G ModelP

R

To

Aa

b

a

ARRA

KTPSIO

1

rifbpr

2iiap(i(m

0h

ARTICLE IN PRESSUBREL-1109; No. of Pages 3

Public Relations Review xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

esearch in brief

he effects of organizational Twitter interactivity onrganization–public relationships

dam J. Saffera, Erich J. Sommerfeldtb, Maureen Taylora,∗

University of Oklahoma, United StatesUniversity of Maryland, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 20 September 2012eceived in revised form 13 February 2013ccepted 14 February 2013

eywords:witterublic relationsocial medianteractivityrganization–public relationships

a b s t r a c t

Social media sites such as Twitter provide organizations with the ability to interact directlywith publics. Previous research has suggested that web-based relationship building isdependent on the level of organizational interactivity with web technology, or how theorganization uses the technology to engage with its publics. This study tested if levelsof organizational Twitter interactivity affected the quality of organization–public rela-tionships. Findings suggest that an organization’s level of Twitter interactivity influencesrelationship quality.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Since the late 1990s, a growing body of public relations research has recognized Internet technology as a vehicle forelationship building (e.g. Kent & Taylor, 1998). Kent and Taylor pointed out that “it is how the technology is used thatnfluences organization–public relationships” (1998, p. 324). Relationship building through social media has become a newrontier for public relations scholars and practitioners; yet, research measuring the effects of social media technology onuilding relationships with publics has not surfaced. Many assertions have been made about the relationship buildingotential of social media without substantive evidence (Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012). Taylor and Kent (2010) called onesearchers to study whether organizations can build relationships through social media.

Interactivity has emerged as a key component in the study of mediated relationship building (Jo & Kim, 2003; Kelleher,009). Many public relations scholars have used Sundar, Kalyanaraman, and Brown’s (2003) conceptual classification of

nteractivity: functional and contingency. Functional interactivity includes the features found on a site that allow users tonteract in a number of modes. Contingency interactivity occurs when users’ roles are interchangeable and “interactants”re responding to one another (p. 35). Twitter provides organizations the ability to engage in contingency interactivity withublics – providing the kind of relationship-building communication that has been missing from websites. Lovejoy et al.2012) suggested that Twitter’s potentially contingent interactive messages like replies and mentions can assist organizations

Please cite this article in press as: Saffer, A. J., et al. The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–publicrelationships. Public Relations Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005

n communicating with other users. We hypothesized that higher levels of interactivity on the part of a message senderorganization) may lead to a better quality relationship with a message recipient (public). The next section outlines the

ethodology of the study.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 485 02423.E-mail addresses: Adam.Saffer@ou.edu (A.J. Saffer), ESommerf@umd.edu (E.J. Sommerfeldt), MTaylor@ou.edu (M. Taylor).

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESSPUBREL-1109; No. of Pages 3

2 A.J. Saffer et al. / Public Relations Review xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

2. Methodology

The study drew from methodology used by Jo and Kim (2003), who examined the effects that website characteristicshave on organization–public relationship building. A convenience sample of 127 students enrolled at two large westernUnited States universities agreed to follow and receive mobile Twitter updates from an assigned organization in the fall of2010. Ninety-three students (n = 93) completed the pre- and post-test surveys in usable form. The pretest measured partic-ipants’ attitudes toward the organizations used for the stimulus. The final sample was 22.6% male (n = 21) and 77.4% female(n = 72). Thirty participants were assigned to the high-interactivity account (Starbucks) and the remaining 63 participantswere assigned to one of the two low-interactivity accounts (Gatorade or Target). After two weeks of following an account,participants completed an online survey of Hon and Grunig (1999) abbreviated organization–public relationship scale.

The organizations’ accounts used as stimulus were selected based on the level of interactivity. Contingency interactivitywas operationalized as the number of replies an account had with its followers. To date, no valid measure can fully determinethe amount of interaction an account has with other users. During the two weeks of the study, participants received updatesfrom their assigned organization. The least interactive account, Target, totaled 25 replies to their followers. The Gatoradeaccount generated 27 replies. Starbucks, the most interactive, tweeted 44 replies. The three organizations provided real-world exemplars of different levels of Twitter interactivity. The results of the quasi-experiment are reported in the followingsection.

3. Results

Checks for the internal reliability of the composite dependent measures were conducted using Cronbach’s Alpha. All ofthe measures met reliability standards: trust ( ̨ = .87), control mutuality ( ̨ = .75), satisfaction ( ̨ = .94), and commitment( ̨ = .90). The independent variables of the companies’ level of Twitter interactivity were segmented into two categories:high-interactivity (Starbucks) and low-interactivity (Gatorade and Target). To avoid the effect of previous experience withor attitude toward the companies under study, participants’ previous attitudes toward the companies were controlled as acovariate in the analysis.

We hypothesized that high organizational Twitter interactivity, the amount that an organization communicates with itsfollowers, would positively affect the perceived organization–public relationship. To test for Twitter interactivities’ individ-ual effects on the dependent variables, a series of univariate ANCOVAs were conducted. There was a significant differencein the trust dimension for those assigned to high interactivity (M = 7.42, SD = .17) and low interactivity (M = 6.64, SD = .12)(F(1,91) = 13.725, p < .001). There was a significant difference in the control mutuality dimension between those assignedto high interactivity (M = 6.69, SD = .22) and low interactivity (M = 6.02, SD = .15) (F(1,91) = 6.309, p < .001). There was a sig-nificant difference in the satisfaction dimension between those assigned to high interactivity (M = 7.75, SD = .244), and lowinteractivity (M = 6.78, SD = .168) (F(1,91) = 10.638, p < .05). Finally, there was a significant difference in the commitmentdimension between those assigned to high interactivity (M = 7.302, SD = .244) and low interactivity (M = 6.224, SD = .168),(F(1,91) = 13.212, p < .001). The following section applies these results to the broader context of social media as a publicrelations tool.

4. Discussion

The analysis suggests that organization-public relationships were all perceived to be of better quality by the participantsassigned to the more interactive corporate account. For organizations looking to demonstrate commitment to a relationship,these findings suggest that a more interactive Twitter strategy may be valuable to some publics. To communicate withfrequent Twitter users, organizations should dedicate more time and resources to maintaining two-way communication viatheir social media.

Although the research of Twitter has found that a majority of organizations are not using Twitter beyond one-waymessaging, the findings illustrate that when organizations use Twitter as a two-way communication tool, the results canlead to the generation of quality organization–public relationships. In the larger debate of interactivity, this study lendssupport to those scholars suggesting interactivity can influence individuals’ perceptions toward the sender of a message(Kelleher, 2009). In this case, the level of interactivity from the message sender affected the perceived organization–publicrelationship.

Scholars should recognize the growing body of research associating interactivity as a key concept to onlineorganization–public relationship building. Twitter as a social media platform is functionally interactive. Organizations canuse the platform in the contingently interactive sense by being both the sender and receiver of messages – not just the sender.The findings imply that when individuals are engaged in communication with contingently interactive Twitter accounts,there is a positive public relations outcome. Interactivity is controlled by the organization and thus an organization can useTwitter strategically to build relationships with publics. The nexus of relationship building consequently falls within the

Please cite this article in press as: Saffer, A. J., et al. The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–publicrelationships. Public Relations Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005

organization’s purview – further underscoring the responsibility of public relations to manage and maintain social mediaaccounts used to interact with publics.

Yet, practitioners should proceed with caution and explore the boundaries of having a more interactive Twitter account.This study did not examine the nature of specific interactions that took place between an organization and their Twitter

G Model

P

fFtoc

cactStes

R

HJK

KL

S

T

ARTICLE IN PRESSUBREL-1109; No. of Pages 3

A.J. Saffer et al. / Public Relations Review xxx (2013) xxx– xxx 3

ollowers. Therefore, the details of effective interaction on Twitter between an organization and individual remain unknown.uture research should consider exploring: What strategies should organizations use to build and maintain quality rela-ionships? What role does an individual’s frequency of using social media play in the relationship with an organizationnline? Public relations research, especially in the context of social media, must turn further to examine online publics’ommunication behavior to gain further insights into their communication preferences.

A rational interpretation of these results will acknowledge that there is more to a relationship than 140 characters canommunicate. If the field is to continue exploring social media as a function of public relations, it is necessary for scholarsnd practitioners to more thoroughly investigate the varying uses individuals seek when using social media. The scholarshiponcerning social media will benefit from research addressing the differences between high and low users of social media ando what extent users can be considered “publics” from the situational, homo-narrans, or any other theoretical perspective.uch foci will continue the field of public relations’ theoretical and practice-based movement to include more interpersonalheories. This article provides evidence that supports previous research claims that social media can build relationships. Wencourage public relations scholars to conduct additional data driven studies to add to the conversation about the role ofocial media in building relationships.

eferences

on, L.C., & Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from www.instituteforpr.orgo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 199–223.elleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of

Communication, 59(1), 172–188.ent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334.ovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters

Please cite this article in press as: Saffer, A. J., et al. The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–publicrelationships. Public Relations Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005

or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.undar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication

Research, 30(1), 30–59.aylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s public relations tactics.

Public Relations Review, 36(3), 207–214.