The Trust Paradox of "Dissuasion": A Study on the Authenticity Construction Mechanism of "Anti-Recommendation" Content on Social Media—Taking Xiaohongshu Beauty and Skincare Category as an Example

Authors

  • Xueyan Du WuHan University, global finance, WuHan province, China, 430000

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/ihcs10892

Keywords:

Anti-recommendation, Authenticity construction, Dramaturgical theory, Social media trust, Xiaohongshu

Abstract

In the context where social media "product recommendation" (Zhongcao) content suffers from a widespread trust crisis due to over-commercialization, "anti-recommendation" (Fan Zhongcao) content adopting a "dissuasive" stance has unexpectedly gained user trust. Focusing on this trust paradox, this study investigates anti-recommendation posts in the beauty and skincare category on the Xiaohongshu platform. Employing content analysis and qualitative comparative analysis, this study examines how anti-recommendation content constructs "perceived authenticity" through textual strategies across three dimensions: narrative structure, rhetorical language, and visual encoding. The findings reveal that the perceived authenticity of anti-recommendation content stems from the deliberate display of "backstage" performances: life-like scenes, personalized narrative perspectives, moderately restrained expressions of negative emotions, and the dense usage of credibility signals such as "no ads" collectively encode a "non-commercial" signal of authenticity. However, when this set of encoding strategies is identified by users as another form of "performance," the perceived authenticity collapses immediately. This study provides a new analytical path for the application of Goffman's dramaturgical theory in the digital communication context and offers a micro-perspective for research on "credibility" within social media content ecosystems.

References

] Keegan, M., & Shang, P. (2024). Are brands afraid of "anti-recommendation"? The World of English, 43(1), 21-25.

Jing, Y. (2026). From "traffic business" to "trust business": The paradox and path out for financial media business models. Omni-Media Exploration, (6), 7-9.

Zhu, K. (2026). Traffic "breaking out of the circle" and trust "breaking through the wall": The communication efficacy paradox of Shenzhen Radio and Television new media matrix. Popular Television, (5), 137-139.

Hong, J., & Chang, J. (2025). Transparency as trust? User perception and trust paradox in platform algorithmic transparency practices. Journalism and Writing, (9), 31-45.

Zhao, Y. (2021). Examination and response to trust under the privacy paradox phenomenon. Journal of Changchun Education Institute, 37(8), 35-43.

Tang, B. (2025). The logic of constructing institutional political trust: An analysis based on two paradoxes. Journal of Chifeng University (Social Science Edition), 46(11), 11-17.

Cai, S., & Sun, J. (2026). The trust paradox of AI sycophancy and the adjustment of human-computer relationships: From the perspective of self-interaction theory. Contemporary Communication, (4), 10-16.

Hechavarria M D ,Brieger A S ,Sahasranamam S , et al.The risk-trust paradox: Why some risk-averse societies produce thriving entrepreneurship?[J].Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,2026,33(4):841-861.

Silvestre W ,Begnini S ,Abreu I .The Paradox of Trust: How Leadership, Commitment, and Inertia Shape Sustainability Behavior in the Workplace[J].Administrative Sciences,2025,15(7):254-254.

Hoai T N .The algorithmic trust paradox: A multi-stakeholder analysis of the audit expectation gap in AI-assisted engagements[J].Social Sciences & Humanities Open,2026,14103106-103106.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-01

How to Cite

(1)
Du, X. The Trust Paradox of "Dissuasion": A Study on the Authenticity Construction Mechanism of "Anti-Recommendation" Content on Social Media—Taking Xiaohongshu Beauty and Skincare Category As an Example. IHCS 2026, 4, 10892.