Using Speech Acts to Elicit Positive Emotions for Complainants on Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A carefully tailored tone in response to a complaint on social media can create positive emotions for an upset customer. However, very few studies have identified what response tones, based on an established theory, would be most effective for complaint management. This study conceptualizes a service agent's response tones based on Ballmer and Brennenstuhl's (1981) classification of speech acts and examines how an agent's use of speech acts elicit positive emotions for the complainant. Ballmer and Brennenstuhl classify speech acts within the dimensions of conventionality and dialogicality, and they suggest the two dimensions interact. Thus, we examine the impact of each dimension of speech acts and the interactions between the two dimensions on the elicitation of positive emotions for complainants. We collected over 100,000 tweets and classified firm agents’ speech acts and complainants’ emotions by designing deep learning architectures (i.e., bi-directional recurrent neural networks). Our fixed-effect regression results show that a low level of each speech act leads to the elicitation of customers’ positive emotions but that the combination of the two erodes the individual advantages. This study expands Ballmer and Brennenstuhl's (1981) speech act classification from a speaker's perspectives to a listener's perspectives by contextualizing it in an analysis of service agents’ tones and their roles in eliciting positive emotions among complainants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".