• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The New Boundary Spanners: Social Media Users, Engagement, & Public Relations Outcomes
 

The New Boundary Spanners: Social Media Users, Engagement, & Public Relations Outcomes

on

  • 1,551 views

Our study investigates the extent to which social media users engaged with organizations online exhibit traditional characteristics of boundary spanners, and whether this engagement results in more ...

Our study investigates the extent to which social media users engaged with organizations online exhibit traditional characteristics of boundary spanners, and whether this engagement results in more positive public relations outcomes for organizations. An online survey was conducted among 403 students and structural equation modeling was used to test a proposed theoretical model. Starbucks and Amazon were selected for this study as both are organizations with a substantial online presence in social media. Results show that social identity and self-efficacy had a positive impact on boundary spanning behaviors, but boundary spanning behaviors did not have a significant impact on social media engagement. However, this study makes an important contribution to current theory in public relations as the results also provide strong empirical evidence for the positive effects that social media engagement has on both relational satisfaction and relational commitment.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,551
Views on SlideShare
1,468
Embed Views
83

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
1

5 Embeds 83

http://www.icavirtual.com 32
http://2011.icavirtual.com 29
http://test2012.icavirtual.com 19
http://www.linkedin.com 2
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Can you please write the references to your presentation?
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n\nMost people would look at the social graph below and say Diane is the influential in this sub-group [all of this group's connections and contacts are not shown]. She has local reach, but her message gets nowhere without the help of her network. Influence needs many connected people to spread -- not just the highly connected. Heather, Fernando or Garth all need to be in a cooperative mood for Diane's message to travel.\n\n\nIn social network analysis, a boundary spanner is someone who "crosses the chasm" between groups/clusters. They are not often highly connected. In the above network Fernando, Garth and Heather are all boundary spanners. They may not be influential, but they need to be ready to accept the message/trend/idea if it is going to make the jump out of their local domain and travel further. Otherwise the innovation/idea bounces around and dies in a cul de sac.\n\n
  • \n\nMost people would look at the social graph below and say Diane is the influential in this sub-group [all of this group's connections and contacts are not shown]. She has local reach, but her message gets nowhere without the help of her network. Influence needs many connected people to spread -- not just the highly connected. Heather, Fernando or Garth all need to be in a cooperative mood for Diane's message to travel.\n\n\nIn social network analysis, a boundary spanner is someone who "crosses the chasm" between groups/clusters. They are not often highly connected. In the above network Fernando, Garth and Heather are all boundary spanners. They may not be influential, but they need to be ready to accept the message/trend/idea if it is going to make the jump out of their local domain and travel further. Otherwise the innovation/idea bounces around and dies in a cul de sac.\n\n
  • \n \n \nThe two-way symmetrical \nmodel views PR's organisational role as 'boundary spanning' which is vital for \ndeveloping mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics. To \nachieve this Grunig argues that an open - or organic - system approach is \nnecessary. \n\n
  • \n \n \nThe two-way symmetrical \nmodel views PR's organisational role as 'boundary spanning' which is vital for \ndeveloping mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics. To \nachieve this Grunig argues that an open - or organic - system approach is \nnecessary. \n\n
  • \n \n \nThe two-way symmetrical \nmodel views PR's organisational role as 'boundary spanning' which is vital for \ndeveloping mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics. To \nachieve this Grunig argues that an open - or organic - system approach is \nnecessary. \n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • Figure 1 shows our proposed theoretical model, with boundary-spanning, social media engagement (adapting Yang and Kang’s four dimensions of blog engagement), and public relations outcomes as endogenous variables, and social identity, self-efficacy, need for cognition, and enduring involvement as antecedents of boundary-spanning.\n\nFigure 1.Proposed theoretical model showing antecedents of boundary-spanning and social media engagement, and hypothesized public relations outcomes.\n\n
  • \n\nIn comparison with individuals who have lower level of self-efficacy, people with high level of self-efficacy are more confident in themselves handling difficult situations, more willing to take risks, and they can deal better with unforeseen obstacles. Based on this conceptualization, Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson (2007) define boundary-spanning self-efficacy as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully establish and manage relationships with important parties external to his or her team\n\nAccording to Cacioppo and Petty, a person scoring high on a need for cognition finds simple tasks unpleasant and not challenging than complex one. \n
  • \n\nIn comparison with individuals who have lower level of self-efficacy, people with high level of self-efficacy are more confident in themselves handling difficult situations, more willing to take risks, and they can deal better with unforeseen obstacles. Based on this conceptualization, Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson (2007) define boundary-spanning self-efficacy as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully establish and manage relationships with important parties external to his or her team\n\nAccording to Cacioppo and Petty, a person scoring high on a need for cognition finds simple tasks unpleasant and not challenging than complex one. \n
  • \n\nIn comparison with individuals who have lower level of self-efficacy, people with high level of self-efficacy are more confident in themselves handling difficult situations, more willing to take risks, and they can deal better with unforeseen obstacles. Based on this conceptualization, Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson (2007) define boundary-spanning self-efficacy as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully establish and manage relationships with important parties external to his or her team\n\nAccording to Cacioppo and Petty, a person scoring high on a need for cognition finds simple tasks unpleasant and not challenging than complex one. \n
  • \n\nIn comparison with individuals who have lower level of self-efficacy, people with high level of self-efficacy are more confident in themselves handling difficult situations, more willing to take risks, and they can deal better with unforeseen obstacles. Based on this conceptualization, Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson (2007) define boundary-spanning self-efficacy as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully establish and manage relationships with important parties external to his or her team\n\nAccording to Cacioppo and Petty, a person scoring high on a need for cognition finds simple tasks unpleasant and not challenging than complex one. \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • College students at a large Northeastern university is the population used for sampling purposes. College students are the most likely to be familiar and have experience with the three organizations—a key focal point in our study. A self-administered online questionnaire will be used to measure the variables under investigation. In addition, participants will be asked to rate their experience and familiarity to control for those individuals lacking any affinity toward one or more of the three organizations.\n\nThree organizations were selected to test the hypothesized model. The three organizations, Starbucks, Amazon, and Apple, were selected from Fortune's 2010 Top 50 World's Most Admired Companies list and the Wetpaint/Altimeter Engagement Scores of the Top 100 worldwide brands. We use these three brands as sample organizations to test because they own the more popularity than other organizations, which ensures that most of participants have a basic knowledge on them. An online questionnaire will be used to collect data and test the hypothesized model.\n\nseparate sample of 35 students will be used to pretest the measures of all variables in the study for reliability, consistency, and which organizations are best suited for investigation.\n\nData Analysis\nFor data analysis, Chronbach’s alpha will first be used to test scale items reliability for all variables in the study from pretest results. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be used to test model fit statistics of all latent variables. Third, results will be analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) with the AMOS 18.0 statistical package to specify the structural model and assess model validity using various model fit characteristics.\n\n\n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n

The New Boundary Spanners: Social Media Users, Engagement, & Public Relations Outcomes The New Boundary Spanners: Social Media Users, Engagement, & Public Relations Outcomes Presentation Transcript

  • The NewBoundary Spanners:Social Media Users, Engagement & Public Relations OutcomesPhilip R. Johnson, Uyanga Bazaa, and Li Chen International Communication Association 2011 Virtual Conference
  • Introduction: Social Media
  • Introduction: Social MediaSocial 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-
  • Introduction: Social MediaInternet and social media have flattened the world(Friedman, 2000).“More brands are prioritizing their Facebook page in adsover their own website.” -Steve Rubel, Senior Vice President, EdelmanDigitalPlatforms like Twitter and Facebook have quicklyevolved into tools for marketing (Thomases, 2010).
  • 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
  • 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).
  • 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
  • Theory Social 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).
  • Theory Social 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).
  • Theory Social 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.
  • Theory Social 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.
  • Theory Social 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 User-Org Word of Mouth Interactivity Org. Attitude Connection Intentions Social Media Engagement
  • Theory & Extension User-Org Word of Mouth Interactivity Org. Attitude Connection Intentions Enduring Involvement Social Identity Boundary Social Media Spanning Engagement Self Efficacy Need for Cognition
  • Theory & Extension User-Org Word of Mouth Interactivity Org. Attitude Connection Intentions Enduring Involvement Relational Satisfaction Social Identity Boundary Social Media Spanning Engagement Relational Self Efficacy Commitment Need for Cognition
  • 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).
  • Hypotheses 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.
  • Proposed Model &Hypotheses H1 H2 H6 H5 H3 H7 H4
  • 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 EnduringInvolvementQ: 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
  • Measuring Social Identity 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 /Amazons 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 Self Efficacy 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 Need forCognition 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 BoundarySpanning Behavior 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 Social MediaEngagement - Interactivity 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 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 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 Word of MouthIntentions 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 OrganizationalAttitude 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 RelationalSatisfaction 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 RelationalCommitment 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.
  • DescriptivesN = 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 = $0-24,999 Students ➔ nearly 75%
  • Bivariate ResultsStarbucks Boundary Spanning (DV) Self-Efficacy .37* Need for Cognition .20* Social Identity ns Enduring * p < .01 ns Involvement N = 403
  • Bivariate ResultsStarbucks Relational Relational Satisfaction (DV) Commitment (DV) Interactivity .50* .61* User- Organization .51* .67* ConnectionWOM Intentions .74* .71* Organizational .53* .41* Attitude * p < .01 N = 403
  • Bivariate ResultsAmazon Boundary Spanning (DV) Self-Efficacy .37* Need for Cognition .20* Social Identity .16* Enduring * p < .01 ns Involvement N = 403
  • Bivariate ResultsAmazon Relational Relational Satisfaction (DV) Commitment (DV) Interactivity .34* .49* User- Organization .31* .56* ConnectionWOM Intentions .68* .58* Organizational .53* .43* Attitude * p < .01 N = 403
  • Bivariate ResultsPR Outcomes Starbucks Relational satisfaction <—> Relational commitment r = .77, p < .01 Amazon Relational satisfaction <—> Relational commitment r = .70, p < .01
  • @*";2 A;9$/B$%&$#( EA8( 61";$,%?/15 A;9$/B$%&( CD1=7" 61"%&* -&",%&)&,/$#(67"%15 H1 !"#$%&$#( )"#+234,$,5 H2 H6 -&../0."1 H5 <&=7$;5( )&,/$#(8"7/$( )>$/9( 39$9"."1 :""7(+&;( H3 !"#$%&$#( -&9/%& H7 )$%*+$,%& H4 37=;/9(6?&#?"."1 Hypothesized Model
  • HypothesesDV Boundary SpanningH1 Social identity ➔ Boundaryspanning – supportedH2 Self-efficacy ➔ Boundaryspanning – supportedH3 Need for cognition ➔ Boundaryspanning – not supportedH4 Enduring involvement ➔Boundary spanning – not supported
  • HypothesesDV Social Media EngagementH5 Boundary spanning ➔ Socialmedia engagement – Amazon only
  • HypothesesDV PR OutcomesH6 Social media engagement ➔Relational satisfaction – supportedH7 Social media engagement ➔Relational commitment – supported
  • Social Media Engagement Starbucks
  • Social Media Engagement Amazon
  • Hypothesized Model Starbucks
  • Hypothesized Model Amazon
  • Alternative Models Post-Hoc
  • Alternative Model 1 Starbucks
  • Alternative Model 1 Amazon
  • DiscussionSocial media engagement has a strong,positive effect on PR outcomes Verifies importance of org’s fostering user engagement via social mediaEnduring involvement & social identity’s effecton social media engagement Org’s should focus on recruiting/attracting/ nurturing those online users w/high levels of enduring involvement & social identityBoundary spanning ➔ not a good mediator inour study, but its importance still unknown