Trust through Transparency? How Journalistic Reactions to Media-Critical User Comments Affect Quality Perceptions and Behavior Intentions

Figures & data

Table 1. Effects of media criticism on brand quality perception.

	b	p
Intercept	3.12	0.00
Hasty work (ref.: no comment)	0.16	0.11
Lack of integrity (ref.: no comment)	0.21	0.03
Media cynicism	-0.16	0.03
Hasty work * media cynicism	-0.19	0.07
Lack of integrity * media cynicism	-0.36	0.00
Adj. R^2	0.21

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.

Figure 1. Effects of criticism in comment on brand quality perception.

Table 2. Effects of media criticism on behavior intentions.

	Check facts		Read other articles		Comment positively		Comment negatively
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Intercept	2.37	0.00	2.46	0.00	1.28	0.00	1.30	0.00
Hasty work (ref.: no comment)	0.29	0.13	0.07	0.70	0.16	0.17	0.09	0.44
Lack of integrity (ref.: no comment)	0.40	0.03	0.21	0.26	0.06	0.56	−0.01	0.95
Media cynicism	−0.01	0.97	−0.12	0.37	0.08	0.33	0.02	0.79
Hasty work * media cynicism	−0.08	0.69	0.00	0.98	0.08	0.51	0.19	0.14
Lack of integrity * media cynicism	−0.01	0.96	−0.17	0.40	−0.07	0.56	0.19	0.13
Adj. R²	0.00		0.01		0.01		0.03

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.

Table 3. Effects of journalistic reactions on brand quality perception.

	b	p
Intercept	3.28	0.00
Deny (ref: no reaction)	0.27	0.00
Admit (ref: no reaction)	0.24	0.00
Lack of integrity (ref: hasty work)	0.05	0.60
Media cynicism	-0.40	0.00
Deny * media cynicism	0.06	0.37
Admit * media cynicism	0.19	0.00
Deny * lack of integrity	−0.13	0.27
Admit * lack of integrity	−0.10	0.41
Lack of integrity * media cynicism	−0.06	0.21
Adj. R²	0.18

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.

Figure 2. Effect of the journalistic reaction on brand quality perception.

Table 4. Effects of journalistic reactions on behavior intentions.

	Check facts		Read other articles		Comment positively		Comment negatively
Intercept	2.65	0.00	2.54	0.00	1.44	0.00	1.39	0.00
Deny (ref.: no reaction)	0.00	0.98	0.26	0.13	−0.04	0.73	−0.08	0.45
Admit (ref.: no reaction)	0.06	0.69	0.25	0.14	0.17	0.14	0.08	0.46
Media cynicism	0.01	0.96	−0.16	0.18	0.12	0.14	0.21	0.01
Lack of integrity (ref.: hasty work)	0.13	0.49	0.13	0.50	−0.10	0.48	−0.10	0.42
Deny * media cynicism	−0.09	0.45	−0.08	0.55	−0.13	0.16	-0.19	0.02
Admit * media cynicism	0.00	0.97	0.01	0.92	−0.03	0.72	-0.14	0.08
Deny * lack of integrity	−0.03	0.89	−0.15	0.51	0.12	0.47	0.12	0.42
Admit * lack of integrity	0.08	0.73	−0.08	0.72	0.07	0.66	0.08	0.58
Media cynicism * lack of integrity	−0.10	0.26	−0.10	0.28	−0.08	0.24	0.00	0.93

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.

Table 5. Effects of transparent explanations and other factors on brand quality perception – full model.

	b	p
Intercept	3.45	0.00
Lack of integrity (ref.: hasty work)	−0.03	0.69
Admit (ref.: deny)	−0.01	0.90
Explanation (ref.: no exp.)	0.22	0.01
Media cynicism	-0.36	0.00
Lack of integrity * admit	0.04	0.68
Lack of integrity * explanation	−0.10	0.28
Admit * explanation	−0.06	0.50
Lack of integrity * media cynicism	−0.05	0.39
Admit * media cynicism	0.14	0.01
Explanation * media cynicism	0.00	0.97
Adj. R²	0.15

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.

Figure 3. Effect of a transparent explanation on brand quality perception.

Table 6. Effects of transparent explanations and other factors on behavior intentions – full model.

	Check facts		Read other articles		Comment positively		Comment negatively
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Intercept	2.78	0.00	2.77	0.00	1.58	0.00	1.43	0.00
Lack of integrity (ref.: hasty work)	0.23	0.12	0.06	0.71	−0.03	0.77	0.01	0.94
Admit (ref.: deny)	−0.14	0.32	−0.05	0.75	−0.15	0.19	−0.10	0.30
Explanation (ref.: no exp.)	−0.13	0.38	0.03	0.84	0.06	0.62	0.08	0.43
Media cynicism	0.01	0.90	−0.17	0.09	0.10	0.16	0.06	0.34
Lack of integrity * admit	−0.10	0.54	−0.07	0.69	0.05	0.70	0.04	0.75
Lack of integrity * explanation	−0.05	0.75	−0.03	0.86	0.02	0.89	−0.05	0.64
Admit * explanation	0.15	0.36	0.11	0.55	−0.14	0.29	−0.11	0.32
Lack of integrity * media cynicism	−0.14	0.16	−0.10	0.35	−0.06	0.47	0.01	0.92
Admit * media cynicism	−0.08	0.43	−0.10	0.35	−0.10	0.21	−0.05	0.45
Explanation * media cynicism	0.00	0.96	0.06	0.58	−0.04	0.60	0.02	0.77
Adj. R²	0.01		0.02		0.00		0.00

Note. OLS regression. B are unstandardized regression coefficients. Coefficients with p < .05 (p < .10 for interactions) printed bold. Media cynicism was mean centered.