Reviewing slacktivism
Niels Pel Graduate School of Communication 5794366 Master’s programme Communication Science
A new perspective on how to bypass the effects of small acts of support on subsequent financial aid for charities
Theories and techniques to bypass the effects of small acts of kindness on subsequent financial aid for charities
Theories and techniques to bypass the effects of small acts of kindness on subsequent financial aid for charities
Abstract
Due to a quick rise of charity presence on social media, people now have the possibility to aid charity organizations with small acts of support. Helping charities with small acts of support is called slacktivism, and the acts are commonly a form of sharing content with ones’ social environment. Slacktivistic acts of support have helped to bring many important causes to the awareness of the public. But new studies show that people who help charities with these small acts of support do not donate money to the cause anymore. This has led to a decrease in personal donations. As charity organizations are in dire need of financial support, this study aimed to provide charities with new insights on ways to bypass these negative effects of slacktivism, and to offer charities new techniques to increase personal donations. First, this research proposed to directly increase personal donations by incorporating the technique of gain- and loss framing within the development of messages. It was stated that a message framed in a loss perspective would increase the intention to donate, and that the level of involvement of the audience moderated this effect. Next, this research suggested to use these same framing techniques in order to increase the likeliness of the message being shared, by framing messages in a gain perspective. Finally, two techniques were developed to bypass the negative effect of the act of sharing on the intention to donate money to the charity organization, based on several loopholes within the paradigm of slacktivism. As low involved audiences would be unlikely to share messages framed in a loss perspective, it was expected that this would lead to a higher intention to donate due to a moral balancing effect. Next, a technique was developed to stimulate both sharing intention and donation intention with the use of messages framed in an extremer loss perspective among high-involved audiences. An experimental study was conducted in order to test the proposed techniques in cooperation with Terre des Hommes, an organization that fights against child exploitation on a global scale. The study showed that framing messages in a loss perspective led to a higher intention to donate, and that preferred to share the message framed in a gain perspective to the message framed in a extremer loss perspective. However, the study was unable to verify our proposed techniques to bypass the effect of slacktivism, which leaves room for future researchers to examine our assumptions and continue the search for new ways for charities to communicate online.
Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical framework 6
2.1 Increasing the intention to donate with the framing of messages 7
2.2 The cause involvement of the audience 8
2.3 Sharing emotional messages 9
2.4 Emotions and framing 9
2.5 Consistency theory versus slacktivism 10
2.5.1. The paradigm of consistency 11
2.5.2. The paradigm of slacktivism 11
2.6 The moral balancing of slacktivism 12
2.7 Exceptions to slacktivism 14
3. Method 14
3.1 Study design 15
3.2 Sample and procedure 15
3.3 Stimulus materials 15 3.4 Pretest 17 3.5 Measurements 17 3.6 Control variables 19 4. Results 19 4.1 Manipulation check 19
4.2 Controlling for alternative explanations 20
4.3 Testing the hypotheses 21
4.3.3. Examining the effect on the intention to share 22
4.3.4. Examining the first proposed technique 22
4.3.5. Examining the second proposed technique 23
5. Discussion 23
5.1 Recap 23
5.2 Hypotheses and implications for existing theories 24
5.2.1. Framing 24
5.2.2. Sharing 25
5.2.3. Techniques for bypassing slacktivism 26
5.2.4. Conclusion 27
5.3 Limitations and future research directions 27
5.4 Implications for practice. 28
6. Literature 30
7. Appendices 39
7.1 Appendix 1 – Stimulus materials 39
7.2 Appendix 2 – Questionnaire 41
1. Introduction
“My name is Rahim. I’m ten years old. Sometimes I worry that I will get sick, like mom got sick. Then who will look after my brother? But I think everything will be alright. Today Unicef
Sweden has 177.000 likes on Facebook. Maybe they will reach 200.000 by summer. Then we should be alright.”
Likes don’t save lives. Money does.
UNICEF
This statement formed the basis for a campaign by UNICEF Sweden, which ran in 2013. It was aimed at audiences who supported UNICEF’s causes by liking or sharing content via social media, but who declined to donate money. The campaign is one of many campaigns evoked by a new phenomenon that arose alongside the increase of social media use by charities, known as slacktivism. Slacktivism, a portmanteau of the words slacker and activist, is defined as a series of low-risk, low-cost activities via social media with the purpose to raise awareness, produce change, or grant satisfaction to the person engaged in the activity (Rotman et al., 2011). Examples of it can be found on most social media channels, and are commonly forms of sharing content that was posted by charities. Whether it is on Facebook, where audiences can show their support by liking posts and sharing them with their friends, or on Twitter, where people can retweet messages from charities with the push of a button, all give audiences an opportunity to aid charities with these small acts of support (Rotman et al., 2011).
Because these small acts of support are commonly a form of sharing content, slacktivists (those who perform the acts) have helped many charities reaching new audiences (Lee & Hsieh, 2010). But the rise of slacktivistic acts of support is also a cause for concern. Due to an increase of charity organizations, cuts on funds offered by governments, and a drop in personal donations (Das, Kerkhof & Kuiper, 2008; Guardian, 2012), organizations such as UNICEF have moved their focus from increasing their reach to increasing personal donations from those who have helped them before. And what these organizations discovered in practice, was recently scientifically underpinned in an article by Kristofferson, White and Peloza (2013): people who help charities with small acts of support on social media do not
subsequently support these organizations financially anymore. After showing their support publically, they believe that they have done enough (Kristofferson et al., 2013).
Because the topic of slacktivism is relatively young, techniques to bypass its negative effects on subsequent acts on support appear to be non-existent. This lack of knowledge on slacktivism has left charities with few options other than to plead audiences to cease these small acts of support. But with the broad knowledge on persuading audiences that exists in the field of persuasive communications, this research proposes that there are more effective ways to reach the goal of increasing financial aid. This study aspires to help charities increase their effectiveness on social media, by developing techniques that can be used to increase both small acts of support in the form of sharing content in order to reach new audiences, and subsequently increase personal donation, while bypassing the negative effects of slacktivism.
As a basis, this study aims to find a way to directly increase charities’ funds by reintroducing the technique of message framing; a technique that has proven to be very effective when it comes to increasing donating intentions (Levin, Schneider & Gaeth, 1998). As the technique of framing has been tested extensively, but not yet for social media, this study may lead to new insights that can be used by charities online. The second aim of this study is to examine how these framing techniques can be used to create messages that have a high chance of being shared, based on new theories on content virality as proposed by Berger and Milkman (2012). Because social media are very effective when it comes to sharing content (Briones et al. 2011), these findings may help charities to further increase awareness and to communicate to new audiences. But most importantly, this study will theoretically explain why small acts of support decrease personal donations when they are performed via social media, and aim to offer techniques to bypass these cannibalizing effects. Although this aim may seem rather paradoxical, the work of Kristofferson and collegues (2013), and other articles on slacktivism that will be discussed, show that there are several possible loopholes, which offer opportunities to simultaneously increase small acts of support such as sharing and increase personal donations. By doing so, this study may help charities communicate more effectively, so that they can continue to fight for their causes.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Increasing the Intention to Donate with the Framing of Messages
Observing another’s distress can produce physiological arousal in the observer, a reaction to a state of empathy (Coke, Batons & McDavis, 1978). If this arousal is categorized to the other person’s distress, it triggers an emotional reaction that can lead to a motivation to respond by helping (Coke, Batons and McDavis, 1978). Charities rely on the emotional response evoked by distress. They communicate problems such as famine or natural disasters and propose a possibility to act, commonly in the form of a donation. To do so in the most persuasive way, a variety of tactics can be used to increase the effectiveness of a message (Hibbert et al., 2007). One of the most used tactics is the framing of messages. The technique of message framing is commonly applied in charities’ communications by formulating messages in either a gain- or a loss perspective (Detweiler et al., 1999; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), and its effects on behavior has been researched extensively (Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999; Cialdini et al., 2006; Chou & Murnighan, 2013). Message framing can be illustrated with the image of a glass half filled with water. The glass can be interpreted as either half full of half empty, both interpretations leading to a specific, one-sided perception of the information (Martin, 1995). Specified to messages that are aimed at raising donations, a gain framed message states the positive outcomes of a donation (e.g., “with the help of your donation, we can help these children to go to school”), while a loss framed message will communicate the negative outcome, or the loss, in case someone does not donate (e.g., “without the help of your donation, these children will not be able to go to school”) (Chang & Lee, 2009).
Framing techniques are commonly used because they lead to strong persuasive messages (Maheswaran & Levy, 1990; Smith & Petty, 1996; Cialdini et al. 2006). According to Cialdini et al. (2006), negative messages are overall more persuasive than positive messages or neutral messages. They state that negatively worded communication is more compelling because these messages are more likely to lead audiences’ to focus on the message content and the demand that is made by the message’s sender. (Cialdini et al. 2006). Based on these assumptions, charities could best use messages framed in a loss perspective to increase personal donations. To test this, the first hypothesis is proposed as following:
H1a: A message framed in a loss perspective will have a greater effect on the intention to donate than a message framed in a gain perspective.
2.2 The cause involvement of the audience
But there are more variables that can be included in the process of defining the right message. Maheswaran and Levy (1990) report that, when communicating distress, the receivers’ involvement in the charity’s cause is an important factor to take into account (Maheswaran & Levy, 1990). Grau and Folse define cause involvement as “the degree to which consumers find the cause to be personally relevant to them” (2013, p. 20). The personal relevance can be a result of a past experience with a specific cause (e.g., a relative who is diagnosed with cancer) or because the cause relates to their self-concept (e.g., a person who is an apostle for children’s rights). According to Maheswaran and Levy (1990), people who are highly involved with a cause process information on a more systematical level and with a greater focus on detail. Negative information receives relatively more weight during this process, and is more influential than positive information. As a result, when a person is highly involved, a message framed in loss perspective is more persuasive than a message framed in the gain perspective. On the other hand, messages framed in a gain perspective may be more effective for low involved audiences. Low involved audiences form attitudes toward the message based on simpler peripheral cues and tend to agree more with positive rather than negative cues (Grau & Fols, 2007; Maheswaran & Levy, 1990). In order to increase effectiveness of their communication, charities can use these techniques to persuade audiences into making more personal donations, specified to the involvement of the audience. Based on these assumptions, it can be expected that those who are less involved with the cause could be persuaded to donate with the use of messages framed in a gain perspective, and those high involved could be persuaded by sending out messages framed in a loss perspective. To test this, it is hypothesized that the frame of a message affects an audiences’ intention to donate, and that the choice for the most effective frame is moderated by the involvement of the audience with the charity’s cause. The second hypothesis is proposed as following:
H1b: The frame of a message affects the audience’s intention to donate, and this effect is moderated by the level of involvement of the audience with the charity’s cause; for audiences that are low involved with a cause, a message framed in a gain perspective will have a greater effect on the intention to donate than a message framed in a loss perspective, and for audiences that are highly involved with a cause, a message framed in a loss perspective will have a greater effect on the intention to donate than a message framed in a gain perspective.
2.3 Sharing Emotional Messages
The technique of framing has been extensively researched when it comes to increasing donating intentions. But social media have given the public new alternatives to support charities. They do not just offer the opportunity for people to receive information, but also make it possible to share it with others via the same vehicle. In this way, information can spread at high pace to large audiences without any costs (Briones et al. 2011; Rotman et al., 2011). Sharing content is an important form of slacktivism. When charities create interesting content, users can share it with their own social network with possible high rewards for the original sender, but it takes the user only a single click. And although this may seem like a small act, research shows that Facebook users can reach an average of over 150,000 new users through their Facebook friends (Hampton, Goulet, Marlow & Rainie, 2012).
The sharing of content from organizations and companies by audiences with their own social network is called viral marketing, which is defined as “the process of getting customers to pass along a company's marketing message to friends, family, and colleagues” (Laudon & Traver, 2001, p. 381). Numerous researchers have focused on defining what makes content go viral (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Dobele et al., 2007; Ho & Dempsey, 2012). Berger and Milkman (2012) researched virality of news messages and found that emotional aspect of the content is an important factor. People share emotionally charged content for different reasons, such as self-expression (Livingstone, 2008) and deepening social relations (Peters & Kashima, 2007). According to Berger and Milkman, content that leads to an emotional response has a higher likeliness of being shared, but it strongly depends on the kind of emotion that is evoked. Their research categorized emotions to be either high- or low arousal emotions. High arousal emotions (e.g., anger or happiness) were found to be more activating, which led to more sharing, whereas low arousal emotions (e.g., sadness (Barrett & Russell 1998)) were defined as deactivating, which led to the content having a smaller chance of being shared. Overall, positive, highly arousing articles were most likely to be shared (Berger & Milkman, 2012).
2.4 Emotions and Framing
The effects of framing (in either a gain or loss perspective) on the intention to share on social media have yet to be examined. But the portrayed studies on the effect of emotions do overlap with the literature on framing. A message constructed in a gain frame may stipulate an audiences help in order to save lives or to change circumstances for the better, while
H2
H1b
go to school”). Messages framed in a gain perspective may, by doing so, evoke happiness and increase the intention to share. On the other hand, messages formulated in a loss perspective could evoke a deactivating emotion such as sadness. A message framed in a loss perspective focuses on terrible conditions or a saddening outcome (e.g., “without the help of your donation, these children will not be able to go to school”) and by doing so, decrease the likeliness that a message is shared. Specified for charity organizations, framing a message in a gain perspective might evoke the activating emotion of happiness, which would lead to a higher intention to share the message among its audiences, compared to a message framed in a loss perspective. To test these presuppositions, the second hypothesis is proposed as following:
H2: A message framed in a gain perspective will have a greater effect on the intention to share than a message framed in a loss perspective.
Figure 1: Conceptual model hypothesis 1a, 1b & 2.
2.5 Consistency Theory versus Slacktivism
As discussed, charities can have different objectives for their campaign. Whether it is creating a larger audience to communicate with or increasing personal donations, the frame that is chosen can help with achieving the specified goal. And according to the proposed researches (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Maheswaran & Levy, 1990; Grau & Fols, 2007), both objectives can be reached when the right message is created. But a recent research by Kristofferson et al. (2013) shows that simultaneously reaching both a higher intention to share and increasing the
Message framed in a gain perspective Intention to share Intention to donate H1a
Involvement with the cause (high vs. low) + + Message framed in a loss perspective
intention to donate simultaneously may prove difficult. Their research found that audiences that share messages, a form of slacktivism, do not subsequently donate money to the organization. To understand this process, and to find a way to bypass this problem, we first need to define two paradigms that currently exist on how a small act of support leads to subsequent behavior on social media: the paradigm of consistency and the paradigm of slacktivism.
2.5.1. The Paradigm of Consistency
Several authors have opted that a small act of support can of help lead to consistent behavior in the future, known as the consistency effect (Cheung & Chan, 2000; Lee & Hsieh, 2013; Vaidyanathan & Aggerwal, 2007). This behavior is grounded on the consistency assumption of the cognitive dissonance theory, a theory that implies we have an inner drive to keep our attitudes, beliefs and behaviors consistent. When there is a disjuncture between our attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, it causes a state of cognitive dissonance, leading to discomfort (Festinger, 1953). The work of Lee and Hsieh, who examined the effect of signing a petition on consistent further support for a charity, shows a clear example of this effect (2010). In their research, participants who signed the petition were more likely to donate to a related charity than those who did not sign the petition (Lee & Hsieh, 2010).
The consistency theory has been examined in a wide range of experiments and in different cultures (Abelson, 1968; Guadagno et al., 2010; Petrova, Cialdini & Sills, 2007) and forms an important theory within the field of persuasive communication. But for social media, there are new findings that show that the theory does not always hold, and which form the basis of the paradigm of slacktivism (Kristofferson et al., 2013).
2.5.2. The Paradigm of Slacktivism
The paradigm of slacktivism is based on the reasons for which we use social media. Social media are not merely a tool for organizations to reach their audiences. Websites such as Facebook and Twitter give people the opportunity to express their thoughts and to communicate with their social environment (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). They have become a place where we interact with our friends and where we put forward what we want to say about ourselves (Boyd, 2007). We also learn from how others react to these forms of self-presentation, with the goal to improve the impressions that we leave on others. The way in which we portray ourselves and the process of learning from how other react on these presentations are parts of our social impression management (Goffman, 1956), defined by
Pearson as “the strategies and processes employed by individuals to influence how other people perceive them” (Pearson, 2010, p. 119). According to Boyd (2007), the process of learning to read social cues and react accordingly is core to being socialized into a society. We learn how to make meaning out of a situation, others’ reactions, and how we project ourselves. Sharing content from charities can be used as an effective form of self-expression. This is because being perceived as a moral person, who cares for others, is very desirable to us (Alexander, 1987), as it is a prime dimension by which we are evaluated by others (Nezlek, Schütz, & Sellin, 2007). On social media, where we try to leave a favorable impression on others, sharing content from charities is a handy tool to reach this goal.
The fact that audiences do not just help charities by sharing content but use it as a strategy for self expression is not a bad thing per se. One can help charities both for altruistic reasons and for their own personal benefit. If sharing content from charities benefits our social impression and then leads to audiences sharing more content, continuously helping these organizations, then both parties may win. However, Kristofferson et al. (2013) show that social impression management has a devastating effect on eventual intention to donate. The researchers examined the effect of a small token of support in the form of a poppy, a sign of support for veterans and Remembrance Day, on eventual donations. Kristofferson et al. (2013) pinned the poppy on the participants’ clothing or gave the poppy in a sealed envelope, changing the poppy into either a public token of support or a private form of support. When respondents were then asked for a subsequent donation, those who wore the poppy donated significantly less money than those who had received the poppy in an envelope. In a subsequent study the researchers found similar results. An initial private token of results led to a significant increase in likeliness to perform a second task of support, but a public token did not. The authors found that in public settings the resolution of impression-management concerns becomes central, and satisfaction of impression management concerns reduced inclinations for further support. When the motivation of social impression management is taken into account, the urge to act consistent seems to disappear (Kristofferson et al. 2013; Ashworth et al. 2005).
2.6 The Moral Balancing of Slacktivism
The proposition that audiences will subsequently share messages and donate money seems not to apply to social media, because the satisfaction of impression management concerns reduced inclinations for consistent further support. The definition of slacktivism stated that a small act of support granted satisfaction to the person engaged in the activity
(Rotman et al., 2011), but it appears that this satisfaction goes beyond satisfaction from the act of helping, which also explains why UNICEF, the example mentioned in the introduction, demanded personal donations instead of shares. Social media appear to be a complicated place for charity organizations to communicate with their audiences, where a small request for support can eventually cannibalize subsequent acts of support.
Fortunately however, there are several theoretical loopholes within the paradigm of slacktivism, which can be used to bypass its negative effects and give charities the possibility to increase personal donations without forcefully requesting them. The first possible technique to bypass the effects is based on the work of Lee and Hsieh (2010) and applies to low involved audiences. Lee and Hsieh state that when people make decisions about helping charities, they will not only consider the costs and benefits of the behavior, but also draw on their past behaviors as references. This process is known as moral balancing (2010). Moral balancing postulates that when individuals face a moral decision, they draw on their past moral behaviors to make the decision (Merrit, Effron & Monin, 2010). Within the paradigm of moral balancing, it is stated that when someone acts in an immoral way, they will feel the need to make up for this deed, known as moral cleansing (Lee & Hsieh, 2010). The literature that led to the second hypothesis (H1b) stated that people preferred to share messages that were framed in a gain perspective to messages framed in a loss perspective. If a charity asked their audience to share a message framed in a gain perspective and donate to their cause, the initial response might be not to want to share the content, because it would not be favorable to their social impression management. Based on the moral cleansing effect, they might search for a way to cleanse this previous “immoral” need, for instance by donating money. So in order to bypass the effects of social impression management, or to even use it in their advantage, charities could use messages framed in a loss perspective, asking both to share the message and to give a personal donation. The moral cleansing effect would increase donation intentions after a first request to share the content would not be met by the audience. Within this theory, the intention to share content would negatively mediate the intention to donate. To test this, this study proposes the third hypothesis:
H3: For low involved audiences, a message framed in a loss perspective will lead to lower intention to share then a message framed in a gain perspective, but will increase the intention to donate in order to solve the emotional response evoked by the previous immoral deed.
Figure 2: Conceptual model hypothesis 3.
2.7 Exceptions to Slacktivism
The second loophole to be found in the paradigm of slacktivism can be used to persuade high-involved audiences rather than low-involved audiences. According to Kristofferson et al. (2013), a consistency effect still appears when a participant is highly involved with the charities’ cause, in contrast to when participants are low involved. For high-involved audiences, sharing content is seen as a more meaningful contribution to the cause and not just as a form of social expression. Kristofferson et al.’s (2010) research found that highly involved participants were willing to donate more money after an initial public token of support.
Previously, it was hypothesized that for high-involved participants, a message framed in a loss perspective would have a greater effect on the intention to donate then a message framed in a gain perspective. On the other hand, this study hypothesized that a message framed in a gain perspective would lead to higher intentions of sharing, which makes a message that would evoke both intentions very difficult. But there is an exception. Berger and Milkman (2012) stated that a message that evoked a more activating emotion (e.g. happiness or anger) would be more likely to be shared. If a message framed in a loss perspective could evoke anger (an activating emotion) instead of sadness, the message would increase the intention to share and subsequently increase the intention to donate among high-involved audiences. With this bypass strategy, charities could increase both their reach and personal donation intentions by sending messages to high involved audiences, framed in a extremer loss perspective (e.g., enraging) compared to messages that are framed in a loss perspective (e.g. saddening) or a gain perspective. The slacktivistic act of sharing would in this case act as a mediator, subsequently increasing the intention to donate. To test this assumption, this study proposes the fourth hypothesis as following:
Intention to donate - Intention to share Message framed in a loss perspective +
H4: For high involved audiences, a message framed in a extremer loss perspective will lead to higher intention to share, and consistently to a higher intention to donate, compared to a message framed in a gain perspective or a message framed in a loss perspective.
Figure 3: Conceptual model hypothesis 4.
3. Method
3.1 Study design
To test the hypotheses an experiment was conducted with a between-subject design. The experimental study consisted of three conditions in the form of three differently framed Facebook messages (i.e. gain, loss and extreme loss). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions.
3.2 Sample and procedure
Participants were contacted via email and social media and asked to participate in a study on the effects of messages from charity organizations on behavior. Participants were also contacted via social media channels of Terre des Hommes, who lend their social media channels to gather participants. After clicking the link they were redirected to the experiment, which was fielded using Qualtrics, a professional online survey tool. The questionnaire commenced with an introduction about the topic and background information about the research institute under which wings the research was conducted (ASCoR). Before starting the questionnaire, participants were asked to sign the informed consent, which stated the possibility to stop at any given time during the procedure and guaranteed their anonymity. After the respondents gave permission they were randomly assigned to one of the three
Message framed in an extremer loss perspective Intention to share Intention to donate + +
conditions in the form of a Facebook message. After the exposure to one of the three messages, respondents were asked to answer questions regarding their intention to share the message, their intention to donate and their level of involvement with the cause of child exploitation. The questionnaire ended with demographic questions. The entire experiment took approximately six minutes to complete. A total of 130 respondents completed the survey, 54 percent of which was female (n = 70). Respondents’ ages ranged between 21 and 60 with an average age of 28 years (SD = 6.22). 86 percent of the participants completed Higher Vocational Education (n = 112).
3.3 Stimulus materials
Facebook was chosen as the social medium for this research due to its high rate of usage and because it is often used by charities to communicate with their audiences. Three different Facebook messages were created for this study, for which was agreed with Terre des Hommes to use the organizations’ name as the author of our stimulus material to increase the authenticity of our research. The organization however, did not have any further influence in the research in any form or shape. A graphic designer and an advertising strategist with several years of experience created the messages. All materials were approved by Terre des Hommes. Child prostitution was chosen as the topic of the messages. The choice for this topic was made based on the fact that recent campaigns of Terre des Hommes have been aimed at this form of child exploitation. By choosing this topic the messages would mimic the organizations focus in real life.
Two versions of text were created as a basis for the Facebook messages with which participants were confronted. Both were differently framed based on the gain and loss theory (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). In the message framed in a gain perspective, participants were introduced to a young girl named Maria. The message stated that with their help, Terre des Hommes would be able to save more girls like her. They were then asked to share the message and donate to the organization as a call to action. The choice to depict a single girl in the message and to not describe the tens of thousands of children that are exploited daily in the Philippines alone was based on research by Cameron et al. (2011), who stated that people feel a greater emotional connection with a single person then with multiple people. In the message framed in a loss perspective, participants were again confronted with Maria. Here, the message stated that without their help, Terre des Hommes would not be able to save girls like her. There were again asked to share the message and to donate to the organization as a call to action.
The messages were then accompanied by an image, based on scientific and practical reasons. First, Chang and Lee (2009) proposed that the addition of a congruent image with the message led to a synergetic effect and increased the effectiveness of a charitable appeal. Second, Facebook messages that include an image are often shared more than messages that consist of text alone (Mashable, 2012). Three images were chosen for this experiment. The first image showed a smiling girl. The second image showed a sad young girl, and the third image depicted a crying young girl. Combining the two led to three different Facebook messages. The first Facebook message consisted of the message framed in a gain perspective and the image of the smiling girl (GP). The second Facebook message consisted of the message framed in a loss perspective and the image of the sad girl (LP). These two messages were used in the first three hypotheses as the message framed in a gain perspective and message framed in a loss perspective. The third Facebook message consisted of the message framed in a loss perspective and the crying girl, and was used for the fourth hypothesis as the message framed in a more extremer loss perspective (ELP). By using an image of a crying girl, the message would depict a situation in which the children were already victimized by child exploitation, which would increase the amount of anger evoked by the message.
3.4 Pretest
A pretest was executed in order to test whether or not the three Facebook messages were framed appropriately. 11 participants were asked to state whether they perceived the three Facebook messages as either rather positive or rather negative (based on a two point scale: 1 for rather positive and 2 for rather negative). 9 out of 11 participants rated the message framed in a gain perspective (GP) as rather positive, and 11 out of 11 participants rated the message framed in a loss perspective (LP) and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (ELP) Facebook messages as rather negative, proving that our messages were framed correctly.
3.5 Measurements
The intention to share was measured in two separate occasions and based on scales that were developed specifically for this study. First, participants were asked if they were willing to share the Facebook message to which they were assigned, with a question based on a 7 point Likert scale (1 = definitely would not, 7 = definitely would) (M = 3.4; SD = 1.99). To further measure a preference towards sharing either a message framed in a gain or loss perspective, participants were shown the happy Facebook message and crying Facebook
message. They were then asked to choose which message they would prefer to share. 67,7 percent of the participants chose the message framed in a gain perspective over the message framed in an extremer loss perspective to share on Facebook (n = 129). Next, participants were asked their willingness to share the two messages, both based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = definitely wouldn’t and 7 = definitely would) (Message framed in gain perspective (GP): M = 3.99; SD = 1.686; Message framed in extreme loss perspective (ELP): M = 3.08; SD = 1.874).
Intention to donate was measured with the use of two items. The first two items were based on a scale proposed by Merchant, Ford and Sargeant (2010), and proposed two statements for which participants had to answer their level of agreement based on a 7 point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The first item stated the participant intended to donate money to support Terre des Hommes right now, and the second item stated the participant intended to donate money to support Terre des Hommes in the future. A principal component analysis showed that the construct was valid (EV = 1.7; R2 = .85) with a high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .83; M = 3.58; SD = 1.4). To further measure the intention to donate, participants were asked what amount of money they were willing to donate, ranging from 0 to 20 Euro’s, which was later renamed into volume of intended donation, and used as the third item for measurement (M = 8.75; SD = 5.21).
To assess cause involvement, participants completed a five-item question on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree), based on the work of Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990). Participants were given five statements regarding whether or not the cause of child prostitution was important to them, meant a lot to them, was personally relevant to them, mattered a great deal to them and was of great concern to them. A principal component analysis showed that the scale was a valid construct, but a reliability test revealed that constructs’ reliability would increase when the question regarding personal relevance was discarded. The new construct without the last question showed valid results (EV = 2.9; R2 = .73) with a high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .89; M = 5.49; SD = 1.1)
The 130 participants were divided into two groups, high involved and low involved, by measuring the average cause involvement of the entire pool and then splitting at the median (M = 5.75, SD = 1.06). By doing so, two groups were created by which the effects of cause involvement as a moderator for low and high-involved audiences could be measured. Although the median was rather high (5.75 on a 7 point scale), it was reasoned that this was understandable due to the nature of the topic of child exploitation.
3.6 Control variables
Several control questions were added to the questionnaire in order to test for possible control variables that needed to be included. As proposed in the theoretical framework, actions from the past can play a vital role within the choice to support a charity organization, as part of the process of moral balancing (Lee & Hsieh, 2010). Based on this, respondents had to indicate whether or not they had liked the Terre des Hommes Facebook page, had shared messages from Terre des Hommes during the last three months, currently donated to Terre des Hommes, currently donated to other charity organizations, or if they had shared messages from other charity organizations during the last three months. Besides examining these factors, the questionnaire also asked for gender, age and level of education in order to test possible influencing factors.
4. Results 4.1 Manipulation check
The three messages (GP, LP and ELP) were compared on four different items: happiness, sadness, anger and cheerfulness, to test if the messages framed in the gain and loss perspectives also evoked the specific emotions that would affect the intention to share (happiness, sadness, and anger). Cheerfulness was measured as an extra confirmation for happiness.
There was a statistically significant difference between the messages on the scale for happiness as determined by one-way ANOVA, F(2,127) = 25.230, p = .000. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that respondents perceived the message framed in a gain perspective (3.11 ± 1.74) as significantly happier than the message framed in a loss perspective (1.58 ± 1.152, p = .000) and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (1.34 ± 0.68, p = .000). There were no statistically significant differences between the message framed in a loss perspective and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (p = .681). Next, a statistically significant difference between the messages on the scale for sadness was revealed by one-way ANOVA (F(2,127) = 9.901, p = .000). A Tukey post hoc test showed that respondents perceived the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 4.3, SD = 1.762) as significantly less sad than the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 5.28, SD = 1.485, p = .009) and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (M = 5.66, SD = 1.14, p = .000). There were no statistically significant differences between the message framed in a loss perspective and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (p = .467). There was also no
statistical significant difference between the messages on the scale for anger, F(2,127) = 2.350, p = .100. Respondents perceived the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (M = 4.57, SD = 1.717) as evoking more anger than the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 3.93, SD = 1.705) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 3.88, SD = 1.505), but results were not significant. Last, a statistically significant difference between the messages on the scale for cheerfulness was found as determined by one-way ANOVA, F(2,127) = 21.431, p = .000. A Tukey post hoc test showed that respondents perceived the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 2.72, SD = 1.682) as significantly more cheerful than the sad (M = 1.40, SD = 1.057, p = .000) or the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (M = 1.18, SD = 0.540, p = .000). There were no statistically significant differences between the message framed in a loss perspective and the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (p = .685).
4.2 Controlling for alternative explanations
It was examined whether or not the selected control variables correlated with the dependent variables intention to share and intention to donate. Intention to donate appeared to significantly correlate with, respectively, sharing content of Terre des hommes before, liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page and gender (see appendix 3). Executed ANOVA’s showed that groups did not significantly differ from each other for the correlating variables. However, gender, sharing content of Terre des Hommes before and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page were included as control variables, because they did have an effect on our findings when we examined our hypotheses.
Intention to share significantly correlated with sharing content of other charity organizations, sharing content of Terre des Hommes before, liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page, education and age. ANOVA’s showed that the correlating variables did not significantly differ from each other within the experimental groups. However, because results showed that age and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page influenced the findings when the hypotheses were examined, the variables were included as a control variable.
4.3 Testing the hypotheses
4.3.1 Examining the direct effect of message framing on the intention to donate
In order to test the first hypothesis (H1a), which stated that a message framed in a loss perspective would have a greater effect on the intention to donate than a message framed in a gain perspective, participants who were exposed to the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (ELP) were taken out of the analysis. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with message type as independent variable (GP and LP) and intention to donate as independent variable while controlling for gender, sharing content of Terre des Hommes before and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page. The results of the analysis showed that, after controlling for the proposed control variables, there was a significant difference between the effect of the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 6.78, SD = 2.96) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 7.83, SD = 2.49) on intention to donate, F(1, 80) = 4.665, p = .034. This is in support of hypothesis 1a, and shows that a message that is framed in a loss perspective will lead to a higher intention to donate than a message framed in a gain perspective.
4.3.2 Examining the moderating effect of cause involvement
In order to test hypothesis 1b, whether the frame of a message affected the audience’s intention to donate, and whether or not this effect was moderated by the level of involvement of the audience with the charity’s cause, an ANCOVA was conducted with message type and level of involvement as independent variable, intention to donate as dependent variable and age and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page as control variables. The results of the analysis showed a direct significant effect of the message framed in a gain perspective and the message framed in a loss perspective on the intention to donate, F(1, 78) = 4.730, p = .033, but no direct significant effect of level of involvement on intention to donate, F(1, 78) = 3.878, p = .052. Also, there was no significant interaction effect found, F(1, 78) = 1.300, p = .258. These findings show that cause involvement did not have a moderating effect. It was then examined whether or not there was a difference in the effect of message type on intention to donate between the groups of participants that were high involved and low involved. To do so, ANCOVA’s were executed controlling for age and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page. Within the group of low involved participants, a significant difference was found between the effect of the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 5.62, SD = 2.62) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 7.37, SD = 2.62) on intention to donate, F(1, 40) =
5.915, p = .020. But within the group of high involved participants, no significant difference between the effect of the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 7.95, SD = 2.79) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 8.27, SD = 1.61) on intention to donate, F(1, 27) = .116, p = .736. Based on this, the second hypothesis (1b) was falsified, and it was concluded that a message framed in a loss perspective will lead to a higher intention to donate than a message framed in a gain perspective, but only among audiences that are low involved with the cause.
4.3.3 Examining the effect of message framing on the intention to share
The second hypothesis, which expected that a message framed in a gain perspective would evoke a higher intention to share then a message framed in a loss perspective, was analyzed next. An ANCOVA was conducted among all participants with type of message as independent variable (GP and LP) and intention to share as dependent variable, while controlling for age and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page. The results of the analysis showed no significant difference between the effect of the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 3.33, SD = 1.86) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 3.10, SD = 1.66) on the intention to share, F(1, 67) = .000, p = .983. Hypothesis 2 was therefore rejected. The results showed that messages framed in a gain perspective did not have a higher likeliness of being shared than messages framed in a loss perspective.
4.3.4 Examining the first proposed technique to bypass slacktivism
The third hypothesis proposed that for low involved audiences, a message framed in a loss perspective would lead to a lower intention to share, but would increase the intention to donate in order to solve the emotional response evoked by the previous immoral deed. In this situation, intention to share was defined as a negative mediator for the effect of the independent variable, type of message (GP and LP), on the dependent variable, the intention to donate. To test this, regression analyses were conducted to first examine the mediating effect of the intention to share among low involved respondents, following the steps of Baron and Kenny (1986). A first regression analysis was conducted to examine the effect of type of message on the intention to share, while controlling for age and liking of Terre des Hommes Facebook page. The first regression showed that type of message (GP or LP) was not a significant predictor for intention to share, β = .183; t = 1.067, p = .293, while controlling for the proposed variables. Due to the fact Baron and Kenny’s steps require all results to be significant, further analyses were not executed, and hypothesis 3 was rejected. It was
concluded that our proposed technique could not be used to bypass the negative effects of sharing content on the subsequent intention to donate.
4.3.5 Examining the second proposed technique to increase donation intention
The fourth hypothesis proposed that for high involved audiences, a message framed in a extremer loss perspective would lead to a higher intention to share, and consistently to a higher intention to donate, compared to a message framed in a gain perspective or a message framed in a loss perspective. It was proposed that, by including an image depicting a crying girl, the message would evoke a high level of anger among the receiver. However, the manipulation check showed that there was also no statistical significant difference between the messages on the scale for anger, F(2,127) = 2.350, p = .100. Respondents did perceive the message framed in an extremer loss perspective (M = 4.57, SD = 1.717) as evoking more anger than the message framed in a gain perspective (M = 3.93, SD = 1.705) and the message framed in a loss perspective (M = 3.88, SD = 1.505). But because there was no significant difference, F(2,127) = 2.350, p = .100, our fourth hypothesis was rejected, and the conclusion stated that a message framed in an extremer loss perspective did not lead to a higher intention to share nor a subsequent higher intention to donate.
5. Discussion 5.1 Recap
Based both on grounded paradigms and recently presented theories, this study aimed to help charity organizations create the most effective message for several communication goals via social media, and to find ways to bypass the negative effects of slacktivistic acts of support on subsequent personal donations. As a basis, the effects of different framing techniques on intention to donate and the effect of cause involvement as a moderator within this effect were examined. It was proposed that for low involved audiences, messages framed in gain perspective would lead to a higher intention to donate than a message framed in a loss perspective. As for high-involved audiences, this study proposed that messages framed in a loss perspective would have a greater effect on the intention to donate than messages framed in a gain perspective. These expectations were based on several theories on the effects of framing. Next, the effects of framing on audiences’ intention to share were examined, and it was hypothesized that messages framed in a gain perspective would increase sharing
proposed to bypass the cannibalizing effects of sharing messages on donating intentions and vice versa, based on recent work in the field of social media strategies. First, it was proposed that for low involved audiences, a message framed in a loss perspective would decrease the intention to share, which would subsequently increase the intention to donate due to the effects of moral balancing. Secondly, it was proposed that for high-involved audiences, a message framed in an extreme loss perspective would increase both the intention to share and the intention to donate. This proposition was based on the consistency theory.
5.2 Hypotheses and Implications for Existing Theories
5.2.1 Framing
The performed research partially supported the assumptions on the effects of message framing on the intention to donate. While examining the first two propositions, it was found that, for low involved audiences, messages framed in a loss perspective led to a higher intention to donate than messages framed in a gain perspective. This study also showed that this was only the case for the group of low involved participants, and not for the group of high-involved participants. As the involvement of the participants grew, the effect of framing appeared to diminish. These findings have a number of implications for the existing literature. They partially consolidate the theory proposed by Cialdini et al. (2006), which stated that negatively worded communication is more persuasive, because these messages are more likely to lead audiences’ to focus on the content of the message. According to the proposed findings, this theory is correct, but it only applies to low involved audiences. However, the findings dissonated with the article of Grau and Folse (2006), which stated that messages framed in a gain perspective are more effective to persuade low involved audiences, as these audiences form attitudes toward the message based on simpler peripheral cues and tend to agree more with positive rather than negative cues. The difference in findings may be explained by the content of our messages. This research added an image of a happy girl to our message framed in a gain perspective, and an image of a crying girl to our message framed in a loss perspective, contrary to the research of Grau and Folse (2006), who did not use images in their messages. The image of the sad girl may have been an important peripheral cue for audiences to base their attitude towards the message on. Although low involved audiences may tend to agree more with positive cues, negative communication is overall more persuasive according to Cialdini et al., (2006). Based on this, the conclusion to use messages framed in a loss perspective may be better applicable for charities to their communication via
social media than the conclusion of Grau and Folse, as charities commonly include an image to their messages on these platforms.
Further, as the involvement of our participants with the cause of child exploitation grew, the effect of framing appeared to diminish. These findings contradicts the current theory that high-involved audiences are more persuaded by messages framed in a loss perspective than by messages framed in a gain perspective, upon which this research’s initial propositions was based. An explanation for this can be found in the article of Maheswaran and Levy (1990). They explained that audiences who are highly involved with cause process information on a more systematical level and with a greater focus on detail. Negative information receives relatively more weight during this process and is more influential than positive information (Maheswaran & Levy, 1990). It may be that the topic of this research’s message, child exploitation, was processed as negative information in both framed messages, which could have partially diminished the effect of the framing itself. For the current paradigm of framing, this possible explanation could imply that the framing of messages is only effective for certain topics when communicating to high-involved audiences.
5.2.2 Sharing
On the account of sharing, it was assumed that messages framed in a gain perspective would have a higher likeliness of being shared than messages framed in a loss perspective. Although the performed analyses did not find any proof for this assumption, they did show that participants had a clear preference towards sharing the message framed in a gain perspective. When asked directly which message they would rather share on their Facebook profile, 67,7 percent of the participants preferred the message framed in a gain perspective (n = 129). The combination of these two findings has implications for the existing literature on the virality of content. Our findings partially support Berger and Milkman’s (2012) theory, which dictates that positive content is more likely of being shared than saddening content, as participants had a preference for the positive message, framed in a gain perspective. However, this research found that this was only the case when the messages were shown simultaneously. When the messages were shown separately, participants did not prefer to share the message framed in a gain perspective to the message framed in a loss perspective, and both messages scored relatively low on the intention to share. A possible explanation for this can be found by combining this result with the current theories on social impression management. It is viable that neither of the messages was perceived as an appropriate tool for
current theories on virality of content, specified to charity communication, this means that although framing can in fact have a positive effect on how audiences perceive the message as suitable to share for their social impression management, the content of the message itself may still negatively affect the likeliness of a message being shared,
5.2.3 Bypassing Slacktivism
This research proposed two techniques that could be used by charities in order to bypass the negative effects of slacktivism and increase personal donations. First, it was proposed that a message framed in a loss perspective would decrease the intention to share the message, but would increase the intention to donate among low involved participants due to a moral balancing effect. Because there was no effect found of the type of message on the intention to share, it was impossible to test this technique, leaving no implications for the current theories on moral balancing other than the fact that we were not able to find its effects within our research.
The findings for the second technique led to the same conclusions. However, although the proposed technique to use slacktivistic acts of support in the form of sharing as a catalyst for a higher intention to donate among high involved audiences was initially rejected, it remained a viable route to increase personal donations, as it was only rejected because this research found no direct effect of the type of message on the intention to share. But when the direct effect of the type of message (and included all three messages) on the intention to donate was examined, analyses showed that the message framed in an extremer loss perspective led to a lower intention to donate than the message framed in a gain perspective or the message framed in a loss perspective. A possible explanation for this can be found in the work of Sue (2010), who stated that messages that messages that showed extreme distant suffering led to denial by the receiver. For this research, this would have meant that the message framed in a extreme loss perspective would be perceived as too negative, and would lead to denial of the request. But because the proposed analyses did not lead to significant results, and there were no clear differences in the evoked anger between the messages, it is difficult to validate this theoretical explanation.
A second possible explanation is based on the measurement of involvement. Kristofferson et al. (2011) stated that for high-involved audiences, sharing content was experienced as a more meaningful contribution to the cause and not just as a form of social expression. In their article however, the researchers do not give a clear definition of high involvement. Later on in their article, high-involved audiences were defined as champion
supporters (Kristofferson et al. 2011, p. 15), which can be perceived as extremely high-involved audiences. There might have been an incongruence between this research’s measurement of high involved audiences (which was defined as the top half of the participants) and the champion supports of Kristofferson et al.’s research (2011), defined as an elite group of supporters, but even when we specified our research to only the highest involved participants, or the elite group, our research found that a message in an extreme loss perspective did not lead to a higher intention to donate. However, because we asked for two acts of support in one message, while Kristofferson’s et al.’s (2011) used two messages, it may be concluded that our research did not base its findings on the exact same experiment, which would explain the differences.
5.2.5 Conclusion
This study’s aim, to help charities increase their effectiveness on social media by developing techniques that could be used to increase a charities’ reach, personal donations and bypass the negative effects of these goals on each other, was partially met. The proposed findings support the claim that the technique of message framing can be effectively used to increase personal donations via social media channels, and also show that this is only the case for those low involved with the cause. Further, this study found that theories on the virality of content partially apply to content communicated by charities. Even though a direct effect of framing messages in a gain perspective on the intention to share was not found, participants did prefer to share messages framed in a gain perspective. This shows that framing messages in a gain perspective will not per definition lead the more sharing, but that messages framed in a gain perspective are in fact perceived as a more viable tool for audiences to use for their social impression management. And although the proposed techniques to bypass slacktivism were discarded, this was only one of the first attempts to bypass its negative effects. Others may continue this path, and use the proposed results in their attempts to find new ways to aid charities in their search for financial support.
5.3 Limitations and future research directions
This study had three important limitations. The first limitation was that the message framed in an extremer loss perspective did not have the aimed effect of enraging the receiver. Framing the text of the message in a more extreme form could have prevented this, but it was reasoned not to do so because of the assumption that the combination of the message with a
and enraging than the message accompanied by a picture of a sad girl. However, as the topic of both messages was child exploitation, this may have affected the perception of both groups of participants equally, and the picture of the crying may not have had the proposed effect.
The combination of the stimulus material and the choice for the topic of child exploitation also led to the second limitation of our research. Although the message framed in a gain perspective was perceived as preferable to share to the message framed in a loss perspective, we found no direct effect of framing on sharing intention. It is safe to say that the topic of child exploitation is not a happy, positive subject (the message framed in a gain perspective did not score high on the scale for evoked happiness, just higher than the messages framed in a loss perspective). Even if the message had been framed in a more positive way, it still would have led to messages describing a very sad and problematic topic. As studies on the virality based their findings on messages on topics that were usually more positive overall, such as news articles, this may have affected the difference in findings. Based on this, future researchers are advised to choose a topic that is more easily framed in either a gain or a loss perspective in order to reexamine the techniques proposed in this research, or similar techniques to bypass slacktivism. A subject regarding the environment for instance, may lead to a bigger difference in evoked happiness or sadness by differently framed messages. However, it is important to state that many charity organizations work on causes that are equally sad or disturbing as ours. If a proposed technique proves to effective for one charity, it may not work for others.
A third possible limitation was the fact that we used one message to mimic the effects of slacktivism. Most research on slacktivism up until now has been based on several messages or assignments to participants. The use of a single message to demand two separate forms of behavior may have had a negative effect on our research. However, as our message did had a slacktivistic and non meaningful demand, possible differences in effect of single or multiple messages may be interesting direction for future research.
5.4 Implications for Practice
This research makes a number of contributions to the current search by charities for effective communication via social media. It was demonstrated that the technique of message framing could be used to increase the effectiveness of messages on increasing the low involved receivers’ intention to donate. In order to better their finances, charity organizations may use this knowledge when communicating with low involved audiences, for instance with those who do not directly follow their social media channels. This goal can be reached with
the use of paid advertising. As high-involved audiences reacted both to messages framed in a gain perspective and to message framed in a loss perspective, charities may use both type of messages in order to increase financial aid from these audiences. The second contribution is based on our findings on the effects of framing techniques on the likeliness of sharing. This study showed that audiences preferred to share content framed in a gain perspective. However, as there was no difference in intention to share found between the two messages, charities may conclude that framing techniques are only partially effective when it comes to increasing their reach. When a topic is perceived as negative either way, the effects of framing appear to diminish. This leads to the realization that when charities aim to communicate with new audiences via their followers, framing will only be effective if the message is perceived as positive overall.
This study did not lead to new insights on how to bypass the negative effects of slacktivism on subsequent donating behavior. But it did show that, theoretically, there are ways to reach this goal without decreasing the possibilities of reaching new audiences or risking the possibility to lose loyal followers altogether. More broadly speaking, this study may inspire charity organizations to continue their search for effective communication and to learn more about how audiences use social media. As financial aid continues to decrease, these findings may not only be crucial in order to solve the current dilemma of the cannibalizing effects of slacktivism, but may also be used to solve future issues that will rise with the continuous rise of our online presence.
6. Literature
Abelson, R. P. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook.
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Hawthorne, NY, US: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., & Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295-306.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning–Youth, identity, and digital media volume, 119-142.
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships.Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37-43.
Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: how motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(1), 1.
