the new boundary spanners: social media users, engagement, & public relations outcomes
TRANSCRIPT
The New
Boundary Spanners:Social Media Users, Engagement &
Public Relations Outcomes
Philip R. Johnson, Uyanga Bazaa, and Li ChenInternational Communication Association
2011 Virtual Conference
Introduction:
Social Media
Introduction:
Social Media
Social media is:
quick, constant, efficient, low cost, entertaining, personal, and interactive multi-directional.
new form of online communication allows free flow of conversation between publics.
provides timely information and ideas that creates, nurtures, and solidifies relationship between individuals and groups.
personalized niche communication for all media users to publish content and consume information from non-
Internet and social media have flattened the world (Friedman, 2000).
“More brands are prioritizing their Facebook page in ads over their own website.” -Steve Rubel, Senior Vice President, Edelman Digital
Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have quickly evolved into tools for marketing (Thomases, 2010).
Introduction:
Social Media
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning
Boundary spanning is to search out relevant information and disseminate it.
However Boundary Spanning also requires PR practitioners to understand and appreciate all sides of a relationship between their organization and public (Guth & Marsh, 2003).
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Much has been written about how the influential few [an elite 10%] tells the rest of us what to buy, how to vote, etc. Duncan Watts, at Columbia and Yahoo! Research, says that it is not the elite few that matter but the connected many and they have to be ready to be influenced.
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Users have become secondary gatekeepers by commenting on news posted online, favoring the stories or passing the link of coverage (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009).
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Users have become secondary gatekeepers by commenting on news posted online, favoring the stories or passing the link of coverage (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009).
The use of blogs by organizations for PR purposes is beneficial in the building and maintenance of organization-public relationships (Yang, Kang, & Johnson, in press; Yang & Lim, 2009).
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Users have become secondary gatekeepers by commenting on news posted online, favoring the stories or passing the link of coverage (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009).
The use of blogs by organizations for PR purposes is beneficial in the building and maintenance of organization-public relationships (Yang, Kang, & Johnson, in press; Yang & Lim, 2009).
Applicable to the use of blogs as a social media tool for PR practitioners, the concept of engagement has become a focal point in both the academic and professional fields(Paine, 2007).
Introduction:
Boundary Spanning & Social Media
Purpose of Study
Purpose of Study
Thus researchers believe consumers have become more than a target; instead they seek out product information, create buzz, identify themselves with the brand, and willing to engage with the organization and then share the information with others.
Purpose of Study
Thus researchers believe consumers have become more than a target; instead they seek out product information, create buzz, identify themselves with the brand, and willing to engage with the organization and then share the information with others.
The aim of this study is to find out if individuals engaged in social media have the characteristics of boundary spanners, and whether this engagement results in more positive public relations outcomes
Theory
TheorySocial media engagement is the extent to which social media communication elicits a sense of attachment in terms of interactivity, connectedness, positive attitudes, and word of mouth intentions regarding an organization (Yang & Kang, 2009).
TheorySocial media engagement is the extent to which social media communication elicits a sense of attachment in terms of interactivity, connectedness, positive attitudes, and word of mouth intentions regarding an organization (Yang & Kang, 2009).
Contingency interactivity. A familiar concept to internet research is the idea of interactivity, specifically contingency interactivity, defined as the degree to which an exchange of messages are related to each other and sequenced such that “subsequent messages are contingent or dependent on previous message” (Sundar, Kalyanarman, & Brown, 2003, p. 35).
TheorySocial media engagement is the extent to which social media communication elicits a sense of attachment in terms of interactivity, connectedness, positive attitudes, and word of mouth intentions regarding an organization (Yang & Kang, 2009).
Contingency interactivity. A familiar concept to internet research is the idea of interactivity, specifically contingency interactivity, defined as the degree to which an exchange of messages are related to each other and sequenced such that “subsequent messages are contingent or dependent on previous message” (Sundar, Kalyanarman, & Brown, 2003, p. 35).
User-organization connection. Previous research has shown that a person’s identification or connection with an organization through engagement has positive persuasive outcomes (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Specifically, brand engagement has shown to represent a part of an individual’s self-concept and antecedent to attention, memory, and preference of an individual’s favorite brands (Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009). In our study, user-organization connection is defined as the degree to which an online user feels a connection to an organization through their social media use.
TheorySocial media engagement is the extent to which social media communication elicits a sense of attachment in terms of interactivity, connectedness, positive attitudes, and word of mouth intentions regarding an organization (Yang & Kang, 2009).
Contingency interactivity. A familiar concept to internet research is the idea of interactivity, specifically contingency interactivity, defined as the degree to which an exchange of messages are related to each other and sequenced such that “subsequent messages are contingent or dependent on previous message” (Sundar, Kalyanarman, & Brown, 2003, p. 35).
User-organization connection. Previous research has shown that a person’s identification or connection with an organization through engagement has positive persuasive outcomes (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Specifically, brand engagement has shown to represent a part of an individual’s self-concept and antecedent to attention, memory, and preference of an individual’s favorite brands (Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009). In our study, user-organization connection is defined as the degree to which an online user feels a connection to an organization through their social media use.
Organizational attitude. In our study, organizational attitude is the degree to which a social media user has positive or negative feelings toward an organization. In public relations, positive attitudes toward an organization has an impact in how publics behave toward an organization (Ki & Hon, 2007). In the case of social media, positive attitudes toward an organization are more likely to elicit higher levels of engagement between social media users and the organization.
TheorySocial media engagement is the extent to which social media communication elicits a sense of attachment in terms of interactivity, connectedness, positive attitudes, and word of mouth intentions regarding an organization (Yang & Kang, 2009).
Contingency interactivity. A familiar concept to internet research is the idea of interactivity, specifically contingency interactivity, defined as the degree to which an exchange of messages are related to each other and sequenced such that “subsequent messages are contingent or dependent on previous message” (Sundar, Kalyanarman, & Brown, 2003, p. 35).
User-organization connection. Previous research has shown that a person’s identification or connection with an organization through engagement has positive persuasive outcomes (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Specifically, brand engagement has shown to represent a part of an individual’s self-concept and antecedent to attention, memory, and preference of an individual’s favorite brands (Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009). In our study, user-organization connection is defined as the degree to which an online user feels a connection to an organization through their social media use.
Organizational attitude. In our study, organizational attitude is the degree to which a social media user has positive or negative feelings toward an organization. In public relations, positive attitudes toward an organization has an impact in how publics behave toward an organization (Ki & Hon, 2007). In the case of social media, positive attitudes toward an organization are more likely to elicit higher levels of engagement between social media users and the organization.
Word of mouth intentions. Additionally, positive word of mouth intentions are also indicative or increased social media engagement between users and an organization. Word of mouth intentions are defined as a user’s desire to share or tell information about an organization to others. Higher levels of word of mouth intentions are
Theory & Extension
Theory & Extension
Social Media Engagement
Interactivity Org. AttitudeUser-Org
ConnectionWord of Mouth
Intentions
Theory & Extension
Social Media Engagement
Interactivity Org. AttitudeUser-Org
ConnectionWord of Mouth
Intentions
Boundary Spanning
Enduring Involvement
Social Identity
Self Efficacy
Need for Cognition
Theory & Extension
Social Media Engagement
Interactivity Org. AttitudeUser-Org
ConnectionWord of Mouth
Intentions
Boundary Spanning
Enduring Involvement
Social Identity
Self Efficacy
Need for Cognition
Relational Commitment
Relational Satisfaction
Theory
Theory
Enduring involvement is defined as one’s personal interest in the organization (Baker & Lutz, 1988, 1996).
Theory
Enduring involvement is defined as one’s personal interest in the organization (Baker & Lutz, 1988, 1996).
Social identity is that part of an individual’s self-concept derived from his or her membership in some social groups, along with the value and emotional significance of that membership (Tajfel, 1981).
Theory
Enduring involvement is defined as one’s personal interest in the organization (Baker & Lutz, 1988, 1996).
Social identity is that part of an individual’s self-concept derived from his or her membership in some social groups, along with the value and emotional significance of that membership (Tajfel, 1981).
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s belief about her/his capability to accomplish tasks and “to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2).
Theory
Enduring involvement is defined as one’s personal interest in the organization (Baker & Lutz, 1988, 1996).
Social identity is that part of an individual’s self-concept derived from his or her membership in some social groups, along with the value and emotional significance of that membership (Tajfel, 1981).
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s belief about her/his capability to accomplish tasks and “to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2).
Need for cognition is an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activity (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p. 116).
Theory
Theory
Theory
Relational commitment is defined as the extent to which “one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote” (p. 14).
Theory
Relational commitment is defined as the extent to which “one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote” (p. 14).
Theory
Relational commitment is defined as the extent to which “one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote” (p. 14).
Relational satisfaction is defined as the extent to which “one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced” (p. 14).
H1: Social identification with an organization is positively related to
boundary-spanning behaviors.
H2: Self-efficacy is positively related to boundary-spanning behaviors.
H3: Need for cognition is positively related to boundary-spanning
behaviors.
H4: Enduring involvement is positively related to boundary-spanning
behaviors.
H5: Boundary-spanning behaviors are positively related to social media
engagement.
H6: Social media engagement is positively related to relational satisfaction.
Hypotheses
Proposed Model &
Hypotheses
H1
H4
H3
H2
H7
H6
H5
Methods
Online Survey: N = 403, Response rate 5.37%
2 organizations: Amazon and Starbucks
Pretest: N = 35 students to measures of all variables in the study for reliability, consistency, and which organizations are best suited for investigation.
Data Analysis:
Chronbach’s alpha will first be used to test scale items reliability for all variables.
confirmatory factor analysis was used to test model fit statistics of all latent variables.
Results are analyzed using structural equation modeling with the AMOS 18.0 statistical package to specify the structural model and assess
Measuring Enduring
Involvement
Q: Please rate the following word pairs when thinking about Starbucks/Amazon.
Not fun O O O O O O O Fun
Appealing O O O O O O O Unappealing
Uninteresting O O O O O O O Interesting
Fascinating O O O O O O O Not fascinating
Not exciting O O O O O O O Exciting
Valuable O O O O O O O Not valuable
Not essential need O O O O O O O Essential need
Important O O O O O O O Unimportant
Q: When thinking about Starbucks/Amazon, please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. (5-point scale Agree to Disagree)
I think Starbucks/Amazon has good reputation.
I am satisfied with products and services of Starbucks /Amazon.
I identify myself with Starbucks /Amazon.
I am a valuable customer of Starbucks /Amazon.
I am an important member of Starbucks /Amazon's brand community.
Q: Please rate your level of attachment and belongingness to each organization. (7-point scale Very much, moderate, not at all)
How attached are you to Starbucks /Amazon?
How strong would you say your feelings of belongingness are toward Starbucks /Amazon?
Measuring Social Identity
Q: Please rate your level of agreement on each of the following statements. (5-point scale Agree to Disagree)
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.
When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.
If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.
I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.
Measuring Self Efficacy
Q: For each statement below, please indicate to what extent the statement is characteristic of you, from extremely uncharacteristic to extremely characteristic. (5-point scale)I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
I would prefer complex to simple problems.
Thinking is not my idea of fun.
I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.
I only think as hard as I have to.
The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.
I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones. etc.,
Measuring Need for
Cognition
Q: For each statement below, please indicate to what extent the statement is characteristic of you, from extremely uncharacteristic to extremely characteristic. (5-point scale)
I do persuade others.
I reach out to those who are in need.
I do support my standpoint.
I am a good contact for critical evaluation.
I proactively seek advice from others I prevent myself from overload.
I am a good contact for new ideas.
I am a good contact for external information.
I can be out of my comfort zone.
Measuring Boundary
Spanning Behavior
Q: Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements when thinking about Starbucks/Amazon. (7-point scale Agree to Disagree)
It is likely that I would link to Starbucks' social media content from my own web site, blog, Facebook, or Twitter page.
I am interested in reading social media content by Starbucks.
I feel connected to Starbucks' ideas and thoughts.
I would feel comfortable if Starbucks asked me to interact through social media.
Measuring Social Media
Engagement - Interactivity
Q: Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements when thinking about Starbucks/Amazon. (7-point scale Agree to Disagree)
I can feel a personal connection to Starbucks.
I think Starbucks helps me become the type of person I want to be.
I can identify with Starbucks. Starbucks reflects who I am.
I use Starbucks to communicate who I am to other people.
Starbucks suits me well.
I consider Starbucks to be "me" (if it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others).
Measuring User-
Organization Connection
Q: Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements when thinking about Starbucks/Amazon. (7-point scale Agree to Disagree)
I would recommend Starbucks products to someone who asked my advice.
I would say positive things about Starbucks and its products to other people.
I would encourage family members or relatives to buy products from Starbucks.
I would encourage friends to buy products from Starbucks.
Measuring Word of Mouth
Intentions
Q: Please rate the following word pairs when thinking about Starbucks/Amazon.
Unreputable O O O O O O O Reputable
Responsible O O O O O O O Irresponsible
Financially unstable O O O O O O O Financially stable
Fly by night O O O O O O O Established
Long-run oriented O O O O O O O Short-run oriented
Measuring Organizational
Attitude
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. (7-point scale Agree to Disagree)
Starbucks fails to satisfy the needs of people like me.
Most people enjoy dealing with Starbucks.
Both Starbucks and people like me benefit from the relationship.
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship Starbucks has established with people like me.
In general, I believe that nothing of value has been accomplished between Starbucks and people like me.
Most people like me are happy in their interactions with Starbucks.
I am happy with Starbucks.
I feel people like me are important to Starbucks.
Measuring Relational
Satisfaction
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. (7-point scale Agree to Disagree)
I feel a sense of loyalty to Starbucks.
I would rather work together with Starbucks than not.
I can see that Starbucks wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.
I could not care less about Starbucks.
Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with Starbucks more.
I feel that Starbucks is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to people like me.
There is a long-lasting bond between Starbucks and people like me.
Measuring Relational
Commitment
Descriptives
N = 403
Age ➔ M = 24.26
GPA ➔ M = 3.58
Gender ➔ Over 60% female
65% White, 14% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.8% Black
Nearly 60% income $0-74,999, mode = $0-24,999
Students ➔ nearly 75%
Bivariate Results
Starbucks
Boundary Spanning (DV)
Self-Efficacy
Need for Cognition
Social Identity
Enduring Involvement
.37*
.20*
ns
ns * p < .01N = 403
Bivariate Results
Starbucks
Relational Satisfaction (DV)
Relational Commitment (DV)
Interactivity
User-Organization Connection
WOM Intentions
Organizational Attitude
.50* .61*
.51* .67*
.74* .71*
.53* .41** p < .01N = 403
Bivariate Results
Amazon
Boundary Spanning (DV)
Self-Efficacy
Need for Cognition
Social Identity
Enduring Involvement
.37*
.20*
.16*
ns * p < .01N = 403
Bivariate Results
Amazon
Relational Satisfaction (DV)
Relational Commitment (DV)
Interactivity
User-Organization Connection
WOM Intentions
Organizational Attitude
.34* .49*
.31* .56*
.68* .58*
.53* .43** p < .01N = 403
Bivariate Results
PR Outcomes
Starbucks
Relational satisfaction <—> Relational commitment
r = .77, p < .01
Amazon
Relational satisfaction <—> Relational commitment
r = .70, p < .01
!"#$%&'$#(
)$%*+$,%&'
!"#$%&'$#(
-&../0."'1)"#+234,$,5
)&,/$#(67"'%15
)&,/$#(8"7/$(
3'9$9"."'1
:""7(+&;(
-&9'/%&'
<&='7$;5(
)>$''/'9(
6'1";$,%?/15
@*";2
A;9$'/B$%&'(
-&''",%&'
A;9$'/B$%&'$#(
CD1=7"
EA8(
6'1"'%&'*
H1
H2
H3
H5
H6
H7
3'7=;/'9(
6'?&#?"."'1
H4
Hypothesized Model
Hypotheses
DV Boundary Spanning
H1 Social identity ➔ Boundary spanning – supported
H2 Self-efficacy ➔ Boundary spanning – supported
H3 Need for cognition ➔ Boundary spanning – not supported
H4 Enduring involvement ➔ Boundary spanning – not supported
Hypotheses
DV Social Media Engagement
H5 Boundary spanning ➔ Social media engagement – Amazon only
Hypotheses
DV PR Outcomes
H6 Social media engagement ➔ Relational satisfaction – supported
H7 Social media engagement ➔ Relational commitment – supported
Social Media Engagement
Starbucks
Social Media Engagement
Amazon
Hypothesized Model
Starbucks
Hypothesized Model
Amazon
Alternative ModelsPost-Hoc
Alternative Model 1
Starbucks
Alternative Model 1
Amazon
Discussion
Social media engagement has a strong, positive effect on PR outcomes
Verifies importance of org’s fostering user engagement via social media
Enduring involvement & social identity’s effect on social media engagement
Org’s should focus on recruiting/attracting/nurturing those online users w/high levels of enduring involvement & social identity
Boundary spanning ➔ not a good mediator in our study, but its importance still unknown