Discursive Construction of Message Credibility for Chinese State-Owned Enterprises on Twitter

Chenghui Wu University of International Business and Economics ; Ya Sun University of International Business and Economics

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> There is a growing need for Chinese state-owned enterprises (CSOEs) to utilize Twitter, as an effective communicative tool in the professional business context, to build a credible image to the global community. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Little attention has been paid to measuring the discursive construction of message credibility through corporate Twitter. Therefore, based on the theoretical insights of message credibility from existing literature on communication and information science, our study has conceptually developed a broad framework to measure the message credibility of CSOEs’ Twitter discourse from two general aspects (content and form), four separate levels ({thematic}, {intrinsic}, {contextual}, and {representational}), and nine specific dimensions (<capability>, <morality>, <objectivity>, <authority>, <accuracy>, <informativeness>, <timeliness>, <consistency>, and <persuasiveness>). With the help of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and corpus tools (MAT, CLA, TAALES, GAMET, SÉANCE, and TAACO), the framework has been practically operationalized by a total of 62 discursive features, including 18 content-based themes (thematic features) and 44 form-based features. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. What themes do CSOEs develop, and how do they express these themes to establish message credibility in their tweets? 2. Which dimensions of message credibility are significantly highlighted in CSOEs’ tweets? 3. Which enterprises establish the highest message credibility in their tweets? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methodology:</b> We collected tweets during the year 2020 from the official Twitter accounts of 15 CSOEs and applied our operationalized framework to conduct nine separate One-way ANOVAs, a principal component analysis (PCA), and a mean-value based descriptive statistics comparison, respectively. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> First, CSOEs developed themes including strength, power, cooperation, and legitimacy, among others, and used discursive features including nominalizations, mentions/@ , word length, time adverbials, hashtags/#, and semantic overlaps, among others when expressing these themes to establish message credibility. Second, CSOEs significantly highlighted the <capability>, <authority>, <informativeness>, and <consistency> dimensions of message credibility in their tweets. Last, China National Machinery Industry Co. (Sinomach), China Datang Co. (CDC), China Railway Engineering Co. (CREC), and China State Construction Engineering Co. (CSCEC) were found to have established the highest message credibility in their tweets. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Discussion and conclusion:</b> Our study may be the first to generate an NLP-cum-corpus-operationalized framework to quantitatively measure the discursive realization of message credibility in the context of business communication on social media. It also provides some practical insights into how relevant business professions can utilize certain discursive resources to establish message credibility in the B2C communication on social media.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2023-09-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2023.3284775
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (4)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Journal of Writing Research
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Also cites 58 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/S0038038501000190
  2. 10.1080/10410236.2012.700391
  3. 10.5465/amr.1998.926617
  4. 10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4
  5. 10.1177/0165551513477820
  6. 10.1108/OIR-01-2014-0006
  7. 10.5751/ES-07169-200106
  8. 10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
  9. 10.1057/crr.2010.12
  10. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
  11. 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001
  12. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886314
  13. 10.1177/0539018407085751
  14. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107359
  15. 10.3758/s13428-016-0743-z
  16. 10.5465/AMR.2009.35713319
  17. 10.1177/107769909907600213
  18. 10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099
  19. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
  20. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
  21. 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101113
  22. 10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5
  23. 10.1002/asi.20672
  24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.011
  25. 10.4324/9780203552308
  26. 10.1515/9783110670837-024
  27. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.015
  28. 10.1002/asi.20652
  29. 10.4018/JDM.2019100101
  30. 10.1108/JBIM-07-2018-0211
  31. 10.1108/IMDS-04-2019-0212
  32. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883101
  33. 10.1002/mar.20289
  34. 10.1287/orsc.1100.0581
  35. 10.1177/0957926518770264
  36. 10.1007/s10551-010-0363-y
  37. 10.4324/9781315856667
  38. 10.4135/9781446215616
  39. 10.5465/amr.1995.9507312923
  40. 10.1177/014920639101700307
  41. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.002
  42. 10.4324/9780429056765
  43. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.10.003
  44. 10.1177/1077699015606057
  45. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.2.01kyl
  46. 10.1002/asi.20511
  47. 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410114
  48. 10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
  49. 10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4
  50. 10.3366/cor.2013.0042
  51. 10.1086/267745
  52. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1731781
  53. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1368332
  54. 10.1177/1077699011430060
  55. 10.1145/1963405.1963500
  56. 10.1145/1341531.1341557
  57. 10.1093/jcmc/zmab024
  58. 10.1016/j.jretai.2022.06.001