More Related Content
Similar to CompleteDraft_8302016
Similar to CompleteDraft_8302016 (20)
CompleteDraft_8302016
- 2. !
!i!
ABSTRACT'
As!social!media!marketing!develops,!non9profit!organisations!(“non9profits”)!are!moving!out!of!the!phase!
of!experimenting!with!the!technology!towards!learning!best!practices!to!engage!their!audiences.!At!the!
same!time,!the!public!has!begun!to!look!to!non9profits!to!aid!in!advancing!certain!political!issues!that!
align!with!the!organisation’s!mission!and,!indeed,!advocacy!of!such!issues!has!become!a!major!public!
relations!goal!for!many!such!non9profits.!It!follows!that!non9profits,!in!particular!those!supporting!more!
controversial!issues,!have!discovered!the!advantage!of!using!social!media!marketing!to!aid!their!advocacy!
efforts!and!build!stronger!organisational9public!relationships.!Therefore,!the!purpose!of!this!study!is!
determine!audience!responsiveness!to!specific!social!media!messaging!strategies!employed!by!non9
profits!advocating!for!controversial!political!issues.!
This!study!begins!by!reviewing!the!relevant!literature!and!theories!around!non9profit!marketing!and!
advocacy!along!with!possible!factors!influencing!the!design!of!non9profit!PR!messaging!in!a!social!media!
context.!Three!factors!were!identified!from!literature!for!measuring!social!media!messaging!strategies:!(1)!
valence!framing,!(2)!organisational9public!relationships!building!functions!and!(3)!advocacy!strategies.!A!
cross9sectional!quantitative!study!was!designed!featuring!a!two9stage!process.!The!first!stage!involved!the!
content!analysis!of!400!Twitter!messages!and!400!Facebook!messages!from!43!organisations!identified!as!
supporting!issues!deemed!controversial!in!the!2016!US!Presidential!Election.!The!content!analysis!was!
conducted!utilising!pre9existing!coding!schemes.!The!second!stage!of!the!study!utilised!statistical!
methods!to!determine!if!different!social!media!messaging!strategies!affected!the!level!of!audience!
engagement!with!a!post!(measured!in!likes,!shares!and!comments).!
The!results!of!this!study!found!that!audiences!were!quite!willing!to!interact!with!posts!through!
commenting!and!liking,!but!seemed!hesitant!to!share!posts!with!their!network.!For!valence!framing,!
negative!messages!caused!the!highest!impact!on!audience!response.!Further,!audiences!respond!best!to!
community!and!action!based!messages,!although!these!are!the!least!used!by!organisations.!Lastly,!from!
an!advocacy!strategy!standpoint,!messages!asking!audiences!to!perform!an!advocacy!activity!were!most!
successful!in!gaining!engagement.! !
The!recommendations!of!this!study!are!for!organisations!to!focus!less!on!one9way!communication!types!
messages!and!send!more!calls!to!action.! !
- 7. !
!1!
1'|'INTRODUCTION'
1.1' |'STUDY'CONTEXT'
One!in!every!5!minutes!spent!online!is!accounted!for!by!social!media!use.!In!a!world!where!there!are!7.3!
billion!people!on!the!planet,!2.3!billion!of!these!are!social!media!users!(Comscore,!2016).!Therefore,!it!is!
little!surprise!that!social!media!has!become!an!integral!part!of!communication!and!marketing!for!non9
profit!organisations!(“non9profits”)!(Khan!et!al.,!2014).!The!2016!NGO!Technology!Report!stated!that!up!
to!95%!had!Facebook!pages!and!83%!had!a!Twitter!account.!Despite!this,!it!has!been!found!that!while!
74%!of!non9profits!use!social!media!as!a!megaphone!for!self9promotion,!only!53%!follow!best!practices!in!
relation!to!social!media!posting,!leaving!much!room!for!research!and!improvement!in!the!area!of!non9
profit!marketing!via!social!media!(Creedon,!2014).! !
Traditional!non9profit!marketing!is!defined!as!the!“use!of!marketing!tactics!to!further!the!goals!and!
objectives!of!non9profit!organisations”.!Among!these!tactics!is!the!arena!of!public!relations!(Wymer!et!al.,!
2006),!an!area!that!reflects!the!deep!impact!of!social!media!on!marketing,!with!85%!of!PR!professionals!
stating!they!can!no!longer!perform!their!jobs!without!it!(ING.com,!2014).!More!than!many!other!
industries,!non9profits!rely!on!public!relations!to!communicate!their!mission!(Weberling,!2012)!and!to!
build!a!relationship!with!the!public.!This!becomes!even!more!imperative!for!non9profits!whose!mission!is!
to!advocate!for!political!and!social!issues,!as!social!media!has!expanded!the!“opportunity!for!expression!
of!competing!and!controversial!ideas!in!society”!(Auger,!2013).!Non9profit!organisations!are!finding!they!
must!learn!how!to!utilise!social!media!PR!communications!to!strengthen!their!organisational9public!
relationship!if!they!wish!to!further!their!cause.!
The!last!few!years!have!seen!the!public!become!more!interested!in!promoting!and!advocating!the!causes!
they!care!about!through!social!media!(Brinckerhoff,!2010),!with!many!promoting!their!causes!through!
social!media!as!“free!agent!activists”!outside!of!traditional!non9profit!frameworks!(Kanter!and!Fine,!
2010).!This!has!provided!many!non9profits!with!the!motivation!to!step!up!advocacy!efforts!in!social!media!
marketing!in!particular,!as!there!is!movement!among!the!general!public!towards!viewing!non9profits,!as!
opposed!to!political!parties,!as!agents!of!change!(Driver!et!al.,!2012).! !
Additionally,!due!to!the!emotive!nature!of!some!issues!advocated,!how!non9profits!frame!their!messages!
can!affect!how!they!are!received!by!the!public.!Because!advocacy!non9profits!handle!sensitive!issues,!
- 8. !
!2!
message!frames!can!help!emotionally!tie!an!issue!back!to!the!non9profit!organisation,!while!the!general!
public!is!simultaneously!learning!about!that!issue!(Soat,!2013).!Whether!an!issue!is!negatively!or!
positively!framed!can!affect!a!user’s!decision!on!whether!or!not!to!share!a!social!media!post!with!their!
network!(Kahneman!and!Tversky!1979),!which!links!into!the!topic!of!social!media!engagement.! !
In!the!final!analysis,!the!effectiveness!of!a!non9profit’s!social!media!PR!can!be!measured!in!terms!of!
engagement!with!their!audience,!sometimes!referred!to!as!“return9on9interactions”!(Cvijikj!et!al.,!2013).!
Studies!have!shown!a!correlation!between!social!media!post9types!of!engagement!in!the!form!of!“likes”,!
“shares”!and!“comments”!(Cvijikj!et!al.,!2011).!For!non9profits!advocating!controversial!issues,!these!are!
important!measures,!as!engagement!is!an!imperative!step!in!the!marketing!goal!of!moving!people!from!
the!sphere!of!listening!to!the!sphere!of!action!for!a!given!cause!(Kanter!and!Fine,!2010).!
1.2' |'RESEARCH'GAP'
Much!of!the!hitherto!existing!research!on!the!use!of!social!media!for!strategic!communications!and!public!
relations!in!non9profit!marketing!has!focused!on!the!largest!non9profits!which!feature!in!the!top!100!list!
within!the!United!States!(Auger,!2014).!Additionally,!while!a!handful!of!studies!have!approached!social!
media!PR!tactics!for!non9profits!whose!mission!is!to!advocate!for!single!issues,!none!to!this!author’s!
knowledge!have!compared!across!organisations!which!advocate!specifically!for!controversial!and!
polarising!political!and!social!issues.!In!general,!past!studies!on!social!media!use!by!non9profits!have!
focused!on!how!the!organisations!adopted!them,!and!the!opinions!of!internal!stakeholders!on!the!use!of!
social!media.!A!small!number!looked!at!whether!at!non9profits!used!a!negative!or!positive!message!frame!
in!their!posts,!whether!they!utilised!different!organisational9public!relationship9building!tactics,!or!
whether!their!messages!reflected!different!advocacy!strategies,!with!the!three!vectors!rarely!being!
examined!together.!Most!surprisingly,!only!recently!have!studies!sought!to!link!the!effectiveness!of!how!
non9profits!craft!their!social!media!messages!to!the!levels!of!audience!engagement!that!each!social!
media!post!receives.!There!is!a!lack!of!study!in!this!area!as!well!as!in!adjacent!field!of!advocacy,!with!
audience!engagement!measurement!being!mostly!the!domain!of!for9profit!organisational!research.!This!is!
baffling,!as!audience!engagement!is!an!important!step!on!the!non9profit!marketing!cycle,!which!seeks!to!
turn!inactive!publics!into!active!advocates!and!evangelists!(Kanter!and!Fine,!2010)!
The!present!study!seeks!to!address!many!of!these!gaps!in!non9profit!marketing!literature.!A!quantitative!
approach!was!chosen!to!identify!which!functional!message!tactics!and!message!framing!in!non9profit!
social!media!PR!communications!received!the!most!audience!engagement!per!post.!Specifically,!this!
- 9. !
!3!
study!explores!a!cross9section!of!non9profit!organisations!in!the!United!States!who!advocate!for!
controversial!issues!such!as!transgender!rights,!government!transparency,!climate!change,!gun!control,!
and!immigration!in!order!to!provide!a!more!diverse!and!generalizable!results!set.!The!first!stage!involves!
a!content!analysis!that!categorises!social!media!posts!based!on!their!strategies!as!defined!in!frameworks!
developed!by!Vreese!and!Schuck!(2006),!Lovejoy!and!Saxton!(2012),!and!Guo!and!Saxton!(2014).!The!
second!portion!measures!how!effective!each!social!media!post!was!in!gaining!audience!engagement!
based!on!the!number!of!likes,!shares!and!comments!a!post!received!(Cvijikj!et!al.,!2013).!
1.3'|'RESEARCH'AIMS'AND'OBJECTIVES'
Overall,!the!present!study!is!interested!in!investigating!the!different!message!design!strategies!used!by!
advocacy9based!non9profits!to!craft!PR!messages,!and!how!these!tactics!may!influence!audience!
engagement!when!used!in!a!social!media!context.!This!study!goes!a!step!further!by!examining!how!
advocating!more!controversial!issues!may!change!how!audiences!engage!with!the!communications!issued!
by!the!organisation!in!question.!This!research!will!use!a!two!stage!approach:!(1)!classification!of!social!
media!messages!to!identify!different!message!design!tactics!and!(2)!quantitative!analysis!of!the!classified!
social!media!messages!based!on!social!media!audience!engagement!metrics!at!the!level!of!the!individual!
post!(Facebook!reactions/Twitter!favourites,!Facebook!shares/Twitter!re9tweets,!and!Facebook!
comments).!Three!message!design!variables!have!been!selected!from!previous!studies!and!are!separated!
into!the!three!research!questions!as!described!below:!
RQ1:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!posts!differ!based!on!the!valence!framing!utilised!in!
the!message?!
RQ2:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!posts!differ!based!on!the!organisational9public!
relationship!building!function!of!the!message?!
RQ3:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!differ!based!on!the!advocacy!strategy!employed!in!
the!message?!
It!is!these!principal!questions!which!will!be!addressed!in!the!chapters!which!follow.! !
- 10. !
!4!
2!|!Literature!Review!
2.1'|'INTRODUCTION'
In!the!past!decade,!social!media!has!provided!a!new!medium!for!advocacy9based!non9profit!marketers!to!
create!a!two9way!dialogue!with!their!audiences.!While!many!studies!have!examined!what!types!of!
messages!non9profits!send,!only!recently!have!researchers!begun!to!measure!their!general!effectiveness.!
The!present!chapter!provides!a!critical!overview!of!the!existing!literature!on!the!subject,!and!indicates!
gaps!in!that!literature!which!the!present!dissertation,!at!least!in!part,!seeks!to!address.!
2.2'|'SOCIAL'MEDIA'–'A'GENERAL'OVERVIEW'
The!technologies!that!make!up!social!network!sites!(SNSs)!started!in!the!1990s!and!achieved!true!
popularity!with!the!arrival!of!Facebook,!with!over!1.2!billion!users,!and!Twitter,!with!more!than!340!
million!users!as!of!2015!(Chapman!et!al.,!2015).!Facebook!is!a!SNS!created!to!let!people!or!“users”!
connect!and!interact!online!with!people!they!know!in!real!life.!Twitter!also!falls!under!the!category!of!
SNS,!as!it!allows!users!to!share!information!in!1409character!posts!known!as!“tweets”,!and!to!form!
relationships!with!“followers”!(Lovejoy!et!al.,!2012;!Chapman!et!al.,!2015).!Twitter!and!Facebook!will!be!
the!focus!of!this!study.! !
In!the!area!of!marketing,!social!media!has!provided!new!lanes!of!communication!between!organisations!
and!the!public!(Wright!and!Hinson,!2009).!It!provides!a!low9risk!space!for!organisation!to!disseminate!and!
exchange!information!with!audiences.!Indeed,!several!studies!have!identified!SNSs!as!a!key!tool!in!
disseminating!information!(Stieglitz!and!Dang9Xuan,!2013)!and!as!having!changed!the!way!we!interact!
and!connect.!Therefore,!it!has!become!imperative!for!organisations!to!integrate!social!media!into!their!
structure,!especially!for!marketing!purposes!(Kahn!et!al.,!2014).!After!all,!social!media!is!a!natural!
offshoot!of!the!communication!and!marketing!sector,!as!one!of!its!main!purposes!is!to!create!lasting!
relationships!with!clients.!The!technology!allows!the!creation!of!two9way!conversations!which!create!a!
sense!of!intimacy!with!customers!(Papasolomou!and!Melanthiou,!2012).!The!present!study!will!look!
specifically!at!how!social!media!has!impacted!the!marketing!of!public!relations,!which!is!defined!as!
“public!relations!activities!designed!to!support!marketing!objectives!such!as!raising!awareness,!informing!
and!educating!target!audiences”!(Papasolomou!and!Melanthiou,!2012).!
- 11. !
!5!
!
!
2.2.1!|!SOCIAL!MEDIA!AND!MARKETING!PR!
One!thing!that!sets!public!relations!apart!from!other!forms!of!marketing!is!its!ability!to!raise!awareness!
and!create!engagement!with!audiences!via!three!distinct!channels:!word!of!mouth,!creation!of!
relationships!with!the!public,!and!through!the!message!itself.!These!are!especially!interesting!in!the!study!
of!advocacy!group!PR,!reflected!in!the!various!names!given!to!these!tactics!(“buzz”,!“grassroots”,!
“community”,!or!“cause9marketing”),!which!will!be!discussed!further!here.!Social!media!becomes!a!key!
component!for!public!relations!professionals!in!generating!“buzz”!because!it!encourages!two9way!
conversation!and!provides!mechanisms!for!audiences!to!disseminate!marketing!messages!and!
information!to!friends!(Papasolomou!and!Melanthiou,!2012).!In!a!case!study!by!Sundstrom!of!a!non9profit!
health!organisation,!they!found!that!contemporary!public!relations!has!moved!away!from!one9way!
communication!by!publicity!to!a!more!two9way!communication!model!(2012).!However,!at!the!same!time!
several!studies!show!that!non9profits!are!lagging!behind!and!using!social!media!for!one9way!
communications!(Waters!and!Jamal,!2011,!2012:!Saxton!and!Waters;!2014),!which!may!not!be!the!best!
approach!for!encouraging!engagement!and!building!relationships! ! !
As!social!media!grows!in!importance!for!PR!professionals!as!a!relationship9building!tool!(Briones!et!al.,!
2011),!and!has!made!some!elements!of!PR!easier!to!perform!compared!to!traditional!one9way!mass!
media!channels!like!television!and!newspapers!(Papasolomou!and,!2012),!the!need!grows!to!gain!an!
understanding!of!how!well!current!tactics!are!working.!Organisations!are!relying!increasingly!on!social!
media!PR!to!enhance!organisational–public!relationships!(Rodriguez,!2016),!but!only!recently!has!non9
profit!marketing!literature!begun!to!measure!its!effectiveness!(Saxton!and!Waters,!2014).!Further,!online!
relationship9building!is!imperative!for!advocacy!non9profits,!as!a!stronger!organisational9public!
relationship!may!lead!to!stronger!public!response!when!organisations!have!important!messages!to!share!
(Hallahan,!2000).!
Lastly,!it!is!the!message!itself!that!has!become!amplified!in!importance!for!PR!professionals!with!the!
advent!of!social!media,!and!this!is!an!area!that!the!present!study!will!explore!in!depth.!It!is!the!job!of!
public!relations!to!craft!messages!that!will!reach!important!target!audiences!(Hallahan,!2000).!Studies!
show!that!practitioners!need!to!create!messages!on!social!media!that!talk!to!their!audience!rather!than!at!
them!(Papasolomou!and!Melanthiou,!2012).!However,!this!is!difficult!for!non9profits!to!do!without!
understanding!what!types!of!messages!their!target!audience!responds!to!most.!
- 12. !
!6!
2.2.2!|!SOCIAL!MEDIA!USE!BY!NON8PROFIT!ORGANISATIONS!
Although!there!is!still!much!emphasis!on!traditional!media,!social!media!has!established!a!firm!place!
within!non9profit!organisations’!media!strategies!(Lovejoy!and!Saxton,!2012).!Quentin!and!Fennemore!
surveyed!166!non9profits!and!found!they!had!a!substantial!presence!on!major!social!media!sites!like!
Facebook!(90%)!and!Twitter!(60%)!(2013).!Employees!said!most!social!media!activities!centred!on!
building!relationships,!raising!awareness,!and!seeking!funds!(Weberling,!2012)!
Non9profits!have!come!to!rely!heavily!on!social!media!marketing!to!cultivate!public!relations!(Quinton!and!
Fennemore,!2013)!but!current!literature!suggest!they!are!not!utilising!it!to!its!full!potential.!They!are!
accused!of!using!social!media!too!often!for!one9way!communications!(Ramanadhan!et!al.,!2013;!
Schumann,!2015;!Lovejoy!and!Saxton,!2012;!Briones!et!al.,!2011;!Waters!and!Jamal,!2011)!and!not!
seeking!out!ways!to!measure!social!media!message!effectiveness!(Chapman!et!al.,!2015).!However,!for!
advocacy!non9profits,!there!is!no!clear!consensus!on!which!type!of!communication!is!better.!Some!
researchers!say!that!organisations!are!fulfilling!their!advocacy!mission!with!uni9directional!
communication!through!raising!awareness!(Auger,!2013).!However,!others!say!two9way!communication!is!
imperative!for!building!a!strong!community!which!is!willing!to!mobilise!around!an!issue!(Briones!et!al.,!
2011).!
2.2.3!|!SOCIAL!MEDIA!USER!ENGAGEMENT!
The!extent!to!which!“users!will!feel!engaged”!is!an!important!consideration!for!organisations!performing!
social!media!marketing!(SMM)!(Smith!and!Gallicano,!2015).!Audiences!now!expect!to!be!engaged!directly!
by!organisations!and,!in!turn,!interact!more!with!an!organisation’s!social!media!content!(Ledford,!2012).!
Therefore,!audience!engagement!has!become!a!key!metric!for!gauging!social!media!effectiveness!(Cvijikj!
et!al.,!2013).!Further,!engagement!is!necessary!for!organisations!involved!with!social!issues,!as!creating!
deep!emotional!connections!with!audiences!may!help!mobilise!them!to!offline!action!for!social!change.!
Engagement!metrics!provide!quantifiable!insights!into!what!is!often!an!audience’s!qualitative!emotional!
response!to!an!organisation!(Kanter!et!al.,!2012).!
Many!businesses!look!at!engagement!through!metrics!such!as!daily!active!users!provided!through!
Facebook!Insights.!However,!a!more!precise!measures!of!engagement,!which!will!be!the!focus!of!this!
study,!is!on!the!level!of!an!individual!post!and!measured!in!the!number!of!actions!taken!by!the!user,!such!
as!number!of!“likes”,!“comments”!and!“shares”!(Cvijikj!et!al.,!2013).!This!is!an!important!measure!for!the!
present!dissertation,!as!studies!show!that!non9profits!that!share!more,!have!more!likes,!and!more!
- 13. !
!7!
interaction!are!considered!a!more!trustworthy!source!(Kanter!et!al.,!2012).!It!can!be!inferred,!then,!that!
more!trustworthy!advocacy!non9profits!are!more!likely!to!engage!their!audiences!and!be!successful!in!
advancing!them!from!passive!listening!to!action.!This!is!echoed!by!Kanter!and!Fine!in!their!proposed!
ladder!of!non9profit!engagement!which!states!that!“online!relationship!building!begins!with!listening!and!
then!moves!to!engagement!and!finally!action”!(2010)!(See!Table!1).!This!ladder!is!in!no!way!progressive,!
and!audience!members!can!move!up!and!down!over!time,!movement!which!is!driven!in!part!by!social!
media!communication!as!it!invites!people!to!participate!(Kanter!and!Fine,!2010).!This!study!will!focus!
more!on!measuring!activities!around!those!who!could!be!termed!“Happy!Bystanders”!and!“Spreaders”,!
however!non9profits’!social!media!PR!communication!often!seeks!to!engage!all!members!of!this!ladder.!
Table$1:$The$Ladder$of$Engagement$(Kanter$and$Fine,$2010)$
RUNG! LABEL! DEFINITION!
1! Happy!Bystanders! “Blog!readers,!friends!on!Facebook,!and!personal!
acquaintances!such!as!co<workers.”!
2! Spreaders! “People!who!are!willing!to!share!information!about!a!cause!
with!other!people.”!
3! Donors! “Those!who!contribute!financially!to!a!cause.”!
4! Evangelists! “Those!who!reach!out!to!their!personal!social!networks!and!
ask!other!people!to!give!time!and!money!to!the!cause.”!
5! Instigators! “Those!who!create!their!own!content,!activities,!and!events!
on!behalf!of!the!cause.!Instigators!may!even!create!a!new!
cause!or!organisation!to!more!fully!express!themselves.”!
!
!
On!the!other!hand,!Cvijikj!et!al.!have!stated!that!one!important!component!that!influences!audience!
engagement!may!be!the!functional!purpose!of!the!social!media!message!itself!(Cvijikj!et!al.,!2013).!An!
earlier!study!of!14!Facebook!brand!pages!over!four!months!by!Cvijikj!et!al.!(2011)!looked!at!social!media!
post!content!characteristics,!such!as!type!and!category,!and!demonstrated!that!there!is!a!correlation!
between!these!characteristics!and!the!number!of!likes!and!comments!that!the!post!received.!From!an!
engagement!metric!standpoint,!each!platform!has!its!own!names!for!engagement!functions!which!at!
their!core!are!the!same.!However,!at!their!core,!many!of!these!functions!serve!the!same!base!purpose.!
- 14. !
!8!
Larsson!proposed!a!method!for!equating!engagement!metrics!for!studies!that!examine!both!Facebook!
and!Twitter!(2015)!(Table!2).! !
Table$2:$Four$suggested$modes$of$cross;functional$platform$engagement$on$Facebook$and$
Twitter$(Larsson,$2015)$
FUNCTION! TWITTER! FACEBOOK! !
BROADCAST! Tweet! Post!
REDISTRIBUTE! Retweet! Share!
INTERACT! Mentions,!@replies! Comments!
ACKNOWLEDGE! Favourite/Like! Like!
!
!
As!this!dissertation!will!look!at!Facebook!and!Twitter!posts,!the!above!taxonomy!for!measuring!
engagement!will!be!utilised!for!measuring!engagement!across!both!platforms.!
2.3'|'ADVOCACY'
One!of!many!definitions!for!advocacy!is!as!“a!catch9all!word!for!the!set!of!skills!used!to!create!a!shift!in!
public!opinion!and!mobilise!the!necessary!resources!and!forces!to!support!an!issue,!policy!or!
constituency”!(Weberling,!2012).!Advocacy!has!long!been!one!of!the!main!functions!of!non9profits,!
important!both!to!organisations!which!primarily!engage!in!activism!as!well!as!to!other!charitable!
organisations.!It!aids!in!furthering!the!mission!of!the!organisation!and!in!improving!the!lives!of!those!they!
represent!(Guo!and!Saxton,!2014).!However,!this!function!has!become!more!pronounced!in!recent!years!
as!the!public!increasingly!looks!to!non9profits,!rather!than!the!traditional!political!party,!to!solve!
increasingly!complex!and!controversial!social!and!political!issues.!There!is!a!new!general!awareness!of!
social!and!public!issues,!with!advocacy!non9profits!at!the!heart!of!the!conversation!(Driver!et!al.,!2012).!
2.3.1!|!SOCIAL!MEDIA’S!EFFECT!ON!ADVOCACY!EFFORTS!
The!Internet!has!provided!a!new!platform!for!individuals!and!organisations!to!communicate!around!issues!
they!champion!(Halupka,!2014).!Many!movements!around!social!issues!have!utilised!social!media!as!a!
public!relations!tool!to!disseminate!information!and!mobilise!supporters!(Rodriguez,!2016).!Some!
researchers!argue!that!the!growing!fascination!with!championing!causes!is!now!a!primary!driver!of!social!
media!usage!(Smith!and!Gallicano,!2015).!There!is!no!doubt!that!advocacy!can!help!non9profits!capture!
- 15. !
!9!
public!engagement.!Indeed,!Steven!Shattuck,!VP!of!Marketing!at!Boomerang,!proposed!that!one!third!of!
all!non9profit!social!media!content!should!be!dedicated!to!furthering!advocacy!activities!to!gain!audience!
engagement!(Shattuck,!2014).! !
However,!there!is!debate!over!how!effective!a!tool!social!media!is!for!advocacy!in!a!general!sense.!Some!
researchers!believe!it!promotes!mere!“clicktivism”,!which!“denotes!the!simplification!of!online!
participatory!processes:!online!petitions,!content!sharing,!social!buttons!(e.g.,!Facebook’s!‘Like’!button)”!
(Chalmers!and!Shotton,!2015).!Some!researchers!see!clicktivism!as!an!indifferent!political!activity,!a!lazy!
brand!of!activism!(Drumbl,!2012)!that!lets!users!feel!good!without!taking!true!actions!(Lee!and!Hsieh,!
2013).!Others!argue!that!while!clicktivism!acts!may!appear!to!be!a!form!of!meaningless!user!engagement,!
the!act!itself!still!holds!meaning!for!the!user.!A!user!is!still!motivated!by!advocacy!efforts!to!determine!
how!valid!an!issue!is!before!the!user!takes!action.!It!can!be!argued!that!liking,!sharing,!and!signing!
petitions!provides!an!accessible!form!of!advocacy!that!does!not!require!specialised!knowledge!(Halupka,!
2014).!Accordingly,!the!present!study!will!look!at!audience!engagement!measures!that!could!be!termed!
clicktivism,!as!well!as!gauging!audience!response!to!social!media!messages!about!an!organisation’s!
advocacy!strategies.!
In!a!2010!paper,!Guo!and!Saxton!identified!11!different!offline!advocacy!strategies!that!non9profit!or!
political!organisations!could!perform,!namely:!1)!“Public!education”,!(2)!“Grassroots!lobbying”,!(3)!“Public!
events!and!direct!action”,!(4)!“Voter!registration!and!communication”,!(5)!“Research”,!(6)!“Multiple!
advocacy!tactics”,!(7)!“Judicial!advocacy”,!(8)!“Coalition!building”,!(9)!“Media!advocacy”,!(10)!
“Administrative!lobbying”,!(11)!“Direct!Lobbying”,!and!(12)!“Expert!testimony”.!This!taxonomy!was!later!
taken!and!applied!to!classifying!non9profits’!Twitter!messages!to!see!what!advocacy!activities!were!
discussed!the!most.!Most!of!the!messages!they!found!focused!on!a!public!education,!which!is!in!line!with!
the!prevalent!one9way!communication!mechanism!many!non9profits!use!on!social!media.!This!
dissertation!seeks!to!determine!whether!there!is!a!discrepancy!between!the!types!of!advocacy!messages!
that!non9profits!send!and!what!audiences!engage!with!using!this!taxonomy.!Guo!and!Saxton!argue!public!
education!is!the!first!rung!on!a!pyramid!which!start!with!creating!awareness!and!ends!with!offline!action,!
similar!to!the!engagement!ladder!proposed!by!Kanter!and!Fine!(2010).!Consequently,!this!dissertation!will!
examine!if!the!current!mix!of!advocacy!strategies,!which!organisations!promote!in!social!media!messages,!
is!effective!in!generating!an!audience!response.!
In!the!context!of!advocacy9specific!non9profits,!a!few!studies!have!looked!at!how!they!use!social!media!
for!advocacy,!although!these!studies!are!few!(Karpf,!2010,!Obar!et!al.,!2012;!Graaf!et!al.,!2016).!In!a!study!
- 16. !
!10!
of!169!professionals!from!59!US!advocacy!groups,!100%!of!them!utilised!social!media!to!help!with!their!
activities!(Obar!et!al.,!2012)!Social!media!has!allowed!these!interest9led!non9profits!to!build!communities!
and!interact!in!conversations!(Graaf!et!al.,!2016).!However,!there!is!a!lack!of!studies!looking!at!how!
effective!these!advocacy!non9profits!are!at!generating!audience!engagement!when!they!use!social!media.!
Indeed,!in!regard!to!advocacy!activities,!the!few!studies!that!have!looked!at!advocacy!non9profits!have!
only!undertaken!a!surface9level!analysis!of!social!media!adoption!by!the!organisations!in!question!
(Chalmers!and!Shotton,!2015).!Furthermore,!very!few!studies!have!looked!at!how!non9profits!specifically!
handle!controversial!advocacy!issues!on!social!media.!
2.4'|'CONTROVERSY'IN'THE'CONVERSATION'
Beyond!advocacy,!one!of!the!other!important!issues!to!consider!is!the!controversial!element!of!the!issues!
advocated!by!the!non9profits!under!examination.!Controversy!affects!the!public!relations!of!non9profits,!
being!defined!in!its!nature!as!a!“discussion!marked….by!the!expression!of!opposing!views”,!with!
controversial!topics!being!“ones!on!which!people!have!different,!often!polarising,!views”!(Chen!and!
Berger,!2013).!As!public!relations!use!communication!to!build!relationships!with!various!publics,!it!
becomes!interesting!to!understand!how!the!controversial!nature!of!an!issue!affects!the!level!of!
conversation!generated!by!certain!PR!tactics!(Sundstrom,!2012).!Chen!and!Berger!found!that!while!
moderate!controversy!drove!conversation,!high!levels!of!controversy!quashed!it.!In!addition,!conversation!
around!controversial!topics!was!driven!by!two!opposing!forces:!the!person’s!interest!versus!their!
discomfort!in!discussing!the!topic.!In!social!media!PR,!these!factors!may!impact!whether!or!not!audiences!
share!posts,!as!the!study!found!that!word!of!mouth!(WOM)!was!driven!by!factors!like!interest,!arousal,!
and!mood!(Chen!and!Berger,!2013).!
As!controversial!issues!are!issues!that!people!feel!strongly!about!(Chen!and!Berger,!2013),!it!would!be!
expected!that!they!would!generate!more!conversation!through!arousal.!One!scholar!found!over!two!
studies!that!more!arousing!information!is!more!likely!to!be!shared!by!audiences,!and!thus!arousing!
content!is!more!likely!to!be!spread!over!the!Internet!(Berger,!2011).!Kim!et!al.!found!that!when!it!came!to!
controversial!issues,!those!who!are!passionate!are!more!likely!to!share!information!and!engage!in!action!
(2012).!Further,!Chen!and!Berger!admit!in!their!study!that!the!strength!of!people’s!feeling!about!a!topic!
could!“moderate!the!effect!of!controversy!on!conversation!by!reducing!the!negative!effects!of!
discomfort”!(2013).!One!study!examined!the!connection!between!emotion!and!information!spread!by!
analysing!165,000!tweets!centred!around!political!communications,!chosen!because!the!controversial!
and!polarising!nature!of!politics!leads!to!greater!degrees!of!sentiment.!Messages!with!a!high!sentiment!
- 17. !
!11!
level!were!re9tweeted!more!often!and!more!quickly!than!emotionally!neutral!tweets!(Stieglitz!and!Dang9
Xuan,!2013).!Indeed,!there!is!a!long!history!of!finding!that!audiences!gain!enjoyment!and!arousal!from!
viewing!negative!and!controversial!tabloid!news!material!(Kleemans!et!al.,!2012).!This!would!suggest!that!
the!more!controversial!the!topic,!the!more!engagement!it!may!create.!
The!organisations!under!examination!in!this!study!are!supporting!issues!that!have!been!identified!as!
controversial!in!relation!to!the!2016!US!presidential!election!on!procon.org:!gun!rights,!climate!change,!
transgender!rights,!government!transparency!and!immigration.!Indeed,!the!highly!controversial!and!
emotionally!charged!messages!from!presidential!potentials!on!these!issues!have!been!some!of!the!most!
commented!on!and!shared!in!US!political!history!(Lang,!2016).!Therefore,!it!is!important!for!non9profit!
organisations!who!advocate!for!controversial!issues!to!consider!how!both!the!emotional!framing!and!the!
function!of!the!message!in!a!social!media!post!impacts!user!engagement!and!information!sharing!
behaviours,!something!which!has!not!been!subject!to!a!significant!amount!of!study.!
2.5'|'FRAMING'EFFECTS'
The!present!study!will!consider!how!the!framing!of!a!message!might!affect!engagement!levels!for!non9
profits.!Framing!effects!are!a!type!of!psychological!cognitive!bias!that!influence!someone’s!view!of!a!
message!based!on!how!it!is!presented!(Plous,!1993).!The!technique!is!used!extensively!in!communications!
and!can!cause!audiences!to!react!differently!to!a!topic!depending!which!parts!are!highlighted!and!which!
are!obscured.!The!highlighted!parts!of!a!framed!topic!are!considered!salient,!defined!as!“making!a!piece!
of!information!more!noticeable,!meaningful!or!memorable!to!audiences”!(Entman,!1993).!Ultimately,!
frames!reflect!the!opinions!of!the!message!creators,!whether!through!presenting!a!topic!as!negative!or!
positive!or!through!the!choice!of!semantic!phrasing!(Hallahan,!1999).! !
Therefore,!the!defining!of!issues!through!frames!is!imperative!as!it!can!determine!whether!it!is!a!
significant!public!issue!or!not!(Hallahan,!1999).!PR!professionals!often!use!message!framing!to!guide!“the!
development,!growth,!and!maturation!of!an!issue!over!the!life!cycle!of!the!controversy”!(Hallahan,!1999).!
One!famous!example!of!reframing!a!controversial!climate!debate!issue!originates!with!Frank!Luntz,!
political!advisor!to!the!United!States!GOP!party,!in!his!2002!Straight!Talk!Memorandum!to!the!White!
House!to!call!the!issue!“climate!change”!instead!of!“global!warming”!as!that!frame!sounded!“less!
frightening”.!When!it!comes!to!the!advocacy!of!social!and!political!issues,!framing!has!become!central!to!
the!democratic!process!(Entman!1993).!While!there!are!many!types!of!message!framing,!this!study!is!
- 18. !
!12!
limited!to!analysing!social!media!posts!for!valence!framing,!i.e.!whether!a!message!is!framed!positively!or!
negatively!(Levin!et!al.!1998).!
2.5.1!|!VALENCE!FRAMING!
Tversky!and!Kahneman!explored!valence!framing!in!their!seminal!1981!paper,!defining!it!as!a!technique!
for!framing!“normatively!equivalent!information!in!either!a!positive!or!negative!fashion,!i.e.!framing!
alternatives!in!either!positive!or!negative!terms”!(Zezelj!et!al.,!2007).!They!specifically!explored!
opportunity!versus!risk,!and!discovered!that!people!are!more!willing!to!take!risks!when!presented!with!a!
negative!frame!and!less!likely!to!take!risks!when!the!frame!is!positive!(Tversky!and!Kahneman,!1981).!
From!a!marketing!perspective,!PR!professionals!routinely!employ!valence!framing!when!either!presenting!
attributes!of!their!own!products!positively!or!spinning!facts!about!a!competitor!in!a!negative!light!
(Hallahan,!1999).!Surveying!the!current!literature,!one!could!conclude!that!negative!frames!seem!to!have!
a!larger!impact!in!general.!Researchers!have!demonstrated!that!negative!traits!make!a!stronger!
impression!on!audiences!(Skowronski!and!Carlston,!1989),!negative!photos!engage!the!brain!more!than!
positive!ones!(Ito!et!al.,!1998),!and!the!framing!of!an!attitude!as!negative!increases!its!strength!among!
audiences!(Bizer!and!Petty,!2005).! !
However,!this!negativity!preference!does!not!always!hold!true!in!a!social!media!context.!Some!
researchers!do!argue!that!audiences!comment!on!negative!message!quicker!and!tend!to!give!them!more!
weight!(Rozin!and!Royzman,!2001;!Berger,!2011).!One!study!found!that!negative!posts!on!political!
Facebook!pages!were!more!likely!to!receive!comments!than!positive!posts!(Stieglitz!and!Dang9Xuan!
,2012).!Yet,!a!later!study!which!sampled!165,000!tweets!showed!that!negative!tweets!were!no!more!likely!
to!be!retweeted!than!positive!tweets!(Stieglitz!and!Dang9Xuan,!2012).!In!their!study!of!social!issue!
messages,!Peter!and!Honea!found!that!positive!framing!was!most!effective!in!spurring!audiences!to!
action!(2012).!In!the!non9profit!sphere,!these!organisations!were!found!to!be!more!inclined!to!tweet!
positive!PR!messages,!with!one!study!finding!that!57%!of!message!were!positive,!6%!were!negative!and!
the!rest!were!neutral!(Auger,!2014).!Thus,!the!existing!literature!proves!inconclusive!on!whether!negative!
or!positive!framing!is!more!effective.!
Furthermore,!studies!have!found!difficulty!in!reproducing!the!strength!of!the!effects!found!in!Tversky!and!
Kahneman’s!original!study!(Druckman,!2001).!Some!studies!failed!to!reproduce!the!results!entirely!(Miller!
and!Fagley,!1991)!while!others!have!reproduced!it!but!not!to!the!same!degree!(Fagley!and!Miller,!1990;!
Kühberger,!1995).!One!study!has!found!that!the!framing!effect!is!reduced!depending!on!the!context!of!a!
- 19. !
!13!
message!or!choice!(Cheng!et!al.,!2012).!Therefore,!there!is!room!to!explore!how!valence!framing!
influences!audience!engagement!in!the!context!of!both!non9profit!advocacy!and!social!media!marketing.!
Many!of!these!past!studies!stopped!short!of!categorising!findings!in!a!positive!or!negative!frame.!
However,!Schuck!and!Vreese!posited!that!“distinguishing!only!between!‘positive’!and!‘negative’!framing!
ignores!more!detailed!aspects!and!particularities!of!an!issue”!(2006).!Therefore,!they!developed!and!
operationalised!a!method!for!measuring!valence!framing!in!a!politically!controversial!context.!Their!study!
looked!at!how!newspapers!portrayed!European!Union!enlargement!and!looked!at!the!valence!framing!
using!the!following!aspects!of!an!article:!(1)!its!use!of!positive!or!negative!emotional!expression,!(3)!
whether!a!negative!or!positive!quote!was!present,!(3)!whether!the!article!mentioned!future!benefits!or!
costs,!(4)!whether!it!presented!negative!or!positive!rational!facts!and!(5)!whether!it!gave!a!negative!or!
positive!evaluation!of!the!current!state!of!the!issue!(Schuck!and!Vreese,!2006).!This!method!was!
successfully!applied!in!a!social!media!context!to!categorise!YouTube!videos!discussing!Islam!as!negative,!
positive!or!neutral!(Mosemghvdlishvili!and!Jansz,!2013).!Therefore,!this!study!utilises!this!same!
operationalisation!approach!to!categorise!social!media!posts.!
2.6'|'NONCPROFIT'PR'AND'ORGANISATIONCPUBLIC'RELATIONSHIPCBUILDING'
STRATEGIES'ON'SOCIAL'MEDIA'
Marketing!and!public!relations!functions!have!become!intermingled!for!non9profits!in!today’s!technology9
rich!world,!and!this!has!birthed!the!holistic!notion!of!Integrated!Marketing!Communications,!“a!strategic!
approach!to!corporate!communication!that!entails!the!coordination!of!all!company!communications!to!
present!a!harmonious!and!consistent!message!to!consumers!and!publics”!(Sundstrom,!2012)!.!Therefore,!
non9profit!communications!across!all!channels!are!designed!with!multiple!intentions!in!mind,!which!
includes!public!relations!messaging!over!social!media!(West!and!Sergeant,!2004).!Social!media!has!
opened!up!the!doors!for!non9profits!to!build!two9way!relationships!with!their!publics!through!their!PR!
efforts!(Lovejoy!et!al.,!2012).!Long!term!relationships!and!community!action!are!created!through!publics!
getting!to!know!an!organisation!and!its!mission!through!these!everyday!PR!communications!on!social!
media!(Lovejoy!et!al.,!2012;!Sundstrom,!2012).! !
The!organisation9public!relationship!becomes!important!to!non9profits!wishing!to!build!awareness!around!
issues,!and!has!further!emerged!as!an!important!area!of!study!in!the!public!relations!field!(Huang,!2001).!
This!has!led!to!the!need!for!measurements!to!gauge!the!quality!of!this!relationship!and!the!development!
of!strategies!for!maintaining!it,!especially!when!organisations!wish!to!have!an!interactive!two9way!stream!
- 20. !
!14!
of!communication!(Bruning!and!Galloway,!2003).!Recent!literature!has!tried!to!redefine!how!we!measure!
the!effectiveness!of!organisational9public!relationship!building!messages!online,!as!it!possesses!an!
interactive!element!lacking!in!traditional!media.!One!taxonomy!has!measured!these!tactics!in!general!
terms:!(1)!“disclosure!and!openness”!examined!how!well!organisations!built!trust!through!transparency;!
(2)!“information!dissemination”!the!quality!of!the!organisational!information!being!shared!on!social!
media!and!whether!companies!provide!chances!to!learn!more;!(3)!“interactivity!and!involvement”!looks!
at!how!easily!audiences!can!enter!into!a!dialogue!with!the!organisation!(human9to9content)!and!contact!
them!directly!(human9to9human)!(Men!and!Tsai,!2012).!These!categories!paint!too!broad!picture!of!
organisation9public!relationship9building!measures!and!present!difficulty!in!linking!to!hard!measures.!
Awkward!Therefore,!this!study!will!focus!on!one!element,!human9to9content!interactions,!as!these!can!be!
analysed!through!publicly!available!message9level!engagement!metrics.!
On!the!message!level,!a!widely!used!taxonomy!was!created!by!Saxton!and!Lovejoy!for!categorizing!non9
profit!Twitter!messages!by!their!organisational9public!relationship9building!function!or!PR!function.!It!
breaks!Twitter!posts!down!into!categories!that!fall!under!(1)!Information,!(2)!Community,!and!(3)!Action!
(Table!3).!Lovejoy!and!Saxton!reflect!that!these!categories!could!match!up!with!the!ladder!of!engagement!
proposed!by!Kantor!and!Fine!(2010),!with!“information”!messages!designed!to!attract!followers,!
“community”!used!to!engage!audiences,!and!“action”!message!used!to!mobilise!followers!to!fulfil!the!
non9profit’s!mission$(Lovejoy!&!Saxton,!2012).! !
$
$
! $
- 21. !
!15!
Table$3:$Information$–$Community$–$Action$scheme$(Lovejoy$&$Saxton,$2012)$
CATEGORY! TWEET!FUNCTIONS! DESCRIPTION!
INFORMATION! •! Information! These!messages!are!designed!to!provide!
information!on!organisation!news,!events,!and!
happenings!with!no!secondary!agenda.!This!is!
traditional!one<way!communication.!
COMMUNITY! •! Giving!recognition!and!
thanks! !
•! Acknowledgement!of!
current!&!local!events!
•! Responses!to!reply!
messages!
•! Response!solicitation!
These!messages!seek!to!create!community!
through!two!methods:!(1)!sending!social!media!
message!meant!to!speak!dialogue!and!(2)!
messages!meant!to!strengthen!the!“ties!to!the!
online!community”!without!the!expectation!of!
conversation.!This!more!resembles!two<way!
communication.!
ACTION! •! Promoting!an!event!
•! Donation!Appeals!
•! Selling!a!product!
•! Call!for!volunteers!or!
employees!
•! Lobbying!and!advocacy!
•! Join!another!site!or!vote!
for!an!organisation!
•! Learn!how!to!help!
The!primary!function!of!these!messages!is!to!
get!audiences!to!perform!an!online!or!offline!
activity!and!can!most!concretely!be!tied!to!
outcomes!which!further!a!non<profit’s!mission.!
“!
!
Saxton!and!Lovejoy!found!that!the!majority!of!tweets!fell!under!the!Information!category,!which!may!
indicate!that!organisations!are!not!doing!enough!to!move!people!towards!action!(2012).!These!findings!
were!corroborated!by!other!researchers!who!looked!at!community!health9based!non9profits!
(Ramanadhan!et!al.,!2013),!at!health!advocacy!organisations!(Lin,!2015),!and!at!general!non9profits!(Guo!
and!Saxton,!2014).!In!general,!categories!that!generated!conversations!were!rarely!used!(P.!D.!Guidry!et!
al.,!2014).!In!this!area,!some!of!these!same!studies!began!linking!the!Lovejoy!and!Saxton!taxonomy!with!
- 22. !
!16!
user!engagement!on!a!post!level.!According!to!Cho!et.!al.’s!research,!audiences!engaged!most!with!two9
way!communication!messages!(2014,!while!Lin!found!that!action9oriented!messages,!especially!when!
they!linked!to!an!organisation’s!mission,!generated!high!levels!of!engagement!(2015).!P.!D.!Guidry!et!al.!
studied!Twitter!messages!and!found!that!those!focusing!on!community!building!and!calls9to9action!
generated!the!most!re9tweets!and!conversation,!but!were!the!least!used!(2014).!Another!study!suggested!
this!same!phenomenon!to!be!true!for!Facebook!as!well!(Saxton!and!Waters,!2014).!However,!it!becomes!
interesting!to!examine!how!an!advocacy!context!may!influence!these!results.!
Rodriguez!used!Saxton!and!Lovejoy’s!taxonomy!to!study!LGBTI!asylum!non9profits!and!found!that!the!
taxonomy!may!affect!niche9based!organisations!differently!(2016).!For!instance,!their!study!found!that!
the!community$function!helped!create!a!network!of!resources!and!support!peers!in!addition!to!
generating!dialogue.!Therefore,!it!becomes!interesting!to!see!how!engagement!may!differ!when!
communications!come!from!a!non9profit!myopically!focused!on!advocating!a!single!controversial!issue.!
Beyond!this,!there!is!not!enough!nuance!to!account!for!the!various!types!of!advocacy9related!messaging!
that!an!advocacy9focused!non9profit!is!likely!to!engage!in.!Guo!and!Saxton!looked!closer!at!this!aspect!
and!added!another!dimension!to!the!Information9Community9Advocacy!typology!when!they!looked!at!the!
strategies!for!12!advocacy!strategies!discussed!earlier!in!the!Advocacy!section!(2014).!They!created!a!
two9dimensional!framework!that!organised!relationship9building!strategies!at!the!“post”!level!across!the!
three!main!categories,!and!then!categorised!the!advocacy!strategies!into!the!11!offline!advocacy!
strategies!they!identified!in!(2010)!(See!Section!2.3).!This!dissertation!will!take!the!research!one!step!
further!and!look!not!only!at!which!strategies!advocacy!organisations!are!using,!but!will!pair!it!with!valence!
framing!bias!analysis,!looking!at!how!advocating!for!more!controversial!issues!affects!strategy!selection!
and!ultimately!measuring!how!effective!they!are!at!engaging!the!public.!
2.7'|'CONCLUSION'
In!summary,!non9profit!marketing!and!advocacy!strategies!face!an!age!of!convergence!as!social!media!
speeds!up!the!dialogue!around!controversial!issues.!While!a!few!studies!have!looked!at!how!non9profit!
social!media!marketing!influences!audience!engagement,!there!is!much!room!to!explore!this!subject!in!
the!specific!context!of!advocacy9focused!non9profits.!The!present!chapter!has!provided!a!glimpse!of!
social!media’s!current!place!in!non9profits’!PR!and!what!engagement!means!on!these!new!platforms,!the!
current!state!of!online!non9profit!advocacy,!the!effects!of!controversy!on!issue!advocacy,!and!how!
effective!advocacy!messaging!is!online!based!on!how!it!is!framed!and!how!it!seeks!to!enhance!
organisation9public!relationships.! !
- 24. !
!18!
3'|'METHODOLOGY'
The!following!chapter!will!present!the!methodology!used!to!answer!the!three!research!questions!defined!
below:!
RQ1:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!posts!differ!based!on!the!valence!framing!utilised!in!
the!message?!
RQ2:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!posts!differ!based!on!the!organisational9public!
relationship!building!function!of!the!message?!
RQ3:!Does!audience!engagement!with!social!media!differ!based!on!the!advocacy!strategy!utilised!in!the!
message?!
3.1'|'RESEARCH'PHILOSOPHY'
Epistemology!is!defined!as!the!theory!of!knowledge,!and!is!concerned!with!answering!questions!
regarding!the!source!of!reality,!the!relationship!between!observed!reality!and!the!researcher,!and!the!
ideas!that!shape!the!process!of!discovering!knowledge!(Gialdino,!2009).!Two!of!the!main!epistemologies!
in!research!are!interpretivism!and!positivism.!Interpretivism!assumes!that!there!is!no!singular!real!world,!
but!rather!that!reality!is!a!social!construct.!It!does!not!seek!to!explain!what!is!observed!but!rather!to!
understand!it.!On!the!other!hand,!positivism!seeks!to!explain!reality!in!quantifiable!and!repeatable!terms.!
Positivists!believe!that!a!singular!fixed!reality!exists!that!can!be!observed!and!measured!and,!therefore,!
this!dissertation!takes!a!positivist!approach.!This!view!assumes!that!human!behaviour!is!influenced!by!
outside!forces,!an!idea!which!fits!with!this!dissertation’s!aim!of!measuring!how!social!media!message!
design!impacts!on!audience!engagement!levels.!Additionally,!a!positivist!approach!is!appropriate!as!this!
study!takes!existing!concepts,!tests!them,!and!seeks!to!apply!the!findings!to!a!larger!population.!Lastly,!
unlike!interpretivism,!which!often!has!an!evolving!research!design,!this!study!is!positivist!in!that!the!
methodology!is!fixed!and!follows!the!traditional!scientific!method!(Hsieh!and!Shannon,!2005).!
Under!these!epistemologies,!there!are!also!differing!ontological!approaches!a!study!can!take,!with!two!of!
the!most!well9known!being!deduction!and!induction.!Induction9based!studies!do!not!begin!with!a!
hypothesis!based!on!existing!theory,!but!rather!derive!a!theory!from!the!observations!made.!Conversely,!
deduction9based!studies!assume!the!concepts!are!selected!first!before!any!form!of!data!collection!begins.!
(Bryman!and!Bell,!2011).!They!tend!towards!a!traditionally!scientific!method!approach!of!proceeding!from!
- 25. !
!19!
the!general!and!producing!more!specific,!concrete!results!on!that!basis.!In!reverse,!inductive!research!will!
often!choose!a!specific!case!and!explore!the!data!to!form!theories!(Crossman,!2016).!This!study!takes!a!
deductive!approach,!as!the!theories!were!selected!before!data!collection!began!and!the!collection!of!
observations!itself!was!driven!by!the!theories!chosen!(Bryman!and!Bell,!2011).! !
3.2'|'RESEARCH'STRATEGY'AND'DESIGN'
For!the!research!design,!a!cross9sectional!two9stage!quantitative!method!was!chosen!for!this!study.!The!
first!stage!involves!a!content!analysis!of!Twitter!and!Facebook!messages!from!41!different!non9profit!
organisation!advocating!for!different!controversial!issues.!This!stage!is!followed!by!a!statistical!analysis!to!
link!the!coded!Twitter!and!Facebook!posts!with!social!media!engagement!levels.!A!quantitative!approach!
was!taken!for!all!three!research!question!as!they!are!based!on!existing!theory!and!seek!to!find!
correlations!between!two!variables!(Bryman!and!Bell,!2011).!
A!cross9sectional!study!design!was!chosen!as!it!can!aid!in!determining!the!pervasiveness!of!a!
phenomenon!and!can!give!researchers!a!clear!view!of!the!overarching!picture.!This!type!of!study!takes!a!
cross!section!of!a!population!at!a!fixed!point!in!time.!Additionally,!it!is!useful!when!resources!are!limited!
because!it!requires!only!one!contact!with!the!population!(Kumar!2012).!Cross9sectional!studies!are!prone!
to!common!method!variance!errors.!However,!this!study!seeks!to!counteract!this!limitation!by:!(1)!
employing!multiple!respondents!from!differing!non9profit!organisations!(“non9profits”)!and!(2)!through!
obtaining!two!differing!data!types,!namely!Twitter!and!Facebook!(Rindfleisch!et!al.,!2008).! !
Quantitative!content!analysis!is!a!popular!method!for!evaluating!media!messages!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014)!and!
can!be!defined!as!“a!summarising,!quantitative!analysis!of!messages!that!relies!on!the!scientific!method!...!
and!is!not!limited!as!to!the!types!of!variables!that!may!be!measured!or!the!context!in!which!the!messages!
are!created!or!presented”!(Neuendorf,!2002).!Although!content!analysis!is!widely!accepted!as!a!
qualitative!method!(Hsieh!and!Shannon,!2005),!it!is!a!valuable!quantitative!approach!when!collecting!data!
on!media!content!category!counts,!and!for!exploring!how!patterns!in!content!influence!audiences!(Riffe!
et!al.,!2014).!This!study!will!use!the!same!cross!section!of!PR!social!media!messages!for!all!research!
questions.!Therefore,!content!analysis!becomes!useful!as!a!robust!method!capable!of!analysing!the!same!
body!of!text!utilising!different!concepts!or!constructs.!Additionally,!content!analysis!can!assist!in!
determining!whether!variables!in!the!text!correlate!to!other!external!variables!(Krippendorff,!2013).!
Content!analysis!historically!uses!the!following!steps:!(1)!Topic!selection,!(2)!sample!selection,!(3)!concept!
or!theory!selection,!(4)!category!selection!or!generation,!(5)!code!book!generation,!(6)!coder!instruction,!
- 26. !
!20!
(7)!data!collection,!(8)!coder!reliability!calculation,!(9)!data!analysis,!and!(10)!final!reporting!(Krippendorff,!
2013).!As!the!present!study!uses!human9based!coding,!it!utilises!existing!coding!protocols!to!increase!the!
validity!(Hsieh!and!Shannon,!2005).!
3.3'|'MEASUREMENTS' '
The!unit!of!measurement!to!be!analysed!in!the!present!study!are!individual!social!media!messages!from!
41!non9profit!organisations!with!the!primary!purpose!of!advocating!for!a!controversial!issue.!The!
variables!under!study!are!the!following:!
3.3.1!|!VALENCE!FRAMING!
Framing!effect!theory!looks!at!how!media!messages!can!be!portrayed!in!different!ways!to!influence!
audience!attitudes.!Valence!framing!is!concerned!with!whether!the!subject!of!the!message!is!discussed!in!
a!negative!or!positive!manner!and!is!a!type!of!framing!introduced!into!non9profit!marketing!and!political!
research!in!the!past!decade!(Schuck!and!Vreese,!2006;!Zezelj!et!al.,!2007;!Auger,!2014).!This!type!of!
frame!has!long!been!shown!to!affect!decisions!and!influence!audiences,!with!the!most!prevalent!type!
being!risky!choice!framing,!which!deals!with!decision9making!in!a!high9stakes!context!(Tversky!and!
Kahneman,!1981;!Miller!and!Fagley,!1991).!Past!studies!have!looked!at!the!framing!of!media!content!as!
either!risky!or!beneficial,!and!have!established!identifiers!to!help!in!classification:!(1)!Emotional!
expression,!(2)!presence!positive/negative!quotes,!(3)!future!benefit!or!cost!of!issue,!(4)!positive/negative!
rational!facts,!and!(5)!negative/positive!evaluation!of!the!current!state!of!the!issue!(Schuck!and!Vreese,!
2006).!The!present!study!adapts!these!five!identifiers!to!examine!valence!framing!of!non9profit!marketing!
communications!in!relation!to!a!controversial!issue!in!a!social!media!context.!Therefore,!the!first!research!
questions!ask!whether!a!negative!or!positive!bias!in!a!social!media!message!affects!audience!
engagement.!
3.3.2!|!ORGANISATIONAL8PUBLIC!RELATIONSHIP!FUNCTION! !
Lovejoy!and!Saxton!developed!a!widely!used!taxonomy!for!classifying!social!media!messages!by!
organisational9public!relationship!in!a!non9profit!context.!The!taxonomy!organises!social!media!messages!
into!three!different!categories:!(1)!Information,!(2)!Community,!and!(3)!Action!(the!ICA!Framework)!
(2012).!“Information”$messages!are!one9way!communications!to!that!public!which!shares!information!
about!the!organisation,!events!and!news!(Lovejoy!and!Saxton,!2012).!“Community”!messages!seek!to!
generate!dialogue,!build!community,!and!elicit!feedback!(Lovejoy!&!Saxton,!2012;!Saxton!&!Waters,!
2014).!Lastly,!“action”$messages!ask!the!public!to!perform!actions!that!fulfil!the!organisation’s!mission.!
- 27. !
!21!
While!this!coding!protocol!was!originally!developed!for!Twitter,!it!has!since!been!extended!to!the!
classification!of!Facebook!messages!(Saxton!and!Waters,!2014;!Auger,!2013;!Rodriguez,!2016).!Therefore,!
this!dissertation!labels!social!media!messages!as!one!of!eleven!types!of!social!media!posts!identified!by!
Love!and!Saxton!to!classify!them!in!the!three!areas!of!the!IMC!framework!(2012).!Furthermore,!this!study!
adds!adapts!a!label!from!a!later!study!by!Saxton!and!Waters!called!“dialogue!and!community!building”,!
which!falls!under!the!“community”!classification!(2014).! !
3.3.3!|!ADVOCACY!STRATEGY!
Advocacy!is!often!defined!as!a!set!of!strategies!aimed!at!bringing!about!a!change!in!public!opinion!and!
mobilising!people!to!action!(Weberling,!2012),!and!is!often!identified!as!a!quintessential!function!of!non9
profits!(Guo!and!Saxton,!2010).!As!it!is!a!key!component!of!the!present!study,!this!measure!examines!the!
effects!of!different!advocacy!strategies.!In!a!2010!study,!Guo!and!Saxton!separated!advocacy!strategies!
into!eleven!different!strategies:!(1)!Research,!(2)!media!advocacy,!(3)!direct!lobbying,!(4)!grassroots!
lobbying,!(5)!public!and!direct!action,!(6)!judicial!advocacy,!(7)!public!education,!(8)!coalition!building,!(9)!
administrative!lobbying,!(10)!voter!registration!and!education,!and!(11)!expert!testimony.!They!later!used!
this!set!of!strategies!to!code!Twitter!posts!and!identify!organisational!advocacy!efforts!online!(Guo!and!
Saxton,!2014).!Therefore,!this!study!will!utilise!this!same!set!of!eleven!strategies!to!classify!social!media!
messages.!
3.3.4!|!SOCIAL!MEDIA!ENGAGEMENT!
Audience!engagement!can!be!analysed!at!the!level!of!individual!posts!with!the!following!metrics:!(1)!
Number!of!Facebook!reactions/!Twitter!favourites,!which!are!ways!of!expressing!approval!of!content!
without!“verbal!expression”,!(2)!Number!of!Facebook!shares!/!Twitter!retweets,!which!are!audiences!
voluntarily!sharing!an!organisation’s!message!with!their!own!groups,!and!(3)!Number!of!Facebook!
comments,!which!are!direct!responses!by!the!audience!(Cho!et!al.,!2014).!For!the!sake!of!this!study,!
Facebook!likes/reactions!will!be!combined!with!Twitter!favourites,!and!Facebook!shares!will!be!combined!
with!Twitter!retweets!when!measuring!effects.!This!approach!is!taken!for!ease!of!measuring!big9picture!
effects!across!both!platforms,!and!it!has!been!suggested!that!Twitter!favourites/Facebook!likes!and!
Twitter!retweets/Facebook!shares!may!be!synonymous!when!comparing!social!media!in!research!
(Larsson,!2015).!
'
'
- 28. !
!22!
3.4'|'SAMPLING'
The!present!study!utilises!a!purposive!sampling!technique,!as!the!social!media!messages!to!be!analysed!
needed!to!come!from!specific!sources!that!met!certain!criteria!(Krippendorff,!2013).!The!criteria!for!
selecting!the!organisations!were:!(1)!The!organisations!selected!had!to!be!registered!as!a!non9profit!
(501c3!classification)!in!the!United!States!and!listed!on!CharityNavgator.com!as!in!Guo!and!Saxton’s!
research!(2014).!(2)!Each!selected!non9profit!must!represent!a!different!controversial!issue!listed!on!
procon.org!(list!of!controversial!issues!for!2016!US!Presidential!Elections).!The!issues!selected!were!gun!
violence,!transgender!rights,!climate!change,!government!transparency,!and!immigration!control.!(3)!Each!
organisation!must!have!a!Twitter!and!a!Facebook!page.!(4)!Each!organisation!must!have!at!least!3,000!
likes!on!Facebook!and!at!least!3,000!followers!on!Twitter!to!ensure!a!large!enough!audience!to!generate!
measurable!engagement.!41!organisations!were!selected!in!the!final!analysis!(listed!in!Appendix!B).!
3.5'|'DATA'COLLECTION'
Data!collection!from!social!media!was!chosen!because!platforms!such!as!Twitter!and!Facebook!allow!for!
the!unobtrusive!observation!of!communications!(D’heer!and!Verdegem,!2015).!Social!media!posts!were!
gathered!from!Facebook!and!Twitter!for!each!of!the!41!organisations.!Twitter!and!Facebook!posts!were!
scraped!from!the!sites!through!each!platform’s!open!API.!Open!source!Python!code!was!used!to!scape!
publicly!available!Facebook!data,!and!custom!Python!code!was!used!to!scrape!publicly!available!Twitter!
data.!Posts!were!harvested!for!the!time!period!1st
!June!2016!to!30th
!June!2016.!This!time!period!was!
chosen!in!order!to!give!organisations!sufficient!time!to!send!multiple!types!of!messages!while!still!
maintaining!a!manageable!sample!size.!A!total!of!2,729!Facebook!posts!and!14,517!Twitter!posts!were!
retrieved!from!within!this!time!period,!of!which!400!were!randomly!selected!from!each!set!to!give!a!total!
of!800!social!media!messages.!
3.6'|'MESSAGE'CODING'
Once!the!data!was!collected!and!cleaned,!the!social!media!posts!were!categorised!based!on!(1)!Valence!
framing,!(2)!Organisational9public!relationship!function,!and!(3)!Advocacy!strategy.!The!classifications!
used!in!each!category!are!listed!in!the!table!below.!Further!detail!on!each!category!is!available!in!Tables!
4,!5,!and!6.!The!IMC!framework!was!modified!for!this!study!to!include!retweets!under!the!Information!
classification,!as!was!the!case!in!the!study!by!Svensson!et!al.!(2015)!(See!Appendix!A!for!the!coding!book).!
- 29. !
!23!
!
!
Table$4:$Valence$frame$dimensions$(Schuck$and$Vreese,$2006)$
!
! !
Classification! Description! ! ! !
Emotional!expression! Whether!the!social!media!message!employs!negative!or!positive!emotional!
expressions!
Presence!of!
positive/negative!quotes!
Whether!or!not!the!social!media!message!utilises!negative!or!positive!quotes!
Future!benefit!or!cost!of!
issue!
Whether!the!message!focuses!on!future!benefits!to!be!gained!or!focuses!on!future!
risks/costs.!
Positive/negative!rational!
facts!
Whether!the!message!delivers!facts!that!support!the!issue!or!ones!that!describe!the!
opposing!side.!
Negative/positive!
evaluation!of!current!state!of!
the!issue!
Whether!the!message!sees!a!promising!future!versus!problematic!future!
development;!Whether!the!message!praises!or!criticises!the!current!status!quo.!
- 30. !
!24!
Table$5:$Organisational;public$relationship$function$in$the$Information;Community;
Action$Framework$(Lovejoy$and$Saxton,$2012;$Saxton$and$Waters,$2014)$
Classification! Message!Type! Description!
Information! Information!or!retweets! Messages!communicating!about!events,!organisational!
news,!news!about!the!issue,!resources,!and!so!forth.!The!
sole!purpose!of!these!tweets!is!to!inform.!
Community! Giving!recognition!and!
receiving!thanks!
Messages!thanking!community!members,!volunteers,!
sponsors,!stakeholders!and!donors!for!their!efforts.! !
Community! Acknowledgement!of!
current!&!local!events!
Messages!that!acknowledge!holidays!and!events!around!
the!country!or!in!the!community.!
Community! Responses!to!public!
reply!messages!
Only!relevant!for!Twitter.!These!are!direct!replies!or!
responses!to!users!in!the!community!who!sent!direct!
messages!and!start!with!@username!to!identify!the!user.!
Community! Response!solicitation! Messages!attempting!to!spark!a!conversation!and!
directly!solicit!conversation!from!the!community!or!
audience.!
Community! Dialogue!and!community!
buildings!
Messages!which!give!general!encouragement,!share!
photos,!express!solidarity!and!try!to!generate!
conversation.!
Action! Promote!an!event! Messages!that!do!not!simply!inform!about!an!event!but!
promote!it!through!posting!date,!time,!prices,!and!calls!
to!action.!
Action! Donation!appeal! Messages!that!ask!for!donations!or!solicit!support!for!
partner!companies.!
Action! Selling!a!product! Messages!directly!selling!products!or!services!made!for!
or!by!the!organisation.!
Action! Calls!for!volunteers!and!
employees!
Messages!asking!for!volunteers!to!help!the!organisation!
or!for!employees!to!apply!to!a!post.!
Action! Lobbying!and!advocacy! Messages!asking!community!members!“perform!a!
lobbying!or!advocacy<related!activity”.!
Action! Join!another!site!or!vote!
for!an!organisation!
Messages!asking!community!members!“to!join!another!
social!media!site!or!vote!for!the!organisation!on!another!
site”.!
Action! Learn!how!to!help! Messages!that!first!ask!people!to!(1)!learn!how!to!help!
and!then!(2)!tell!them!how!they!can!help.!
!
! !
- 31. !
!25!
Table$6:$Advocacy$strategies$used$by$non;profits$(Guo$and$Saxton,$2010)$
Strategy! Description!
Research! Messages!communicating!“research!on!specific!legislation!or!broad!social!or!
political!problems”.!
Media!advocacy! Messages!communicating!press!efforts,!media!events,!letters!to!the!editor!
and!journalists!who!help!or!hinder!the!issue.!
Direct!lobbying! Messages!about!lobbying!efforts!on!the!issue!or!messages!that!encourage!
the!community!to!reach!out!to!influential!figures!and!encourage!them!to!
lobby!on!the!issue.!
Grassroots!lobbying! Messages!seeking!to!mobilise!the!community!“to!support!or!oppose!specific!
legislation”.!
Public!events!and!direct!
action!
Messages!communicating!about!“strikes,!protests,!demonstrations,!‘sit<ins’,!
and!other!public!actions”.!
Judicial!advocacy! Messages!communicating!advocacy!efforts!by!the!organisation!to!influence!
the!legal!system.!
Public!education! Messages!to!inform!and!educate!the!community!about!the!issue.!
Coalition!building! Messages!about!the!organisation!working!on!the!issue!through!partnerships!
or!coalitions!with!other!organisations.! !
Administrative!lobbying! Messages!about!the!organisation!working!with!government!officials!to!
effect!change!in!the!government!administration.!
Voter!registration!and!
education!
Message!encouraging!the!community!to!get!out!and!vote.!
Expert!testimony! Messages!about!the!organisation!providing!expert!testimony!at!a!committee!
hearing!“upon!request!from!a!legislative!body.”!
!
3.7'|'DATA'ANALYSIS'
The!dependent!variables!used!for!data!analysis!were!measurements!of!message9level!audience!
engagement:!(1)!Number!of!Facebook$reactions/$Twitter$favourites,!(2)!number!of!Facebook$shares$/$
Twitter$retweets,!and!(3)!number!of!Facebook$comments!(Cho!et!al.,!2014).!Number!of!Twitter!replies!
was!not!available!for!collection!through!the!Twitter!API!and,!therefore,!were!omitted!from!the!analysis.!
The!independent!variables!are!the!(1)$valence$frame!category!(2)!organisational;public$relationship!
function$category!and!(3)!advocacy$strategy!category.!Following!the!data!analysis!methods!employed!by!
previous!studies,!this!study!makes!use!of!one9way!ANOVA!tests!to!examine!the!different!levels!of!
engagement!for!each!of!the!three!independent!variables!(Saxton!and!Waters,!2014;!Cho!et!al.,!2014).!This!
tests!whether!or!not!there!are!any!statistically!significant!differences!in!engagement!levels!for!each!
message!design!category.!This!is!an!appropriate!analysis!as!the!independent!variables!are!nominal!while!
the!dependent!variables!are!continuous.!This!method!uses!both!the!mean!and!the!variance!to!examine!
- 32. !
!26!
the!differences!of!means!for!three!or!more!groups!within!one!population.!Therefore,!ANOVA!was!chosen!
as!it!is!a!robust!method!capable!of!comparing!the!difference!of!means!between!multiple!categories!with!
unequal!numbers!of!observations!in!each!group!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014).!Additionally,!Kruskal9Wallis!rank!order!
tests!were!run!to!verify!the!findings!of!the!ANOVA!test.!The!data!was!engagement!non9normal,!so!this!
test!is!non9parametric!and!able!to!handle!data!with!a!non9normal!distribution!(Field,!2013).! !
3.8'|'LIMITATIONS'
The!present!study!has!several!limitations!resulting!from!both!the!analysis!method!and!from!limitations!
with!regard!to!resources.!As!each!of!the!specified!variables!is!to!be!tested!individually,!there!is!no!
accounting!for!how!the!variables!may!impact!on!one!other.!Regarding!the!method,!content!analysis!
carried!out!by!means!of!human!coding!may!be!subject!to!a!level!of!individual!interpretation!(Riffe!et!al.,!
2014).!Additionally,!quantitative!research!by!its!nature!should!use!an!unbiased!sampling!method!(Kumar,!
2012),!however!this!is!partially!negated!by!this!study’s!use!of!a!purposive!sampling!method!which!is!
prone!to!researcher!bias!(“Purposive!sampling!|!Lærd!Dissertation,”!2012).!Further,!the!sample!size!was!
smaller!than!the!studies!upon!which!this!research!was!based!due!to!resource!limitations!(Kumar,!2012).!
The!non9profits!studied!in!this!dissertation!are!exclusively!from!the!United!States!and!cover!only!a!few!of!
the!many!controversial!issues!present!in!the!country.!It!is!known!such!organisations!may!operate!
differently!depending!on!their!culture!of!origin!(Lau!and!Ngo,!1996).!Levels!of!social!media!involvement!
and!engagement!can!vary!from!country!to!country!(Minton!et!al.,!2012).!Therefore,!it!is!suggested!that!
further!quantitative!and!qualitative!research!be!undertaken!to!examine!the!cross9country!effects!of!this!
research.!
Lastly,!the!present!study!was!unable!to!examine!the!number!of!replies!to!Twitter!posts!(the!equivalent!of!
Facebook!comments),!as!a!measure!of!audience!engagement,!because!the!Twitter!API!provided!no!
method!for!accessing!this!data!at!the!time!of!writing.!
! !
- 33. !
!27!
!
4'|'FINDINGS'AND'DISCUSSION'
4.1'|'INTRODUCTION'
This!section!will!start!with!a!brief!discussion!of!the!summary!statistics!for!the!dependent!variables.!
Thereafter,!the!chapter!will!present!a!deeper!look!at!each!research!question!individually.!The!chapter!
concludes!with!a!discussion!of!the!significant!differences!discovered!and!examine!how!they!compare!with!
previous!studies.!
4.2'|'FINDINGS'
4.2.1!|!RELIABILITY!AND!VALIDITY!
Reliability!in!the!context!analysis!for!coding!refers!to!the!“degree!to!which!the!content!definitions!and!
procedures!can!be!reliably!applied”!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014).!One!way!of!testing!the!reliability!of!the!coding!
protocol!is!to!test!inter9rater!reliability!between!two!coders!(Vogt,!2014).!This!considers!whether!coding!
results!are!reproducible!when!the!same!set!of!data!is!coded!by!two!different!researchers,!and!is!usually!
carried!out!on!the!first!10%!of!the!data!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014).!The!first!75!Facebook!messages!and!the!first!
75!Twitter!messages!were!coded!separately!by!the!author!of!this!study!and!a!fellow!researcher.!After!
coding!was!complete,!reliability!coefficients!were!calculated,!together!with!reliability!scores!for!the!three!
independent!variables!(Table!7),!with!both!summary!statistics!showing!how!often!researchers!agreed!on!
the!content!classification!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014).!These!were!calculated!using!an!online!program!called!Recal.!
These!scores!measure!both!the!agreement!between!the!two!coders!as!well!as!accounting!for!coders!
picking!the!same!category!by!chance.!In!an!ideal!situation,!coders!would!be!interchangeable!in!the!
process!of!performing!the!content!analysis.!However,!percentage!agreement!becomes!more!difficult!to!
achieve!the!more!categories!are!added,!and!when!each!of!the!variables!coded!have!more!than!10!
categories!(Krippendorff,!2004).!This!may!account!for!why!all!scores!fell!beneath!0.8!(scale!0!to!1!with!1!
being!perfect!agreement),!which!is!the!generally!acceptable!threshold!for!passing!a!reliability!test!(Riffe!et!
al.,!2014).!Much!of!this!may!also!be!due!to!a!lack!of!time!to!train!the!fellow!researcher!in!the!coding!
protocol!before!the!reliability!test!was!conducted.!In!order!to!increase!validity,!this!study!chose!to!use!
and!adopt!existing!coding!protocols.!This!provided!concurrent!validation!as!it!linked!this!study’s!
measurements!with!measurements!utilised!in!past!studies!(Riffe!et!al.,!2014).! !
- 34. !
!28!
Table$7:$Reliability$Scores$
!
4.2.2!|!BASIC!SUMMARY!STATISTICS!
The!organisations!selected!for!this!study!represent!a!cross9section!of!non9profit!organisations!(“non9
profits”)!in!the!United!States!which!advocate!with!controversial!political!issues.!A!comprehensive!list!of!
companies!is!provided!in!the!table!below!(Table!8).!The!organisations!covered!represent!the!issues!of!gun!
rights!(n!=!10),!immigration!(n=10),!government!transparency!(n!=!10),!climate!change!(n!=!7),!and!
transgender!rights!(n!=!4).!(See!Appendix!B!for!list!of!all!organisations).!
Table$8:$Summary$statistics$;$Audience$engagement$variables$
!
As!is!clear!from!Table!8,!each!dependent!variable!is!non!normal.!All!three!contained!high!values!for!
Skewness!and!Kurtosis.!Additionally,!both!the!Kolmogorov9Smirnov!and!the!Shapiro9Wilk!normality!tests!
showed!that!the!normality!assumption!for!the!ANOVA!test!was!violated.!Many!of!the!values!are!pooled!
towards!the!lower!end,!causing!the!data!to!have!a!positive!skew!to!the!right.!As!the!data!was!found!to!be!
non9normal,!the!Kruskal9Wallace!test!was!run!in!addition!to!see!if!the!variables!showed!the!same!issues.!
Looking!at!the!mean!values,!it!appears!that!“liking”!is!the!most!common!engagement!behaviour!for!
audiences!(M!=!877.02)!followed!by!“sharing”!(M!=!616.49)!and!“commenting”!(124.60).!However,!the!
main!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!examine!the!effect!of!three!social!media!message!variables!on!each!of!the!
engagement!metrics.!Therefore,!the!independent!variables!will!be!explored!in!the!context!of!each!
separate!research!question.!
- 35. !
!29!
4.2.3!|!RQ1:!DOES!THE!AUDIENCE!FOR!SOCIAL!MEDIA!POSTS!DIFFER!BASED!ON!THE!
VALENCE!FRAMING!UTILISED!IN!THE!MESSAGE?!
This!research!question!sought!to!determine!whether!the!positive!or!negative!valence!framing!of!social!
media!messages!had!an!effect!on!user!engagement!levels.!Summary!stats!of!the!frequencies!and!
percentages!for!each!category!of!social!media!status!in!the!Valence!Framing!variable!were!run!(Appendix!
C).!At!a!high!level,!we!can!see!that!organisations!used!positive!framing!(n=379,!or!47%)!slightly!more!than!
negative!(n=332,!or!42%).!However,!on!average!the!mean!for!each!user!engagement!metric!is!higher!for!
negative!messages!(likes:!M!=!1324.98;!shares:!M!=!1079.07;!comments:!M!=!212,72)!compared!to!
positive!(likes:!M!=!681.20!shares:!M!=!292.31;!comments:!M!=!62.46)!or!neutral!(likes:!M!=!39.93;!shares:!
M!=!271.44;!comments:!M!=!15.97).!Of!the!positive!categories,!“positive!emotional!expression”!had!the!
highest!average!of!likes!(M!=!1005.82)!and!comments!(M!=!83.38),!while!“positive!rational!facts”!had!the!
highest!average!shares!(M!=!466.85).!However,!all!of!these!averages!were!dwarfed!by!three!of!the!
negative!framing!categories!(negative!emotional!expression,!negative!quotes,!future!costs)!for!all!three!
user!engagement!metrics.!See!Appendix!D!for!examples!of!each!type!of!message.!
This!study!started!by!analysing!valence!framing!at!a!high!level!by!grouping!the!coding!protocol!categories!
into!positive,!negative,!or!neutral.!One9way!ANOVA!tests!were!conducted!for!each!of!the!three!audience!
variables.!As!the!covariance!assumption!was!violated!according!to!Levene’s!Test!of!Equality!of!Variance!as!
shown!in!Table!9,!we!used!Welch’s!test!which!was!designed!to!handle!such!samples!with!different!
variances!(See!Table!9).!The!test!revealed!significant!differences!based!on!valence!framing!for!the!number!
of!likes!(F(2,!471.78)!=!9.73,!p!<!0.00,!ω!=!0.05)!and!for!comments!(F(2,!258.64)!=!8.21,!p!<!0.00,!ω!=!0.07),!
but!not!for!the!number!of!shares!(F(2,242.97)!=!6.69,!p!=!0.22,!ω!=!0.05).!
! !
- 36. !
!30!
Table$9:$One;Way$ANOVA$Results$–$High;Level$Valence$Framing$ $
!
To!gain!an!insight!into!precisely!which!comparisons’!high9level!valence!framing!categories!were!causing!
the!difference!in!means,!a!Games9Howell!post9hoc!analysis!found!that,!compared!to!neutral!messages!(M!
=!39.93,!SD!=!101.50),!positive!messages!(M!=!957.37,!SD!=!6608.02)!and!negative!messages!(M!=!
1009.71,!SD!=!5054.40)!were!more!effective!in!gaining!likes.!For!number!of!comments,!there!were!
significant!differences!for!all!comparisons!between!positive!(M!=!62.45,!SD!=!231.85),!negative!(M!=!
217.71,!SD!=!800.70),!and!neutral!(M!=!15.96,!SD!=!42.36).!Interestingly,!according!to!Cohen’s!d,!positive!
messages!caused!a!0.29!drop!in!comments.!
To!take!a!closer!look!at!the!data!and!to!counteract!the!lack!of!normality,!a!series!of!Kruskal9Wallis!tests!
were!run.!These!test!found!a!statistically!significant!difference!in!all!engagement!metrics!as!shown!in!
Table!10.!A!post9hoc!Dunn9Bonferroni!test!found!the!significance!for!likes!was!caused!by!differences!
between!the!neutral!group!compared!to!both!the!negative!and!positive!social!media,!as!the!ANOVA!tests!
demonstrated!earlier.!Additionally,!the!post9hoc!test!found!significant!difference!between!all!three!
groups!for!shares.!Comments!showed!significant!differences!when!comparing!the!positive!group!against!
neutral!and!negative,!with!the!comparison!between!the!neutral!and!positive!groups!approaching!
significance!(p!=!0.095).!
Table$10:$Kruskal;Wallis$test$results$–$High;level$valence$framing$
!
- 37. !
!31!
To!determine!whether!different!ways!of!expressing!a!negative!or!positive!message!frame!affected!
engagement!levels,!another!set!of!ANOVA!tests!was!run!on!all!valence!frame!categories!used!for!coding.!
Again,!the!study!used!Welch’s!F,!as!none!of!the!ANOVA!tests!based!the!Levene’s!test!(See!Table!11).!As!
with!the!previous!set!of!tests,!significant!differences!were!found!based!on!likes,!F(10,!131.03)!=!4.42,!p!=!
0.000,!ω!=!0.32,!and!on!comments,!F(10,!92.99)!=!2.85,!p!=!0.003,!ω!=!0.43.!As!the!omega!squared!(ω2
)!
score!shows,!the!differences!between!the!subcategories!of!valence!framing!affect!the!user!engagement!
metrics!to!a!greater!degree!than!when!considering!the!“bigger!picture”!themes!of!negative,!neutral!and!
positive.!Again,!Games9Howell!post9hoc!tests!were!run!to!determine!which!pairs!were!causing!the!
variance.!However,!none!of!the!pairs!were!found!to!be!significant,!although!for!likes,!the!difference!
between!no!valence!framing!(M!=!39.93,!SD!=!101.50)!and!“positive!rational!facts”!(M!=!253.31,!SD!=!
616.37)!was!approaching!significance!(p!=!0.07).!
Table$11:$One;way$ANOVA$results$–$Category;level$valence$framing$ $
!
Following!up!with!a!Kruskal9Wallis!test!again!confirms!the!ANOVA!test!results,!namely!that!there!are!
significant!differences!for!each!of!the!engagement!metrics!(See!Table!12).!A!post9hoc!Dunn9
Bonferroni!test!found!that!with!regard!to!the!significance!for!likes,!most!of!the!significant!differences!
between!number!of!likes!were!caused!by!variations!between!messages!with!no!valence!framing!and!
almost!every!category!except!for!positive$emotional$quotes!and!positive!future$benefit,!showing!that!the!
negative!categories!had!more!effect.!For!shares,!again!most!of!the!differences!where!between!no!valence!
framing!and!most!categories.!However,!there!were!also!significant!differences!in!shares!between!positive$
emotional$expression!versus!negative$emotional$expression!(s!=!9109.862,!p!=!0.022)!and!negative$
evaluation$of$current$state!(S!=!9115.918,!p!=!0.044).!For!comments,!the!most!significant!differences!were!
found!between!“positive!quotes”!versus!negative$emotional$expression!(s!=!126.015,!p!=!0.012)!and!no$
valence$framing!versus!negative$emotional$expression!(s!=!119.451,!p!=!0.001).!Overall,!while!it!appears!
- 38. !
!32!
that!any!sort!of!negative!or!positive!sentiment!affects!all!engagement!levels!when!compared!with!neutral,!
negative!messages!have!a!larger!impact!overall.!
Table$12:$Kruskal;Wallis$test$results$;$Category;level$valence$framing$
!
To!sum!up,!organisations!tended!slightly!more!towards!employing!positive!messages.!However,!summary!
statistics!showed!that!audiences!engaged!more!with!negative!messages!both!at!a!high!level!and!at!a!
category!level,!with!the!best!performing!category!being!future$costs!according!to!means.!Both!the!ANOVA!
and!Kruskal9Wallis!tests!show!that!valence!influences!the!numbers!of!likes,!shares!and!comments,!with!all!
three!independence!metrics!shown!as!significant!or!approaching!significance.!Positive!and!negative!
messages!were!more!effective!than!neutral!ones,!and!negative!messages!have!the!greatest!impact!
overall.!On!a!category!level,!ANOVA!tests!found!the!different!categories!to!have!a!larger!global!effect!than!
the!high9level!message!categories,!although!no!individual!category!pairs!showed!significant!difference.!
The!Dunn9Bonferri!test!revealed!that!negative!categories!showed!the!highest!jumps!in!engagement!
compared!to!neutral!for!“liking”!behaviour,!although!positive!categories!did!show!some!significant!
change.!The!most!impactful!categories!were!negative$emotional$expression!and!negative$evaluation$of$
current$state.!
4.2.3!|!RQ2:!DOES!AUDIENCE!ENGAGEMENT!WITH!SOCIAL!MEDIA!POSTS!DIFFER!
BASED!ON!THE!ORGANISATIONAL8PUBLIC!RELATIONSHIP!FUNCTION!OF!THE!
MESSAGE?!
This!research!question!explored!whether!differences!in!the!organisational9public!relationship!function!
fulfilled!by!a!social!media!message!impacted!on!audience!engagement!levels.!The!frequencies!and!
percentages!for!each!category!used!in!the!coding!protocol!are!provided!as!descriptive!statistics!broken!
down!by!“likes”,!“shares”!and!“comments”!(See!Appendix!E).!All!categories!fit!into!the!Information9
Community9Action!(ICA)!framework!defined!by!Lovejoy!and!Saxton!(2012).!(See!Appendix!F!for!examples!
of!each!type!of!message).!The!present!study!first!evaluated!the!data!based!on!the!framework’s!three!
- 39. !
!33!
main!categories.!Organisations!used!Information!messages!(N!=!511)!more!than!Community!(N!=!161)!or!
Action!(N!=!128).!However,!for!all!three!metrics!of!user!engagement,!Community!received!the!highest!
mean!(likes:!M!=!1840.73;!shares:!M!=!1204.02;!860.26;!comments:!155.24)!compared!with!Information!
(likes:!511.01;!shares:!513.01;!comments:!119.11)!and!Action!(likes:!M!=!1126.09;!shares:!M!=!290.63;!
comments:!M!=!100.47).! !
At!a!category!level!under!the!main!ICA!themes,!the!most!frequently!used!category!is!information$(N!=!
409,!Freq!=!63.88%)!followed!by!retweets$(N!=!102,!Freq!=!12.75%).!However,!in!terms!of!user!
engagement!levels,!dialogue$and$community$building$(likes:!M!=!3297.13;!shares:!M!=!2089.30;!
comments:!M!=!197.19)!and!lobbying$and$advocacy$(likes:!M!=!1981.95;!shares:!M!=!482.55;!comments:!
M!=!148.55)!are!the!heaviest!hitters!of!all!15!categories.!This!may!make!sense!due!to!the!nature!of!the!
organisations!surveyed,!in!that!messages!relating!to!advocacy!strategies!and!solidarity!may!appeal!to!
their!audience!to!a!greater!extent.!It!should!be!noted!that!the!retweet!category!did!not!record!any!“likes”!
on!Twitter.!This!may!be!due!to!how!Twitter!has!programmed!retweets$to!work,!with!likes!on!a!message!
no!being!recorded!on!the!timeline!of!the!person!who!retweeted!the!message.!
For!this!question,!the!present!study!started!by!running!a!one9way!ANOVA!test!for!the!three!high!level!
categories!of!the!IMC!framework.!Welch’s!F!was!used!for!the!ANOVA!tests!of!likes!and!shares,!as!they!did!
not!pass!the!Levene!test.!Surprisingly,!none!of!the!categories!were!found!to!have!significant!differences!
between!likes!(F!(2,!211.44)!=!2.07,!p!=!0.13,!w!=!0.05),!shares!(F(2,!347.81)!=!1.39,!p!=!0.25,!w!=!0.05)!and!
comments!(F(2,!397)!=!0.25!p!=!0.78,!r!=!0.04).!Additional!post9hoc!Games9Howell!tests!found!no!
significant!differences!between!any!of!the!categories!for!all!three!engagement!metrics.!These!results!
would!suggest!that!utilisation!of!different!organisational9relationship!functions!in!social!media!messages!
do!not!impact!levels!of!user!engagement!for!non9profits!advocating!controversial!issues,!and!therefore!
usage!of!any!one!category!is!not!predictive!of!liking,!sharing!and!commenting!behaviours!(See!Table!13!
for!more!detail).! !
$ !
- 40. !
!34!
Table$13:$One;way$ANOVA$results$for$high;level$ICA$framework$analysis$
!
To!verify!these!results,!a!Kruskal9Wallis!H!test!was!run!which!found!significant!differences!in!liking!
behaviour!(See!Table!14).!This!time,!the!volume!of!user!liking!behaviour!changed!based!on!the!ICA!
framework!(χ2(2)!=!36.174,!p!=0.00).!However,!as!the!ANOVA!test!showed!earlier,!there!was!no!apparent!
difference!between!sharing!and!commenting!behaviour.!Looking!at!the!Dunn9Bonferroni!pair9wise!
comparison,!action9oriented!messages!(s!=!971.704,!p!=!0.004)!and!community!messages!(s!=!9118.811,!p!
=!0.000)!predicted!more!likes!than!information9based!messages.!The!differences!between!the!ANOVA!
tests!and!the!Kruskal9Wallis!H!test!may!be!attributed!to!the!non9normality!of!the!data!leading!to!a!Type!II!
error.!After!all,!while!the!ANOVA!tests!showed!no!significant!differences!for!all!three!engagement!
metrics,!liking!behaviour!came!closest!of!the!three!to!approaching!significance!(p!=!0.13)!which!may!
correlate!with!the!results!of!the!Kruskal9Wallis!H!test.!
Table$14:$Kruskal;Wallis$Results$;$High;Level$ICA$Framework$Analysis$
!
A!category9level!series!of!one9way!ANOVA!tests!were!run!to!determine!whether!differences!in!user!
engagement!behaviours!changed!based!on!more!specific!functions!(results!in!Table!15).!Due!to!the!fact!
that!Twitter!retweets!did!not!record!likes,!the!retweet$category!was!excluded!when!testing!for!liking!
behaviours!during!the!ANOVA!test.!The!tests!found!that!only!liking!behaviour!experienced!a!significant!
change!based!on!which!organisational9public!relationship!function!was!used!(F(12,!52.06)!=!2.55,!p!=!0.01,!
w!=!0.40),!with!the!effect!size!showing!that!almost!half!the!variance!in!likes!might!be!explained!by!which!
category!was!used.!Running!a!series!of!Games9Howell!post9hoc!tests!did!show!that!comparison!between!
- 41. !
!35!
certain!categories!approached!significance.!The!most!interesting!occurred!where!information!type!
messages!(M!=!638.45,!SD!=!3873.82)!possessed!a!higher!mean!of!likes!compared!to!responses$to$public$
replies!(M!=!17.22,!SD!=!28.66,!p!=!0.07)!and!calls$for$volunteers$and$employees!(M!=!15.00,!SD!=!11.53,!p!
=!0.06).!However,!these!differences!may!result!from!the!small!sample!sizes!in!the!latter!two!groups.!
Table$15:$One;way$ANOVA$results$–$Category;level$ICA$framework$analysis$
!
!
Running!a!Kruskal9Wallis!test!for!the!first!time!shows!drastic!divergences!from!the!ANOVA!results!(See!
Table!16).!This!time!the!test!showed!that!liking!(χ2(11)!=!51.86,!p!=!0.00),!sharing!(χ2(11)!=!44.02,!p!=!
0.00)!and!commenting!(χ2(11)!=!26.08,!p!=!0.01)!all!showed!significant!differences!among!the!
engagement!levels!for!each!category.!This!is!surprising,!considering!how!close!to!1!the!significance!levels!
for!the!ANOVA!results!were!for!sharing!and!commenting!behaviours.!A!post9hoc!Dunn9Bonferroni!pair9
wise!comparison!was!run!for!all!three!metrics.!For!liking,!several!pairs!were!found!to!be!significant.!The!
categories!lobbying$and$advocacy$and!dialogue$and$community$building!showed!increases!in!likes!
compared!to!the!information$and!retweets$categories.!The!largest!differences!in!sharing!behaviour!
between!giving$recognition$or$thanks$and!lobbying$and$advocacy$(s!=!9237.46,!p!=!0.00)!and!between!
promoting$an$event$and!lobbying$and$advocacy$(s!=!9232.282,!p!=!0.00).!As!lobbying$and$advocacy$posts!
have!the!highest!average!sharing!behaviour!in!the!Action$category,!this!could!suggest!that!the!audience!
for!these!organisations’!value!advocacy!strategies!most.!Although!the!omnibus!test!for!commenting!was!
significant,!none!of!the!pair9wise!tests!revealed!any!significant!differences!between!the!categories.!
$ !
- 42. !
!36!
Table$16:$Kruskal;Wallace$results$–$Category;level$ICA$framework$analysis$
!
Therefore,!based!on!summary!statistics,!organisations!were!most!likely!to!use!message!types!under!the!
Information!theme,!which!included!retweets,!but!audiences!seem!more!likely!to!respond!to!Community!
messages.!On!a!category!level,!audiences!engaged!most!with$lobbying$and$advocacy$or!dialogue$and$
community$building9type!messages.!According!to!the!ANOVA!tests,!there!is!no!difference!in!engagement!
between!the!high!level!Information9Community9Action!themes.!However,!the!Kruskal9Wallis!test!found!
that!for!liking!behaviours,!Community!and!Action9based!messages!are!more!likely!to!generate!likes.!The!
more!granular!analysis!of!the!individual!categories!found!that!there!may!be!significant!difference!for!
liking,!sharing,!and!commenting.!Specifically,!there!was!a!significant!leap!in!engagement!when!
using$lobbying$and$advocacy$or!dialogue$and$community$building!messages!versus!information!messages.!
4.2.5!|!RQ3:!DOES!AUDIENCE!ENGAGEMENT!WITH!SOCIAL!MEDIA!DIFFER!BASED!ON!
THE!ADVOCACY!STRATEGY!UTILISED!IN!THE!MESSAGE?!
The!final!research!question!explores!different!advocacy!tactics!identified!by!Saxton!and!Gao!in!a!2010!
paper!and!used!by!them!since!to!classify!Twitter!messages!in!a!2014!study.!Examples!of!each!type!of!
message!are!available!in!Appendix!G.!Although!there!were!twelve!categories!identified!for!this!study,!
including!“no!advocacy”,!only!eleven!of!them!were!found!to!be!used.!Summary!stats!where!run!for!the!
each!of!the!advocacy!strategies!by!user!engagement!type!and!the!full!list!is!available!in!Appendix!H.!By!far!
the!most!frequently!used!category!was!public$education$(N!=!320,!Freq!=!40.00%).!As!messages!of!this!
type!are!often!informational,!this!matches!up!with!the!summary!statistics!from!the!organisational9public!
relationship!variable!that!found!a!large!percentage!of!information;type!messages.!For!all!three!user!
engagement!behaviours,!the!highest!means!where!found!for!voter$registration$and$education$(likes:!M!=!
4705.04;!shares:!M!=!4743.63;!comments:!M!=!451.72)!followed!by!direct$lobbying$(likes:!M!=!2088.73;!
shares:!M!=!1139.37;!comments:!M!=!337.89).!
The!same!series!of!ANOVA!tests!were!run!for!all!three!engagement!metrics!to!measure!the!influence!of!
each!advocacy!strategy!(Table!17).!Welch’s!F!was!used!for!all!three!engagement!metrics!as!they!were!
found!by!Levene’s!test!to!have!a!significant!difference!in!variance!between!the!groups.!While!the!use!of!
- 43. !
!37!
different!advocacy!strategies!was!found!to!have!a!significant!impact!for!both!liking!and!commenting!
behaviours,!it!appears!to!have!to!a!larger!impact!for!comments!according!to!the!effect!size,!F(10,!64.14)!=!
4.79,!p!=!0.00,!w!=!0.43),!in!comparison!to!likes!F(10,!142.54)!=!3.83,!p!=!0.00,!w!=!0.32).!Sharing!
behaviour!was!close!to!approaching!significance,!F(10,!139.23)!=!1.69,!p!=!0.09,!w!=!0.32).!
Table$17:$One;way$ANOVA$results$;$Advocacy$strategies$
!
Looking!at!the!results!of!the!Games9Howell!post9hoc!tests!found!some!significant!differences!between!
categories!for!both!likes!and!shares.!For!liking!behaviours,!the!notable!comparisons!were!between!public$
events$and$direct$action$(M!=!406.69,!SD!=!957.22)!and!administrative$lobbying$(M!=!27.41,!SD!=!35.94)!p!
=!0.04,!which!had!a!moderate!effect!according!to!the!Cohen’s!d!score!of!0.56.!Another!comparison!of!
moderate!effects!approaching!statistical!significance!(p!=!0.13)!was!between!research$messages!(M!=!
70.28,!SD!=!169.69)!and!public$events$and$direct$action$(M!=!406.69,!SD!=!957.22)!with!a!Cohen’s!d!score!
of!90.51.!For!commenting,!significant!differences!were!found!between!public$education$(M!=!89.06,!SD!=!
340.12)!compared!to!coalition$building$(M!=!0.33,!SD!=!0.52,!p!=!0.03,!d!=!0.37)!and!administrative$
lobbying$(M!=!3.00,!SD!=!3.56,!p!=!0.05,!d!=!0.36).!As!seen!by!the!Cohen’s!d!score,!both!of!these!
comparison!have!a!notable!but!small!effect.!
The!results!of!a!follow9up!Kruskal9Wallis!test!for!all!three!audience!metrics!found!that!there!is!a!
significant!difference!for!each!(Table!18).!This!is!not!surprising,!as!liking!and!commenting!behaviours!were!
found!to!be!significant!in!the!ANOVA!tests!and!sharing!behaviour!was!approaching!significance.!A!post9
hoc!Dunn9Bonferroni!pair9wise!comparison!was!carried!out.!For!liking,!no!significant!comparison!was!
found!but!administrative$lobbying!and!voter$registration$and$education!were!close!to!approaching!
significance!(s!=!9197.951,!p!=!0.120).!Commenting!behaviour!showed!that!two!pairs!were!close!to!
approaching!significance!which!were!media$advocacy$versus!direct$lobbying$(s!=!9129.573,!p!=!0.054)!and!
voter$registration$and$education$(s!=!9169.274,!p!=!0.135).!Lastly,!commenting!behaviour!had!significant!
