Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study

Fuoli, Matteo, Hart, Christopher·2018·Discourse & Society
DOI 10.1177/0957926518770264
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents a scenario-based experiment designed to test the effects of trust-building strategies, realised in stance-taking acts, which a previous corpus-based study found to be salient features of stakeholder-facing corporate communication. The experiment relies on a between-subjects design in which a target group of subjects are exposed to trust-building strategies while another control group of subjects are not. We apply this paradigm to corporate discourse in the form of an About Us webpage produced by a fictitious multinational pharmaceutical company that has been accused by a whistle-blower of corporate misconduct. The results of the study show that these strategies are indeed effective in fostering trust in the company and have an indirect positive effect on the perceived credibility of the company’s denial in response to the allegations made by the whistle-blower. The strategies are therefore able to mitigate the potential damage caused by public accusations of wrongdoing and help companies insure against future threats to their legitimacy and freedom to operate, as when their behaviour violates, or is said to violate, societal norms and values. Theoretically, the results provide insights into the psychological mechanisms of trust-building and reader response. Methodologically, the study contributes to the growing body of work using experimental methods in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by further demonstrating that experimentation can usefully complement more traditional discourse-analytical methods as a form of triangulation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0957926518770264

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. 10.1057/crr.2010.6 · DOI
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Arbuckle JL, 2014, Amos
  4. 10.2307/2392322 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1075/scl.73.13bak · DOI
  6. 10.1177/1750481314568542 · DOI
  7. 10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed · DOI
  8. 10.1075/scl.73.12bed · DOI
  9. Bentler PM, 2006, EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual
  10. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 · DOI
  11. Biber D, 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
  12. 10.1017/CBO9780511610295 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bollen KA, 1993, Testing Structural Equation Models, 111
  14. 10.1075/ps.7.1.03bon · DOI
  15. Brace I, 2008, Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research
  16. 10.1177/0957926511431511 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/0957926513503536 · DOI
  18. 10.1080/00014788.1998.9729564 · DOI
  19. 10.1057/9781137350435 · DOI
  20. Byrne BM, 2010, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming
  21. Cameron L, 2001, Working with Spoken Discourse
  22. 10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi · DOI
  23. 10.1075/fol.13.1.04cof · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1108/09513570210435852 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Deegan C, 2014, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, 248
  26. DeVellis RF, 2012, Scale Development: Theory and Applications
  27. 10.2307/1388226 · DOI
  28. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du · DOI
  29. Fairclough N, 1989, Language and Power
  30. Fairclough N, 1995, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language
  31. 10.4324/9780203697078 · DOI
  32. Flowerdew J, 2014, Discourse in Context
  33. 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Fowler R, 1991, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press
  35. Fowler R, 1996, Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, 3
  36. 10.2307/259074 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/1750481311427788 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/applin/amw058 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.001 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.007 · DOI
  41. 10.5465/amr.2009.35713319 · DOI
  42. 10.1086/314311 · DOI
  43. Hair JF, 2014, Multivariate Data Analysis, 7
  44. Hart C, 2014, Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives
  45. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013479 · DOI
  46. 10.1093/applin/amw017 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/0957926516630896 · DOI
  48. 10.1177/0957926517734663 · DOI
  49. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1007/s10551-010-0363-y · DOI
  51. 10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2 · DOI
  52. 10.1080/10350330601124718 · DOI
  53. Koller V, 2008, Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 155, 10.1515/9783110198980.2.155 · DOI
  54. Koller V, 2009, Multimodal Metaphor, 11, 45, 10.1515/9783110215366.2.45 · DOI
  55. Koller V (2009b) Corporate self-presentation and self-centredness: A case for cognitive critical discourse analysis. In: Pishwa H (ed.) Language and Social Cognition: Expression of the Social Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 267–287. · DOI
  56. Lischinsky A (2011) The discursive construction of a responsible corporate self. In: Sjölander AE, Payne JG (eds) Tracking Discourses: Politics, Identity and Social Change. Lund: Nordic Academic Press, pp. 257–286. · DOI
  57. Lischinsky A, 2014, NORDICOM Review: Nordic Research on Media and Communication, 35, S125
  58. 10.2307/259290 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Marchi A, 2009, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 3, 1
  60. 10.1093/biomet/57.3.519 · DOI
  61. 10.1057/9780230511910 · DOI
  62. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.005 · DOI
  64. O’Halloran K, 2003, Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition
  65. 10.1093/applin/aml046 · DOI
  66. 10.1177/1750481315623902 · DOI
  67. 10.1287/orsc.1100.0581 · DOI
  68. 10.1057/crr.2010.12 · DOI
  69. Reisigl M, 2001, Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism
  70. Skulstad A, 2008, Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 181, 10.1515/9783110198980.2.181 · DOI
  71. Stubbs M, 1997, Evolving Models of Language, 100
  72. Subtirelu NC, 2016, CADAAD, 8, 38
  73. 10.2307/258788 · DOI · Paper page
  74. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 · DOI
  75. Van Dijk TA, 1991, Racism and the Press
  76. Van Dijk TA, 1998, Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach
  77. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499 · DOI
  78. 10.1002/9780470758427 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Wodak R, 2011, The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual
  80. Wodak R, 1999, The Discursive Construction of National Identity
  81. 10.1002/mar.20289 · DOI
  82. Zucker LG, 1986, Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53

Cited by

See all 62

Metadata

Authors
Fuoli, M., & Hart, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham, UK
  • Lancaster University, UK
Venue
Discourse & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-14
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
514-552
ISSN
  • 0957-9265
  • 1460-3624
DOI
10.1177/0957926518770264
Cited by
62
References
7
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0957926518770264
The paper
Fuoli, M., & Hart, C. (2018). Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study. Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770264

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.