucial issue is the number of PLT, their emotional character and the time of use.

Data Availability

The data is available at the Mendeley Data repository at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/2tcfrpw65n/2.

Funding Statement

This research is supported by the Bialystok University of Technology and financed by a subsidy provided by the Minister of Science and Higher Education, grant number WZ/WIZ-INZ/2/2019. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors did not receive any remuneration from Minister of Science and Higher Education and any other founders.

References

  • 1.Kaplan A, Haenlein M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz. 2010; 53(1); 59–68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kietzmann JH, Hermkens K, McCarthy IP. Silvestre BS. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus Horiz. 54(3), 241e251. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shen ChChG, Chiou J, Hsiao ChH, Wang ChH, Li HN. Effective marketing communication via social networking site: The moderating role of the social tie. J Bus Res. 2016; 69(6), 2265–2270. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schomaker MS, Zaheer S. The role of language in knowledge transfer to geographically dispersed manufacturing operations. J Int Manag. 2014; 20: 55–72. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2013.10.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Monti MM. The role of language in structure-dependent cognition. In: Mody M, editor. Neural Mechanisms of Language, New York: Springer; 2017. pp. 81–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Barnes K. Exercising Influence Workbook: A Self-Study Guide. Wiley; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McInerney D. Monarchy, despotism and Althusser ‘linguistic trick’. In: de Sutter L, editor. Althuser and Law. London: Routledge; 2013. pp. 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van Laer T, de Ruyter K, Visconti LM, Wetzels M. The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’ Narrative Transportation, J Consum Res. 2014; 40(5), 797–817. doi: 10.1086/673383 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vaneechoutte M, Skoyles JR (1998). The memetic origin of language: modern humans as musical primates. Journal of Memetics—Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission. 1998; 2. [Cited 2018 June 15] Available from: http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/vaneechoutte_m&skoyles_jr.html [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lasswell HD. The structure and function of communication in society. In: Bryson L. editor. The communication of ideas. New York: Harper and Row; 1948. pp. 37–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hong W, Yu Z, Wu L, Pu X. Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods. Electron Commer R A. 2020; 39, 100912. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100912 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Xu H, Yang W, Wang J. (2015). Hierarchical emotion classification and emotion component analysis on Chinese micro-blog posts. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(22), 8745–8752. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Djukic I. What is the Interactivity Index? [Cited 2020 May 28] Available from: https://www.sotrender.com/resources/faq/what-is-the-interactivity-index/
  • 15.Wang P, McCarthy B. What do people “like” on Facebook? Content marketing strategies used by retail bank brands in Australia and Singapore. Australas Mark J. 2020; Forthcoming. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.04.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Charlesworth A. Internet marketing: a practical approach. New York: Routledge; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Muntinga DG, Moorman M, Smit EG. Introducing COBRA’s: exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Int J Advert. 2011; 30(1), 13–46. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dawkins R. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shifman L., Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker. J Comput‐Mediat Comm. 2013; 18, 362–377. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Henderson GR, Iacobucci D, Calder BJ (1998). Brand diagnostics: Mapping branding effects using consumer associative networks. Eur J Oper Res. 1998; 111(2), 306–327. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00151-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Richerson PJ, Boyd R. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Aunger R. Darwinizing culture: the status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bade D. Signs unsigned and meanings not meant: linguistic theory and hypothetical, simulated, imitation and meaningless language. Lan Sci. 2012; 34(3), 361–375. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.De Paula N, Dincelli E. Harrison TM. Toward a typology of government social media communication: Democratic goals, symbolic acts and self-presentation. Gov Inf Q. 2018; 35(1), 98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sheng J. Being Active in Online Communications: Firm Responsiveness and Customer Engagement Behaviour. J Interact Mark. 2019; 46, 4–51. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2018.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Saboo AR, Kumar V, Ramani G. Evaluating the impact of social media activities on human brand sales. Int J Research Mark. 2016; 33(3), 524–541. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kujur F, Singh S. Engaging customers through online participation in social networking sites. Asia Pac Manag Rev. 2017; 22(1), 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Falát L., & Holubčík M. (2017). The Influence of Marketing Communication on Financial Situation of the Company—A Case from Automobile Industry. Procedia Eng. 2017; 192, 148–153. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Plotkin H. Culture and psychological mechanisms. In: Aunger R. editor. Darwinizing Culture. The status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 69–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Berlo B. The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1960. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schramm WL. The process and effects of mass communication. University of Illinois Press; 1954. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Heylighen F, Chielens K. Evolution of culture, memetics. In: Meyers RA, editor. Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 3205–3220. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Freitas da Rocha A, Massad E, dos Santos PCC, Pereira A. A neurobiologically inspired model of social cognition: Memes spreading on the Internet. Biol Inspir Cogn Arc. 2015; 14, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.bica.2015.09.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schlaile MP, Knausberg T, Mueller M, Zeman J. Viral ice buckets: A memetic perspective on the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s diffusion. Cogn Syst Res., 2018; 52, 947–969. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.09.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Blackmore S. Gene and Meme. In: Choe JCh, editor Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour. London: Elsevier; 2019. pp. 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thomas J, McDonagh D. Shared language: Towards more effective communication. The Australas Medical J. 2013; 6(1), 46–54. doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2013.1596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shang SSC, Wu YL, Li EY. Field effects of social media platforms on information-sharing continuance: Do reach and richness matter? Inf Manag. 2017; 54(2), 241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.06.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Podgórecki A, Łoś MW. Multi-Dimensional Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bucur D. (2019). Gender homophily in online book networks. Inf Sci, 2019; 481, 229–243, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hatim B. The fuzzy nature of discourse in the translation process: Towards a text-based pedagogy of translation. In: Anderman GM, Rogers MA, editors. Translation in teaching and teaching translation. University of Surrey, Guildford; 1990. pp. 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Labrador B, Ramón N, Alaiz-Moretón H, Sanjurjo-González H. Rhetorical structure and persuasive language in the subgenre of online advertisements. English Specif Purp. 2014; 34, 38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2013.10.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1986; 19, 124–129. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hovland CI, Weiss W. The Influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Q. 1951; 15(4), 635–650. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF, Yale LJ. (1998). A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J Acad Mark Sci. 1998; 26(2), 83–100. doi: 10.1177/0092070398262001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dillard J. Language style and persuasion. In: Holtgraves TM, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, Oxford; 2014. pp.177–187. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Breuer I, Napthine M, O’Shea R. Persuasive language in media texts. Elsternwick, Vic: Insight Publications; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hogan K. (2010). The Science of Influence: How to Get Anyone to Say "Yes" in 8 Minutes or Less! 2nd ed. Wiley; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Habernal I, Gurevych I. Argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. Comput Linguist. 2017; 43 (1), 125–179. doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00276 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schermerhorn JR. Management, 12th ed. Wiley Global Education; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Árvay A. Pragmatic aspects of persuasion and manipulation in written advertisements. Acta Linguist Hung. 2004; 51(3–4), 231–263. doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00276 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sutherland M. (2008). Advertising vs the mind of a consumer: what works, what does not work and why. New York: Routledge; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hogan K, Speakman J. Covert Persuasion: Psychological Tactics and Tricks to Win the Game. 1st ed. Wiley; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Frederick P. Persuasive Writing: How to harness the power of words. 1st ed. Pearson Business; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vitale J. Hypnotic Writing: How to Seduce and Persuade Customers with Only Your Words. Wiley; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.McQuail D, Golding P, De Bens E, editors. Communication theory and research: an EJC anthology. London: Sage; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Young SC. Brilliant Persuasion: Everyday techniques to boost your powers of persuasion (Brilliant Lifeskills). 1st ed. Pearson Business; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Morse JSB. How to Take Advantage of the People Who Are Trying to Take Advantage of You: 50 Ways to Capitalize on the System. Amelior Books; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Duck S. Communication in Everyday Life: A Survey of Communication Second Edition. SAGE Publications; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jolson MA. Marketing Management: Integrated Text, Readings, and Cases. Macmillan; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Basu R. Persuasion skills black book: practical NLP language patterns for getting the response you want. Bookshaker; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Miller GR, Burgoon M. New Techniques of Persuasion. Harper & Row; 1972. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Jowett GS, O′Donnell VJ. Propaganda & Persuasion. SAGE Publications; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Shalini V. Business Communication: Essential Strategies for 21st Century Managers. 2nd ed. Vikas Publishing House; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Cialdini R. Influencing people: theory and practice. Allyn and Bacon; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Beebe SA, Beebe SJ, Ivy DK. Communication: Principles for a Lifetime. Pearson A&B; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Semino E, Demjén Z, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. London: Routledge; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Garner BA. The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kalmane R. Advertising: Using Words as Tools for Selling. 2nd ed. Lulu.com, 68: Rosemarie Schmidt; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kess JF. (1986) Television Advertising and Televangelism: Discourse Analysis of Persuasive Language (Pragmatics & Beyond). John Benjamin’s Publishing Company; 1968. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mullhollnd J. The Language of Negotiation. A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Improving Communication, Routledge; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Sutherland M, Sylvester AK. Advertising and the mind of the consumer: what works, what doesn’t, and why. 2nd ed. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Muir A. Persuade Anyone with NLP: Teach Yourself. McGraw-Hill Education; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Marsden PS. (1998). Memetics: a new paradigm for understanding customer behaviour and influence. Mark Intell Plan. 1998; 16(6), 363–368. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004541 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Stanovich KE. The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Shen J, Deng Ch, Gao X. Attraction recommendation: Towards personalized tourism via collective intelligence. Neurocomputing. 2016; 173(3), 789–798. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.030 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Mačiulienė M, Skaržauskienė A. Emergence of collective intelligence in online communities. J Bus Res. 2016; 69(5), 1718–1724. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Cetto A, Klier M, Richter A, Zolitschka JF. “Thanks for sharing”—Identifying users’ roles based on knowledge contribution in Enterprise Social Networks. Comput Netw. 2018; 135, 275–288. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2018.02.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Atadil HA, Sirakaya-Turk E, Baloglu S, Kirillova K. Destination Neurogenetics: Creation of destination meme maps of tourists. J Bus Res. 2017; 74, 154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Aronson E, Wilson TD, Akert RM. Social psychology. 6th ed. Pearson; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Strapparava C, Guerini M, Özbal G. Persuasive language and virality in social networks. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Affective computing and intelligent interaction—Volume Part I (ACII’11), 2011; Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 357i366. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24600-5_39 [DOI]
  • 81.DeLosh EL, McDaniel MA. The role of order information in free recall: Application to the word-frequency effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996; 22, 1136–1146. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Méndez-Bértolo C, Pozo MA, Hinojosa JA. Word frequency modulates the processing of emotional words: convergent behavioral and electrophysiological data. Neurosci Lett. 2011; 494(3), 250–254. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Gatti L, Guerini M, Stock O, Strapparava C. Sentiment Variations in Text for Persuasion Technology. PERSUASIVE 2014: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Persuasive Technology—Volume 8462, 2014; 106–117. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_10 [DOI]
  • 84.Guerini M, Strapparava C, Oliviero S. CORPS: A Corpus of Tagged Political Speeches for Persuasive Communication Processing. J Inf Technol Politics. 2008; 5, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/19331680802149616 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Ferrara E, Yang Z. Quantifying the effect of sentiment on information diffusion in social media. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2015; 9, e26. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Naveed N, Gottron T, Kunegis J, Alhadi AC. Bad news travels fast: A content-based analysis of interestingness on Twitter. Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference (WebSci); June 15–17, 2011; Koblenz, Germany. doi: 10.1145/2527031.2527052 [DOI]
  • 87.Betlej A. 33 liderów turystyki wyjazdowej—ratingi i ranking. The ranking of 33 tourism leaders–ratings and ranking]. Rzeczpospolita. 2015 May 18 [Cited 2016 May 24] Available from: http://turystyka.rp.pl/temat/984572.html.
  • 88.Stepaniuk K. Memetic transfer of attributes of the image as an element of content management of tourist SNS. The 9th International Scientific Conference Business and Management 2016: Conference Proceedings, 2016; Vilnius, Lithuania. doi: 10.1515/emj-2016-0037 [DOI]
  • 89.Lee N., & Jung J. J. (2015). Content-Based Analytics of Diffusion on Social Big Data: A Case Study on Korean Telecommunication Companies. In: Jung J, Badica C, Kiss A, editors. Scalable Information Systems. INFOSCALE 2014. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 139. Springer; 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16868-5_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Xiao C, Ye J, Esteves RM, Rong C. Using Spearman’s correlation coefficients for exploratory data analysis on big dataset. Concurr-Comp Pract E. 2016; 28, 3866–3878. doi: 10.1002/cpe.3745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Lim WM, Teh PL Ahmed PK. It is not about what you read, but how you read it: the effects of sequencing rational and emotional messages on corporate and product brand attitudes. J Strat Market. 2018; 26(4), 339–355. doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2016.1240216 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Schifmann LG, Kanuk LL. Consumer Behavior. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Boucher J, Osgood. The Pollyanna hypothesis, J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav., 1969, 8(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Ridley M. The units of selection. In Evolution. Boston: Blackwell; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Ivens B, Valta KS. Customer Brand Personality Perception: A Taxonomic Analysis. J Mark Manag., 2012; 28(9–10), 1062–1093. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2011.615149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Muniz AM Jr, O’Guinn TC. Brand Community. J Consum Res. 2001; 27, 412–432. doi: 10.1086/319618 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Atalay S, El Kihal S, Ellsaesser F. The Role of Syntax in Persuasive Marketing Communication: A Natural Language Processing Approach (January 10, 2020). [Cited 2021 March 23] Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3410351.

Decision Letter 0

Stefano Cresci

2 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-02199

Persuasive Linguistic Tricks in Social Media Marketing Communication - Memetic Approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stepaniuk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please, find below the detailed reviews that you are asked to carefully consider while preparing your revision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefano Cresci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE has specific requirements for studies using personal data from third-party sources, including social media, blogs, other internet sources, and phone companies (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-personal-data-from-third-party-sources). These requirements include confirming data are collected and used in accordance with the company or website’s Terms and Conditions, obtaining appropriate ethics or data protection body review, and ensuring appropriate consent from individuals whose data are used in research. In this case, please ensure that your Ethics statement is in compliance with guidelines, and that you have complied with the company's (i.e., Facebook's) Terms and Conditions, with appropriate permissions.

*In line with PLOS' guidelines on ensuring that methods and reagents are described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-3), please attach the posts and comments included in the analyses as an "Other" file.

3. You indicated that ethical approval was not sought for your study. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 "NO"

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for giving us the chance to assess this manuscript.

Both reviewers found merit in the work, however, at the same time they also highlighted several areas requiring additional work. In particular, multiple sections require improved/extended explanations and additional details. Moreover, a better framing of the scientific contributions of this work, its objectives and its position with respect to the existing literature are also needed.

Finally, all reviewers required several thorough rounds of proofreading in order to improve the clarity and readability of the paper.

Pay close attention to the reviewers' comments and address their concerns before resubmitting the manuscript.

Please, also note that one reviewer provided feedback in an attached file rather than inline.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: __Full text of the review is submitted in the attached file__

Introduction

• A concise introduction is required to enable the reader’s understanding of the research problem.

• Expand to emphasize the problem leading to a clear set of research questions and objectives the research addresses.

Reviewer #2: The paper reports the results of a study devoted to investigate the use of linguistic cues in social media marketing communication with a specific focus on how they have an impact on the persuasion of social media users. The authors assume a memetic approach by assuming that the considered linguistic cues (named Persuasive Linguistic Tricks, PLTs) function as memes. More specifically, they devised a methodology that is articulated into the following steps:

- the authors collected a list of PLTs taken from the international literature (mostly in English) and classified the considered PLTs according to their polarity, i.e. positive, negative and neutral;

- they looked them up in a corpus of Facebook posts written by Poland travel agencies, in order to quantify their frequency of occurrence;

- they applied statistical correlation techniques to assess whether there is a correlation between the frequency distribution of PLTs and a number of variables, including the season (summer or winter) when the posts were written, the number of likes, comments, etc.;

- they assess whether the frequency distribution of "phrases containing linguistic tricks identical or semantically convergent to the post publicized by the travel agencies" corresponds to the frequency in a collection of comments to the corresponding posts.

Even if the main statements and goals of the paper are quite clear, I think that the paper has some flaws and needs to be revised in some parts before publication.

Let me start from the literature about the persuasive language processing and, more specifically, about the studies tackling the use of "linguistic tricks" for marketing communication purposes. At the end of the introduction, the authors claim: "Due to their specificity as well as narrow thematic scope, the issues of linguistic tricks and their usage in marketing communication in social media are rarely found in the scientific literature.". I suggest the authors to include in their survey of related work, the literature on Persuasive Language Processing, written in the Natural Language Processing community, such as for example the following titles:

>> Persuasive Language and Virality in Social Networks, Carlo Strapparava, Marco Guerini, Gözde Özbal (2011). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction

>> Sentiment variations in text for persuasion technology, Lorenzo Gatti, Marco Guerini, Oliviero Stock, Carlo Strapparava (2014). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Persuasive Technology

>> Corps: A corpus of tagged political speeches for persuasive communication processing, Guerini Marco, Strapparava Carlo, Stock Oliviero (2008). In Journal of Information Technology and Politics

More specifically, I would suggest the following long journal paper for a good overview of what has been done for marketing communication purposes:

>> The Role of Syntax in Persuasive Marketing Communication: A Natural Language Processing Approach, Selin Atalay, Siham El Kihal, Florian Ellsaesser, 2020

Atalay, A. Selin and El Kihal, Siham and Ellsaesser, Florian, The Role of Syntax in Persuasive Marketing Communication: A Natural Language Processing Approach (January 10, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3410351 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410351

Concerning the choice of the typologies of linguistic tricks, I would suggest the author to add some remarks and comments about the linguistic differences they found between the list they took from the literature, mostly in English, and the realization in the Polish posts. Some of the linguistic cues listed in Table 1 refer to specific English words, that, I guess, may have more than one translation in Polish.

Concerning Sections 4 and 5, I found the description of collected data and the interpretation of results not detailed enough. The authors start Section 4 by introducing the corpus of collected posts, but only in the following section we find out the internal composition of the corpus in terms of collected posts (i.e. a sub-corpus of 150 posts extracted from the wider corpus of 167). Since the frequency distribution of PLTs is computed for each travel agency, I would expected to see more details about the number of posts per agency. If the posts are not properly balanced across the five agencies, the uneven distribution may have an impact on the results reported in Table 2.

Still regarding Section 4: two of the main steps reported are not detailed sufficiently. The first one is described as follows: "the authors first noted the presence and the number of PLT in the content of each post in the spreadsheet". Since this kind of annotation task tends to be quite subjective, I would like to see an inter-annotator agreements score, if the task was carried out by the two authors. Instead, if the task was carried out only by one of the author, the annotation could be biased by the single annotator perception.

The second step is described as follows: "The content of the comments was then checked. The presence of identical or convergent semantic elements found in their content was also noted.". Also in this case, my concern is about the subjectivity of the phrase "identical or convergent semantic elements". How did you compute such semantic similarity? This computation issue, similarly to the aforementioned issue regarding the subjectivity of annotation, is mostly related to the future reproducibility of the data. Did the authors take into consideration this issue?

The authors claim that in order to assess the "impact of using emotive PLTs on the weight of the post" they used a specific metric whose formula is reported (Stepaniuk [8485]). Unfortunately, if I am not wrong, they did not report the results. Have I missed something? Still concerning the formula, they detailed all the component elements but they forgot to make explicit what the two constants, i.e. 4 and 16, refer to.

Minor issue regarding Section 4: I'm not familiar with STATISTICA, however I was wondering whether the authors chose to use version 12, instead of the last version.

Section 5 is quite hard to follow. The authors report in Table 2 the frequency distribution of PLTs in the different groups of posts they considered, but a specific table showing the different correlation values (together with their statistical significance) is missing. These values are reported and discussed in the paper, but I suggest to highlight them properly since they represent the main results of the study. As I have already written, I think that the absolute frequency of PLTs in the different groups of posts is not highly informative, since the groups contain a different total amount of posts.

This section should be the core of the paper, but unfortunately it contains very few hypothesis and more in-depth analysis of the obtained results. Even if the authors devoted the discussion to the following section, I suggest to add more specific remarks and comments about how the considered PLTs changes across posts.

The last part of this section is devoted to report the frequency of PLTs ("identical or semantically convergent to the post") in users' comments. I have already stated my concern about the subjectivity of considering a linguistic expression similar to another without any computational metric. In addition to this, I would also ask to the author how they isolated the "elements of content" that they considered in this last analysis. They carried out the whole analysis considering 72 elements of content for the summer post and 95 for the winter ones. Are these elements of content a subset of the whole corpus of posts they considered in the previous analyses? Why did they choose these elements? Lastly, the authors did not make the comments available, but only the posts of the travel agencies.

Minor issue regarding Section 5: when the authors write Table 1, I think that they would like to refer to Table 2.

The whole manuscript should be proof-read by a native speaker of English.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 1.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0253983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253983.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Apr 2021

Dear Reviewers,

thank you for your time and engagement which, probably helps me to improve our manuscript. All of your remarks were relevant and were implemented in the current version of paper. Below, we want to briefly explain some of the improvements in our article according to your feedback. Our answers are marked in blue.

Reviewer 1:

Introduction

• A concise introduction is required to enable the reader’s understanding of the research problem.

• Expand to emphasize the problem leading to a clear set of research questions and objectives the research addresses.

Literature review

Use sub-headings to organize topics. Some critical studies are not included. The paper should relate coherently and convincingly with issues of real-world significance. This is a crucial phase contributing to research design. The theoretical framework emerging from the literature review could research questions and points of emphasis.

Suggestions

• Consider summarizing the text based on the purpose of the study. – the purposes of the study was more clearly specified according to Reviewer sugesstion

• I wouldn’t recommend differentiating between the “main” aim and the “specific” aim as is presented in the manuscript, as it might be confusing to the reader. – such division into two types of goals has been removed

• Focus more on the empirical studies’ backgrounds. – the theoretical background of the paper was strengthened, new citations were added according to Reviewers sugestion

• Add more information to enable readers’ understanding of the authors’ view. - to achieve highier level of understanding by readers the article was reworded and checked by native speaker Editor

• You are encouraged to write concisely. The text can be reduced significantly.

Findings and discussion

Needs clear and comprehensive explanations to assist readers’ understanding. – a few issues were explained and described in a simpler way, and in order to achieve a higher level of understanding by readers, the article was checked by a native speaker

Limitations

There is no mention of the limitations of this study. – the limitations were added according to Reviewer remark

Summary

The study presented an important topic that would be of interest to the readership of this journal. Most research is relevant, including to the international audience. However, the research is missing a level of detail needed to understand the study result, the impact of the results, and the research contribution. Perhaps the authors are likely so close to the topic they are skipping over details that they know, but the reader would not. – a few issues were explained and described in a simpler way, and in order to achieve a higher level of understanding by readers, the article was checked by a native speaker

Overall, the paper requires more focus. The areas requiring attention are highlighted in the individual sections. In summary, the paper needs:

• A re-write of the abstract to give a good summary of the paper and mention the key concepts. - a few sentences from paper description by Reviewer 2 were used in new version of abstract. It was really helpful. Thus, the current version of abstract is more understandable.

• Expanding the introduction by clearly stating the research problem to suitably inform the reader. – the aims of the paper as well as its theoretical background were detailed

• A synthesized and structured critique of the literature. - done

• Clarifying the research procedures with an adequate explanation of the methods.

• Expanding the discussion to allow writing a well-developed conclusion summarizing the entire paper. The outcomes should be discussed in relation to the existing research. - done

• Emphasizing the significance of the research – a clear showing of how the findings contribute to new knowledge. – I think we did it when we wrote about evolutionary approach in the context of population genetics foundations in social media content analysis

• Using results to support the claims in conclusion adequately, and how the results of the research can be used for future research. - done

• The authors are encouraged to write concisely. The text can be reduced significantly. – part of the text was deleted

• In general, the language in the present manuscript is not of publication quality and requires improvement. Please carefully proof-read and spell-check to eliminate grammatical errors. – done (native speaker editor)

• The manuscript contains multiple stylistic, grammatical and conceptual flaws. The authors should make sure to differentiate between hyphens and dashes, look into the grammar more carefully (mistakes include “It consist” instead of “It consists”, “Sections 5” instead of “Section 5” and many others), revise intext references (at least one of them is included in the text in full). - done

Reviewer 2:

Let me start from the literature about the persuasive language processing and, more specifically, about the studies tackling the use of "linguistic tricks" for marketing communication purposes. At the end of the introduction, the authors claim: "Due to their specificity as well as narrow thematic scope, the issues of linguistic tricks and their usage in marketing communication in social media are rarely found in the scientific literature.". I suggest the authors to include in their survey of related work, the literature on Persuasive Language Processing, written in the Natural Language Processing community, such as for example the following titles:

>> Persuasive Language and Virality in Social Networks, Carlo Strapparava, Marco Guerini, Gözde Özbal (2011). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction

>> Sentiment variations in text for persuasion technology, Lorenzo Gatti, Marco Guerini, Oliviero Stock, Carlo Strapparava (2014). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Persuasive Technology

>> Corps: A corpus of tagged political speeches for persuasive communication processing, Guerini Marco, Strapparava Carlo, Stock Oliviero (2008). In Journal of Information Technology and Politics

More specifically, I would suggest the following long journal paper for a good overview of what has been done for marketing communication purposes:

>> The Role of Syntax in Persuasive Marketing Communication: A Natural Language Processing Approach, Selin Atalay, Siham El Kihal, Florian Ellsaesser, 2020

Atalay, A. Selin and El Kihal, Siham and Ellsaesser, Florian, The Role of Syntax in Persuasive Marketing Communication: A Natural Language Processing Approach (January 10, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3410351 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410351

- All the suggested literature sources are cited in the article.

Concerning the choice of the typologies of linguistic tricks, I would suggest the author to add some remarks and comments about the linguistic differences they found between the list they took from the literature, mostly in English, and the realization in the Polish posts. Some of the linguistic cues listed in Table 1 refer to specific English words, that, I guess, may have more than one translation in Polish. – Thank you for your remark. Most of literature resources cited in our typology have their translations and editions in Polish, and the examples of persuasive communication come from there (i.a Hogan and Speakman, 2006; Cialdini, 2008; Sutherland and Sylvester, 2000; Hogan, 2010). Almost all PLT examples can be based on these items. Moreover, examples of persuasive communication have their direct equivalents in Polish. The purpose of referring our typology to only English-language scientific resources was to make it universal and more diverse from the perspective of scientific sources. It was a suggestion from our internal reviewers. Perhaps this was a wrong assumption.

Concerning Sections 4 and 5, I found the description of collected data and the interpretation of results not detailed enough. The authors start Section 4 by introducing the corpus of collected posts, but only in the following section we find out the internal composition of the corpus in terms of collected posts (i.e. a sub-corpus of 150 posts extracted from the wider corpus of 167). Since the frequency distribution of PLTs is computed for each travel agency, I would expected to see more details about the number of posts per agency. If the posts are not properly balanced across the five agencies, the uneven distribution may have an impact on the results reported in Table 2. – the data concerning the frequency of posts per travel offices were included in Results section

Still regarding Section 4: two of the main steps reported are not detailed sufficiently. The first one is described as follows: "the authors first noted the presence and the number of PLT in the content of each post in the spreadsheet". Since this kind of annotation task tends to be quite subjective, I would like to see an inter-annotator agreements score, if the task was carried out by the two authors. Instead, if the task was carried out only by one of the author, the annotation could be biased by the single annotator perception.

The second step is described as follows: "The content of the comments was then checked. The presence of identical or convergent semantic elements found in their content was also noted.". Also in this case, my concern is about the subjectivity of the phrase "identical or convergent semantic elements". How did you compute such semantic similarity? This computation issue, similarly to the aforementioned issue regarding the subjectivity of annotation, is mostly related to the future reproducibility of the data. Did the authors take into consideration this issue? – the data concerning the frequency of posts per travel offices were included in Results section. The phrases concerning „identical or convergent semantic elements” were incorrect and were deleted according to Reviewer remark.

The authors claim that in order to assess the "impact of using emotive PLTs on the weight of the post" they used a specific metric whose formula is reported (Stepaniuk [8485]). Unfortunately, if I am not wrong, they did not report the results. Have I missed something? Still concerning the formula, they detailed all the component elements but they forgot to make explicit what the two constants, i.e. 4 and 16, refer to. – these analyses were present in the subsection "Seasonality, frequency of emotional PLT and post range. " The visibility of aforementioned results were highlited inthe methodology section as well as in the results section.

Minor issue regarding Section 4: I'm not familiar with STATISTICA, however I was wondering whether the authors chose to use version 12, instead of the last version. – information about the newest version of Statistica was added

Section 5 is quite hard to follow. The authors report in Table 2 the frequency distribution of PLTs in the different groups of posts they considered, but a specific table showing the different correlation values (together with their statistical significance) is missing. These values are reported and discussed in the paper, but I suggest to highlight them properly since they represent the main results of the study. As I have already written, I think that the absolute frequency of PLTs in the different groups of posts is not highly informative, since the groups contain a different total amount of posts.

This section should be the core of the paper, but unfortunately it contains very few hypothesis and more in-depth analysis of the obtained results. Even if the authors devoted the discussion to the following section, I suggest to add more specific remarks and comments about how the considered PLTs changes across posts.

The last part of this section is devoted to report the frequency of PLTs ("identical or semantically convergent to the post") in users' comments. I have already stated my concern about the subjectivity of considering a linguistic expression similar to another without any computational metric. In addition to this, I would also ask to the author how they isolated the "elements of content" that they considered in this last analysis. They carried out the whole analysis considering 72 elements of content for the summer post and 95 for the winter ones. Are these elements of content a subset of the whole corpus of posts they considered in the previous analyses? Why did they choose these elements? Lastly, the authors did not make the comments available, but only the posts of the travel agencies. – Thank you for your remark. Of course, in this case we agree with the Reviewer. When collecting the data, we considered that comments are an integral part of each post, so having access to the content of the posts and other attributes enabling their identification, we did not see the need to archive them. The analyzes were conducted using our typology. Only the presence of a given element was marked in the post text corpus and in the comment. Then the totals were entered into the worksheet. At that time, we were more concerned with quantitative relationships, the qualitative relationships were skipped. This is probably our mistake. But we want to go back to such analysis next time.

The tables with relevant data were added according to Reviewer remark.

Minor issue regarding Section 5: when the authors write Table 1, I think that they would like to refer to Table 2. – done

The whole manuscript should be proof-read by a native speaker of English. – done

Thank you,

Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Stefano Cresci

2 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-02199R1

Persuasive Linguistic Tricks in Social Media Marketing Communication - the Memetic Approach

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stepaniuk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Specifically, while the manuscript has clearly improved in the previous round of revision, a few minor edits are still needed, as thoroughly specified by Reviewer #2. Please, address the remaining issues before resubmitting. I expect the next round of review to be rather quick, as I will not send the manuscript our for revision but I will personally check your edits as soon as I'll receive the revised paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefano Cresci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Both reviewers agree that the authors have addressed the majority of their concerns. As such, the manuscript has significantly improved.

Only a few minor adjustments are still needed before the manuscript can be granted publication. Specifically, authors should tone down their claim in the introduction that persuasive linguistic tricks are rarely discussed in literature. Perhaps the most important edit that authors are asked to implement, is related to the limitations of their work. They should clearly specify the possibility for some missing Polish phrases, due to their choice of working with the English language. Moreover, they should also clearly mention and discuss the low correlations that they obtained, and its implications. Finally, they should also better clarify and explain what they mean by "elements of content", as Reviewer #2 noted, and they should check the consistency of their p-values throughout the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Concerning my first remark about missing literature, the authors included in the paper the works I suggested. However, in the introduction they still claim that "the issues of persuasive linguistic tricks and their use in social media marketing communication are rarely found in the scientific literature". My personal opinion is that this claim is not true.

Second remark about the choice of the typologies of linguistic tricks uniquely based on English literature. Even if I'm not a Polish speaker, of course I agree that the English phrases have an equivalent in Polish. Still, I'm quite sure that there are many other native-Polish phrases that you are missing in your research since it is grounded on English phrases.

I appreciate that the authors took into consideration my remarks about the description of results. However, I still do not find where the authors illustrate what the "elements of content" are. Unless, the authors refer to the linguistic phrases as "elements of content". I think that this issue should be clarified before the publication.

I think that the quality of the paper was generally improved after the first round of revisions. However, I think that some minor revisions are needed before publication. The authors should highlighted that they obtained very low correlations, considering all the variables. This should be more stressed. I'm not claiming that it is not a valuable result, but I think it should discussed more in detailed.

Minor remarks: check carefully the direction of the p-value, it is not consistent through the paper. It should be < but in some cases you wrote >.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0253983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253983.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Jun 2021

Dear Reviewers,

thank you for your time and engagement which, probably helps me to improve our manuscript. All of your remarks were relevant and were implemented in the current version of paper. Below, we want to briefly explain some of the improvements in our article according to your feedback. Our answers are marked in blue.

Reviewer #2: Concerning my first remark about missing literature, the authors included in the paper the works I suggested. However, in the introduction they still claim that "the issues of persuasive linguistic tricks and their use in social media marketing communication are rarely found in the scientific literature". My personal opinion is that this claim is not true.

Thank you for this remark. Indeed, that statement went too far. The present version emphasizes the presence in the article of a new, interdisciplinary and evolutionary approach to the issues of linguistic persuasion in SNS.

Second remark about the choice of the typologies of linguistic tricks uniquely based on English literature. Even if I'm not a Polish speaker, of course I agree that the English phrases have an equivalent in Polish. Still, I'm quite sure that there are many other native-Polish phrases that you are missing in your research since it is grounded on English phrases.

Thank you for this remark. The issue of adapting the typology used to the specificity of national languages has been emphasized in the " Limitations of the Study and Future Research" section.

I appreciate that the authors took into consideration my remarks about the description of results. However, I still do not find where the authors illustrate what the "elements of content" are. Unless, the authors refer to the linguistic phrases as "elements of content". I think that this issue should be clarified before the publication.

The phrase "element of content" was used interchangeably by the authors with a "Facebook post". It has been removed and replaced with a simple "post(s)".

I think that the quality of the paper was generally improved after the first round of revisions. However, I think that some minor revisions are needed before publication. The authors should highlighted that they obtained very low correlations, considering all the variables. This should be more stressed. I'm not claiming that it is not a valuable result, but I think it should discussed more in detailed.

Thank you. The issue of low values of correlation coefficients was additionally discussed in „Discussion” section.

Minor remarks: check carefully the direction of the p-value, it is not consistent through the paper. It should be < but in some cases you wrote >.

Those errors have been fixed.

Thank you,

Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Stefano Cresci

17 Jun 2021

Persuasive Linguistic Tricks in Social Media Marketing Communication - the Memetic Approach

PONE-D-21-02199R2

Dear Dr. Stepaniuk,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stefano Cresci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Stefano Cresci

23 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-02199R2

Persuasive Linguistic Tricks in Social Media Marketing Communication — the Memetic Approach

Dear Dr. Stepaniuk:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stefano Cresci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data is available at the Mendeley Data repository at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/2tcfrpw65n/2.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES