In argumentative texts, authors must choose between two presentation orders: providing the decision or claim first and then the explanation (direct order) or providing the explanation first and then the decision (indirect order). This study addresses which presentation order is most effective when the decision entails bad news by discussing two experiments that evaluate Dutch letters and e-mails. The first experiment evaluates denial letters from insurance companies and rejection letters to job applicants in which the presentation order is manipulated. The second experiment replicates the first, using a different medium (e-mail) and other instances of bad news. The results of both experiments indicate that readers perceive texts with the indirect order as more comprehensible and agreeable and its writer as more competent and empathic. Readers are also more inclined to comply with the decision in such texts when the explanation is presented first.
Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R.A. ( 2008). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45, 545-579.
12.
Klein, W. ( 1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language , 68, 525-552.
13.
Kok, A. ( 1993). Zo’n onaangename standaardbrief: Een onderzoek naar afwijzingsbrieven aan sollicitanten [Such an unpleasant form letter: An investigation of rejection letters to job applicants]. Unpublished master thesis, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
14.
Lehman, C.M., Hemstreet, W.C., & Batty, W.M. ( 1996). Business communication (11th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western .
15.
Lentz, L., & Pander Maat, H. (2005). Functional analysis for document design. Technical Communication, 51, 387-398.
16.
Le Pair, R. ( 2005). Politeness in the Netherlands: Indirect requests. In L. Hickey, & M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 66-81). Clevedon , UK: Multilingual Matters.
17.
Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., & Gaeth, G.J. ( 1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviour and Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
18.
Limaye, M.R. ( 1998). Buffers in bad news messages and recipient perceptions . Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 90-101.
19.
Limaye, M.R. ( 2001). Some reflections on explanations in negative messages . Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 100-110.
20.
Locker, K.O. ( 1995). Business and administrative communication. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
21.
Locker, K.O. ( 1999). Factors in reader responses to negative letters: Experimental evidence for changing what we teach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 5-48.
22.
Pilegaard, M. ( 1997). Politeness in business requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 223-243.
23.
Sanders, T.J.M., & Noordman, L.G.M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
24.
Schryer, C.F. ( 2000). Walking a fine line: Writing negative letters in an insurance company. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 445-497.
Shelby, A.N., & Reinsch, N.L. Jr. (1995). Positive emphasis and the you-attitude: An empirical study. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 303-327.
27.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. ( 1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
28.
Toulmin, S.E. ( 1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.
29.
Van den Hoven, P.J. ( 1985). Het redelijkheidsbegrip binnen een praktische argumentatietheorie [The notion of reasonableness in a practical argumentation theory]. In W. K. B. Koning (Ed.), Taalbeheersing in theorie en praktijk (pp. 113-119). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
30.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. ( 1984). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing6, 297-310.
31.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. ( 1989). The skill of identifying arguments. Argumentation: Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25, 239-245.
32.
Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Vossestein, J. ( 1997). Dealing with the Dutch. Amsterdam , Australia: Royal Tropical Institute.
34.
Wiseman, T.L. ( 1991). How to avoid the transitional ax in indirect bad news messages. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication , 34, 20-23.
35.
Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
