How organizations use social media to engage stakeholders:
Cross-cultural analysis of the non-profit sector
Iria Sambruno García-11107200 Master Thesis
03-02-2017
Supervisor: Toni G.L.A. van der Meer
Master Communication Science: Corporate Communication Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam
Abstract
The expansion of social media as a public relations tool has greatly increased the interest in understanding factors that encourage stakeholder engagement with organizations. This study aims to examine, through content analysis, whether individualism and collectivism influence the strategies that non-profit organizations use in their Facebook posts (N=239). The research also explores whether these cultural differences affect the engagement behavior of users when they interact with these organizations by analyzing their comments on organizations´ posts (N=720). The findings show that informative strategies are still more prominent in both cultural contexts, despide the benefits that interactive strategies have for engagement. The findings also indicate the possible need to revise whether frameworks of national culture are still valid to study patterns of behaviors in the context of social media.
How organizations use social media to engage stakeholders: Cross-cultural analysis of the non-profit sector
Introduction
Stakeholder engagement has become a key concern in research and practice on strategic communication and, most notably, since the irruption of social media (Paek, Hove, Jung & Cole, 2013). Some of the advantages of this well-known concept include the establishment of mutual positive value between groups of interests, the ability to maintain these relationships within networks and the increase of commitment and trust (Knox & Gruar, 2007). The emergence and fast development of social media have shifted the nature of relationships in public relations, which are now viewed as more co-creational, where meaning is commonly created between organizations and their publics (Kennedy & Sommerfeldt, 2015). Therefore, within this multi-stakeholder co-creational context, opinions and behaviors from diverse multi-stakeholders have become crucial aspects in order to create and share meaning that influence long-term organizational interests (Vallaster & Von Wallpach, 2013).
Due to the increased popularity and diffusion, Social Media are now being widely used by organizations, which acknowledge the inherent interactive and communicative capacity of these media (Kim, Chun, Kwak, & Nam, 2014). In addition to the simplicity for organizations and users to create and share content, social media promote a network for communities of interests and enhance meaningful conversations (Hoffmann & Lutz, 2015). Furthermore, research on social media experienced a noticeable expansion, particularly aimed at
demonstrating how this tool cultivates relationships and foster dialogue with the public (Lee, 2014; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Notwithstanding, there is no lack of challenges on social media research. Critical voices have arisen questioning the interactive and dialogical “intrinsic” facet of this tool when, in fact, in many occasions empirical research has not been able to support the
dialogical function (Kennedy & Sommerfeldt, 2015). This fact encourages the present research to keep investigating on some aspects that may influence the strategic way in which social media are used. In other words, whether a more informative or interactive strategy is affected by, specifically, the cultural background of the country where social media are employed.
In particular, this study focuses on non-profit organizations due to it is a sector that has been incorporating communication and public relations strategies on the face of the many advantages it provides for organizational long-term goals (Josan, 2010; Waters & Lo, 2012). These organizations differ from for-profit organizations on the societal orientation they pursue, but they also face challenges such as the increase of competition, both from private companies and from other non-profits, and the lack of resources (Knox & Gruar, 2007). Thus, investigating their relationships with social media users will contribute to the literature and practice on
stakeholder engagement in this sector, taking into account that non-profit´s activities depend largely on the public support and engagement with collective issues (Maxwell & Carboni, 2016). Besides, as stated by Araujo and Neijens (2012), a comparative between non-profit organizations and corporations on the Fortune 500 ranking showed that the former were significantly more likely to use social media, which makes non-profit a sector of high relevance for the present study.
Moreover, Internet and social media exist and connect individuals globally. However, it has to be contemplated that culture influences attitudes and subjective norms, so that it may also influence communicative behavior through technology (Abbas & Mesch, 2015). Keeping this in mind, this research has the aim of broadening the angle of the study on social media and
stakeholder engagement by considering possible cultural differences. Culture, according to De Mooij and Hofstede (2010), may alter how variables of interest are interrelated. There are remarkable examples of cultural differences found in online communication and advertising.
These studies rely on frameworks of cultural variability highly accepted in social sciences, such as the Hofstede´s model or national culture or Hall´s typology of high-low context
communication. For instance, differences in the content and strategies of corporate websites have been found across the U.S.A, Spain and Japan (Okazaki & Alonso-Rivas, 2002); or in
advertising commercials across Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Argentina and Italy (Calabrese, Capece, Costa & Di Pillo, 2015), among others. These studies have pointed out the importance of considering culture as an important factor for implementing communication strategies by international companies. They have also contributed to the global-local dilemma in advertising, demonstrating that the adaptation of strategies is more effective (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010).
However, due to the fact that studies on social media engagement are just starting to emerge, only a few studies have investigated whether culture contributed to the implementation and the nature of different social media strategies adopted by organizations from different contexts; and whether these cultural differences are reflected in the public´s engagement
behavior on social media (Dolan, Conduit, Fahy & Goodman, 2016). Thus, given the scarcity of research on social media, this Master´s thesis has the aim of answering the following research question: how do non-profit organizations use social media strategies across cultures and how differently do users respond to these strategies in terms of engagement?
Before delving into the influence of culture in communication it is important to have a general overview of significant aspects such as: the relevance of stakeholder relationships for organizations, particularly, for non-profit organizations; the cultivation of relationships through social media and, ultimately, the concept of social media engagement behavior.
Theoretical framework
Undeniably, and according to Kennedy and Sommerfeldt (2015), the direction of public relations theory and research has experienced a change from the one-way communication model to the symmetrical two-way paradigm. This is because mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders have been proved more successful in public relations programmes, improving communication and the establishment of relationships (Grunig, 2009). These aspects benefit the long-term goals of organizations, which gain legitimacy and increase the potential to create innovative ideas to social problems (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans, 2010). These benefits are equally applied to the non-profit sector. Besides, non-profit organizations deal with a range of additional challenges such as the lack of reputation, misunderstanding of their activities and insufficient funds. Therefore, a well-design stakeholder strategy becomes a key activity to ensure the long-term support of these organizations (Josan, 2010; Carboni & Maxwell, 2015).
The spread of social media over the last decade has expanded the interest of researching the use of this tool in public relations. These media have been considered as an efficient tool that, used as part of a larger communication strategy, may reinforce stakeholder engagement
(Maxwell & Carboni, 2016). According to Grunig (2009), when social media are used in their full potential they facilitate more two-way interactive and dialogical public relations practices. Dialogic communication and relationship cultivation on social media
Kent and Taylor introduced in 1998 the theory of relationship cultivation with
stakeholders, in a context of expansion of the Internet and the World Wide Web and their use by organizations. This theory had its roots in Grunig´s two-way symmetrical communication model of public relations and placed dialog in the first place in the exercise of excellence public
relations (Kent & Taylor, 1998). The relationship cultivation theory has been amply used on public relations and social media research over the past decade and nowadays, dialog remains
viewed as the crucial piece in order to implement a total stakeholder approach (Buchanan-Oliver & Fitzgerald, 2016).
Three main strategies have been selected across the literature on relationship cultivation: disclosure, usefulness and interactivity. First, disclosure refers to the use of information to provide a transparent and direct description of the organization. Second, usefulness (information) is concerned with the needs and interests of publics when sharing information. Third,
interactivity (involvement) is fundamental to develop relationships with stakeholders (Waters,
Burnett, Lamm & Lucas 2008; Lee, 2014). Interactivity can be understood as “a process
involving users, media, and messages in which communication roles need to be interchangeable for full interactivity to occur” (Kelleher, 2009, p.174). Meanwhile, many of the studies that were carried out to investigate the dialogic use of social media demonstrated that organizations did not fully include the principles of relationship cultivation (Taylor, Kent & White, 2001; Ingenhoff & Koelling, 2009; Lee, 2014; Uzunoglu & kip, 2014), or were even far from accomplishing the dialogic ideal (Kim et al., 2014). However, as stated by Buchanan-Oliver & Fitzgerald (2016) there is still a necessity to develop a theoretical, contextual and strategic dialogic communication framework. This reason has encouraged this thesis to continue researching cultivation
relationships on social media in the attempt to explore how these strategies are used in countries that diverge culturally.
The adoption of social media by non-profit organizations. The incorporation and fast development of social media in our society have enormously helped non-profit organizations to raise awareness on issues around the world (Josan, 2010). Moreover, this tool has been
associated with the establishment of meaningful relationships with stakeholders such as
volunteers, donors, general public, regulators and the media (Lovejoy & Saxton , 2012), which are noted as the main stakeholders for these organizations in the context of social media
communication. Additionally, social media enable non-profit organizations to reach multiple stakeholders preventing the hefty costs of traditional media (Maxwell & Carboni, 2016).
However, Saxton and Guo (2014) state the necessity of using these media effectively in order to achieve long-term goals. The mere fact of updating a social media account with informative content does not guarantee stakeholder engagement, a mistake that many
organizations make (Maxwell & Carboni, 2016). In this context, it is important to consider that social media have shifted the dynamics and complexity of the relationships with publics. Bechmann and Lomborg (2012) highlighted the de-institutionalization of communication on social media. Users may be active audiences, participating in media content production and distribution by filtering, choosing, sharing and generating relevant information to them. Thus, the analysis of behavioral manifestations of engagement will offer more valuable information regarding users-organization relationships on social media contexts (Dolan et al., 2015).
Social media engagement behavior (SMEB). Dolan and colleagues (2015) offered a new definition of social media engagement consistent with the Uses and Gratifications approach but more appropriate for researching the user´s behaviors on social media. SMEG captures the valence of behavioral manifestations ranging from positive to negative engagement, without taking into account affective and cognitive elements. According to these authors, SMEB can be identified through the next activities: co-creation, positive contribution, consumption, dormancy, detachment, negative contribution and co-destruction. In line with these concepts, for the present study an adapted version of the SMEB construct is used in order to analyze the behaviors
manifested by users when they interact with non-profit organizations through social media. These behaviors are: co-creation and positive contribution (as favorable behaviors), negative
contribution and co-destruction (as unfavorable behaviors) and neutral comments, all of them
Table 1: Adaptation of Dolan et al.´s (2016) social media engagement behavior (SMEB) construct
SMEB Definition
Co-creation User develops a highly positive interaction behavior, sharing content and meaningful conversation
Positive contribution
User engages through a moderate positive behavior, which expresses a positive tendency towards the organization Information
seeking/ neutral
User manifests a neutral involvement or a need for solving doubts Negative
Contribution
User demonstrates a moderate negative behavior, which expresses a negative tendency towards the organization
Co-destruction User develops a highly negative interaction behavior, whereby the objective is to undermined organization´s reputation
Additionally, in order to further analyze this relationship, the potential effect of national culture is incorporated. It is commonly upheld by abundant of research that cultural differences may have effects on individuals (Choo, Thyroff, Rapert, Park, & Lee, 2013). For this reason, consultants support the establishment by organizations of a glocal strategy, which means to think globally in the context of advancing towards a global community while embracing local cultural differences in the strategies (Waters & Lo, 2012). Therefore, the thorough study of culture creates an added value to the understanding of usages, preferences, motives, attitudes and behaviors (De Mooij, 2015) and increases the likelihood to achieve an effective strategy and superior performance (Yaprak, 2008).
The role of culture moderating the relationship
Culture is defined as a collective meaning system that characterizes a society, where members of such society are influenced by similar values and life experiences (De Mooij, 2015). Culture shapes attitudes and norms which may, in turn, influence the ways of using information
and communication technology (Abbas & Mesch, 2015). For instance, differences were found in the use of Internet across the world; in particular, in the use and frequency, interactivity, type of information and type of contacts (Goodrich & De Mooij, 2014). Moreover, culture has been found to influence relationships of high relevance in marketing as the buyer-seller relationship comparing the United States and Latin American countries (Hewett, Money & Sharma, 2006). Henceforth, culture may give us insights about the establishment of relationships and dialogue between non-profit organizations and their publics. Culture is considered as moderator in the relationship between variables, which is represented in the following conceptual model:
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
As part of this approach, dimensional models of national culture have been considered in the literature as appropriate frameworks to explain and predict behavior on social media
(Goodrich & De Mooij, 2014). The Hofstede´s model has been extensively used due to the simplicity of the five dimensions (straightforward and appealing) and the large number of countries that support the empirical findings of this framework (Calabrese et al., 2015). It describes standards of conduct according to a set of dimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, indulgence/restraint and long-term/short term orientation (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010; Hofstede, 2016).
SM strategies: Informative
Interactive (involvement and dialogue) SMEB: Active- positive Active-negative National Culture: Individualistic Collectivistic Dialogue
Hypotheses development. This study focuses on individualism (IDV) and collectivism (COL) because these dimensions (together with power distance and uncertainty avoidance) are the ones that explain variance of communication styles (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). IDV cultures, as opposed to COL cultures, prioritize the needs, values and goals of individuals over the needs, values and goals of the in-group, which can be understood as “group of people about whose welfare one is concerned (…)” (Gudykunst, 1997, p.332). In COL cultures the identity of people is founded in the social system on which they take part (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010).
The first question of interest is whether cultural differences are reflected in the way organizations convey communicative strategies in SM. According to De Mooij and Hofstede (2010), persuasion and information are features more characteristic in IDV cultures. Conversely, building relationships and trust is very relevant for COL cultures, thus communicative decisions may be taken relying on feelings, context and trust (Calabrese et al., 2015). Thus, it is expected that these characteristics are also reflected in the way organizations use different social media strategies. In line with these ideas, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: There will be differences in the frequency of usage of the different SM strategies by non-profit organizations. Particularly, organizations from COL contexts are expected to use interactive and dialogic SM strategies to a higher extent, in contrast to a higher use of informative strategies by organizations from IDV contexts.
The next point of interest is whether cultural differences influence the relationship between social media strategies and user´s engagement behaviors. In IDV cultures electronic media could be used to search for information with the objective of increasing the personal utility, while in COL cultures it could be used to share ideas and opinions. It is documented that people in COL cultures experience a higher interpersonal communication than people in IDV cultures, but at the same time they maintain online conversation more often (Goodrich & De
Mooij, 2014). Besides, online conversations and relationships do not significantly vary with interpersonal communication (Choi, Kim, Sung, & Sohn, 2011). For these reasons, when it comes to user engagement behavior on social media, it is expected that COL cultures will easily engage in a higher co-creational behavior with organizations, compared with IDV cultures. At the same time, as a result of COL cultures being characterized by the maintenance of harmony even if disagreement exists, a higher negative behavior is expected on social media by IDV cultures. Whilst in COL cultures complains and showdowns are seen as threats that could weaken the group, IDV cultures see confrontation as a healthy element (Hofstede, 2011). Therefore next hypothesis is stated:
H2: National culture influences the relationship between organizations and users on social media in such a way that: users in COL cultures will show a higher positive and co-constructive engagement behavior when posts contain interactive elements than users in IDV cultures.
Finally, in addition to the effect of culture in interaction building between organizations and publics through social media, it is interesting to evaluate to what extent culture itself is embedded in organizational messages. The hypothetical support of this hypothesis would reinforce this view that culture is reflected in communication through social media, an idea that has not been substantially researched yet. First of all, in IDV cultures there is an emphasis on “I” consciousness, autonomy, emotional independence, defense for privacy and universalism; while in COL cultures people are “we” conscious, therefore remarking emotional dependence, group solidarity, group decision and sharing (Chen & West, 2008). These values may be reflected in organizations´ messages. Secondly, according to Imada (2012) there are cognitive tendencies associated with IDV and COL cultures such as the perspective of talking, success vs. failure outcome, causal attribution, visual attention and emotion. Hence, the next hypothesis is stated:
H3: It is expected that IDV values (e.g. independence, individuality and emphasis on attitudes) and cognitive tendencies (e.g. first person narrative, self-serving attribution for
success, individuality reflected in images and statements expressing positive emotions) are more present in posts from organizations in IDV cultures. Meanwhile, COL cultures are expected to show a higher presence of COL values (e.g. interdependence, group relations and emphasis on norms) and cognitive tendencies (e.g. third person narrative, greater self-critical attribution, group related images and more balanced positive and negative emotions) in social media posts.
Method Research design
Quantitative content analysis is the research design selected, as this study has an exploratory nature and, according to Waters, Tindall and Morton (2010) this technique is considered an adequate first step to understand a tendency. The aim of the study is to examine whether culture has an effect on social media strategies used by non-profit organizations and whether culture also influences users´ social media engagement behavior in their interactions with these organizations. Thus, it is interesting to capture actual interactions occurring on social media. Facebook is the social platform chosen for this study because it is the most popular and widely used social network, with more than 500 million users worldwide (Huang & Park, 2013) and employed more than Twitter and blogs (Maxwell & Carboni, 2016). Facebook has two main areas: profile page where organizations can present themselves and “status updates” where information can be posted and interaction with users has place (Caers et al., 2013).This social platform has the potential of sharing and receiving information in a public arena, which increase the communicative possibilities of these media (Livermore & Verbovaya, 2016).
Four countries are selected for this cross-cultural comparison: the United States and United Kingdom as references of individualistic national culture; Chile and Colombia as
references of collectivistic national culture (Hofstede, 2016). The exact value that these countries score in these dimensions is presented in Figure 2. Despite the other sets of Hofstede´s
dimensions are not examined in this study, the U.S.A and U.K. are examples of high masculinity, low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance indexes; whilst Chile and Colombia present high femininity, high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance (Guesalaga & Pitta, 2014; Hofstede, 2016). Additionally, these countries are chosen because the coder has knowledge in both languages, English and Spanish.
Figure 2: Individualism and Collectivism scores in the U.S.A., U.K., Chile and Colombia (Hofstede, 2016)
The sample is formed by four international NGOs that have an active Facebook account in each country of the sample (e.g. Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace Chile, Greenpeace Colombia), making a total of 16 international accounts. The other three
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individualism USA UK Chile Colombia
organizations are Red Cross, Amnesty International and UNICEF. The content of daily posts, information and layout in the profile differ, furthermore, Spanish is the language of Chilean and Colombian accounts. However, due to the fact that content analysis does not allow us to
determine the international strategic communication that these organizations implement, 16 accounts of local organizations from the U.S.A, U.K., Chile and Colombia are included in the sample, in order to control the international/local variable, to avoid making erroneous inferences. Names of the 32 accounts and number of Facebook likes and followers are presented in
Appendix A. As for the sample criteria, international organizations are selected from a list offered by Top Nonprofits. This source published a reliable ranking of non-profits based on seven measured criteria: “Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, Moz Page Rank (homepage), Moz Linking Root Domains, Alexa Rank, Google PageRank, and Charity Navigator Rating” (Top Nonprofits, 2016). Finally, local non-profits are chosen from the following websites: Charity Navigator (U.S.A.), Charity Choice (U.K.), Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos INDH (Chile) and Rendir Cuentas (Colombia). In the American and British websites, a search tool is used selecting “local”, “human rights” and “environmental” options, in order to equate the sample to the international organizations. For its part, Chilean and Colombian websites offer single lists of organizations, so that the four first organizations that meet the criteria in Facebook are added to the sample.
Organizations´ posts and users´ comments are the units of analysis. The data was collected in November 2016, from the 30th of November and backwards, taking the first
available post of each day, up to a total of ten posts per international account and five posts per local account, N= 239 (international N=161 and local N=78). Then, the ten last user´s comments of each post (selecting the option “recent comments” in the post) are also analyzed, N=720
(international N=701 and local N=19). Comments which have solely emoticons, friends tagged or which content is ambiguous are not taken into account.
Measures
Social media strategies. These strategies are conceptualized by the presence or absence of elements which refer to information and involvement, thus, this variable has a categorical level of measurement. The items used in this thesis proceed from the combination of those used on previous studies: Men and Tsai (2012), Waters et al. (2009) and Kim et al. (2014).
Information is formed by eight items, e.g.: “does the post include news links?” Other informative
elements are: announcements (press releases), campaign summaries and information of how to become affiliate. Interactivity concerns ten items, e.g.: does the post include a statement inviting user to like or share? Other interactive items are: posting new issue for discussion, volunteer opportunities, live chat and response to user comment, between others. Finally, a last item with three categories (informative, interactive or both) determines the general character of the post. (N=239; Informative, 58%; Interactive, 20%; and both, 52%).
Social media engagement behavior (SMEB). SMEB is operationalized with an adaptation of the scale created by Dolan et al. (2016). This construct allows obtaining the positive and negative user interaction on social media. For the present study only the active behavior is taken into account due to the inability of the content analysis method to provide information regarding passive behavior. Each user´s comment (up to ten comments) is measured in a five-point Likert scale, ranking from co-destruction to co-construction. Some examples of these categories are: Negative co-destruction, e.g., publishing a negative organization/related blog. Negative contribution, e.g., conversing negatively on organization-related content. Neutral
or information seeking, e.g., making questions regarding issues that concern the post or the
e.g., uploading organization/content-related article. Finally, the ten comments of each post are computed into a new variable with the mean of them, creating an interval variable for the subsequent analysis (N= 120, M= 3.71, SD= 0.87).
Individualism and collectivisms. In addition to the item that determines whether the units of analysis proceeds from an IDV or COL country, a series of items examine the IND or COL values and cognitive tendencies are embedded in each organization´s post. Cultural values are conceptualized using and adaptation of Saad, Cleveland and Ho, 2015 and Triandis and Gelfand, (1998). The variable consists of four items with a nominal level of measurement, e.g. “does the content of the post reflect independence, interdependence, both or none of them?” Other two items are for instance, individuality or group relations and reliance on attitudes or norms. These four items are computed on dummy variables for one of the statistical analyses (N= 220, Mo=1, IDV). Regarding cognitive tendencies associated to IDV and COL cultures, Imada´s (2012) six items are used to reflect these domains. Two examples of items are: success vs. failure (1 success/ 2 Failure/ 3 Both/ 4 Neither); attribution of outcome (1 Internal/ 2
External/ 3 Both/ 4 Neither). These items are also computed on dummy variables in order to perform one of the analyses (N= 215, Mo=1, IDV).
Analyses and intracoder reliability
To test hypothesis one and hypothesis three, bivariate analyses were used. These tests determined through a X2 whether there was a relationship between the strategies used by organizations and the countries characterized by having IDV or COL national culture. In the same direction, the analyses stated whether IDV and COL values and cognitive tendencies were related to these IDV and COL countries of the sample. Finally, to test hypothesis two and the effect of culture in the relationship between social media strategies and users´ engagement, a two-factor ANOVA was conducted.
Due to the fact that the coding was carried out by a single coder, the intracoder reliability was assessed in order to determine whether the codebook, which can be found in Appendix B, was correctly understood. A 10% (N=24) of the sample were coded after finalizing the first coding of 239 posts. The results shown in table 2 indicate that a consistent coding occurred. The results indicate the Krippendoff´s Alpha of all variables, 0.84.
Table 2: Intracoder reliability scores
Variable Percentage of agreement Krippendoff´s Alpha
Informative SM strategies 97.29 0.91
Interactive SM strategies 97.94 0.81
SM strategy used in general in the post 82.6 0.74 IDV/COL values 92.43 0.88 IDV/COL cognitive tendencies 94.82 0.82 SMEB -- 0.65 Results
The first hypothesis stated that organizations from IDV contexts would be more likely to use informative strategies than organizations from COL context; likewise, organizations from COL contexts would be more likely to use interactive strategies than organizations from IDV contexts. The results for the bivariate analysis between the strategies used by companies (informative, interactive and both) and individualistic and collectivistic countries showed that, overall, informative strategies are the most used by all the organizations, without significant differences between them (N= 239, X2= 3.37, p= .119). Therefore, hypothesis one cannot be supported. Subsequently, the analysis was run separately for international and local
organizations. International organizations did not present significant results, which showed that these organizations followed mainly informative strategies (N= 161, X2= .34, p= .843). On the
contrary, significant results were found in local organizations, but in the opposite direction that expected, since practically all the posts shared by organizations in collectivistic cultures were informative (N= 78, X2= 11.25, p= .004; V= .38, p= .004). Next table 3 presents the usage of social media strategies both by international and local organizations:
Table 3: Usage of social media strategies by organizations SM Strategies International
N= 161
Local N= 78
IDV COL IDV COL
Informative 43 (54%) 43 (53%) 20 (51%) 33 (85%) Interactive 20 (25%) 18 (22%) 9 (23%) 1 (3%) Both 17 (21%) 20 (25%) 10 (26%) 5 (13%)
Furthermore, bivariate analyses between each informative and interactive strategy and IDV and COL cultures were conducted in order to have an overview of the specific strategies used by the organizations studied. Regarding informative strategies, the presentation of
upcoming events was the only one that showed a significant difference between IND and COL countries, 32% and 68 % respectively (X2= 3.95, p= .047; V= .10, p= .047). Concerning
interactive strategies, three out of eleven strategies showed significant differences. First of all, in line with the expectations, COL countries encouraged users to share, like or tag friends in a greater extent than IDV countries, 81 % and 19 % respectively (X2= 8.7, p= .003; V= .19, p= .003). Secondly and contrary on the expectations, organizations in IDV countries displayed “take action” opportunities and replies to user´s comments (63% and 69%) more often than
organizations in COL countries (37% and 31 %). In addition, it is interesting to highlight that COL posts revealed a higher appearance of issues for discussion, 71 % compared to 29 % in IDV posts. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Next tables show the incidence of social media strategies in posts from IDV and COL cultural contexts:
Table 4: Incidence of informative social media strategies on organizations´ posts (N=239)
SM Strategies Culture X2 V
Informative IDV COL
Organization´ mission, declaration, opinion 40 (45%) 49 (55%) 1.33 .08 International day 8 (62%) 5 (39%) .76 .06 News link 21 (62%) 13 (38%) 2.27 .10 Announcement 34 (44%) 44 (56%) 1.78 .09 Campaign summary or related information 25 (58%) 18 (42%) 1.46 .08 Upcoming event 9 (32%) 19 (68%) 3.95* .13* Photo/video/audio 35 (43%) 47 (57%) 2.52 .10 Information of how to become affiliate 0 2 2 .09 *= p< .05
Table 5: Incidence of interactive social media strategies on organizations´ posts (N=239)
SM Strategies Culture X2 V
Invteractive IDV COL
Invitation to contact the organization offering contacts
1 (33) 2 (67) .34 .34
Statement inviting to return 14 (48%) 15 (52%) .03 .01 Statement inviting to like,
share or tag friends
4 (19%) 17 (81%) 8.70* .19* Message of gratitude to
volunteers, members or society
13 (62%) 8 (38%) 1.35 .08
Posting issue for discussion 4 (29%) 10 (71%) 2.68 .11 Volunteer opportunities,
“take action”
31 (63%) 18 (37%) 4.47* .14*
Survey to voice opinion 1 0 1.01 .14
Opportunity to vote on issues
3 0 3.06 .11
interactive content
Live chat 1 (33%) 2 (67%) .33 .04
Response to user´ comment 18 (69%) 8 (31%) 4.51* .14* *= p< .05
Moving forward, the second hypothesis tested whether cultural differences influenced the relationship between SM strategies and SMEB. It claimed that users from COL cultures would reflect a higher positive and co-constructive SMEB than IDV cultures; meanwhile, users from IDV cultures would reflect negative SMEB and information seeking to a larger extent than users from COL cultures . A two-factor analysis of variance was carried out to assess the influence of social media strategies on social media engagement behavior, in conjunction with the effect of national culture. There was not a significant moderate effect between the type of strategy and the IDV and COL countries analyzed, F (5,114) = .36, p> .05. The test did not find a significant main effect of national culture on SMEB, F (1, 114) = .02, p> .05, and nor did it find a
significant main effect of social media strategies, F (2, 114) = .41, p> .05, indicating that there are not differences of SMEB for individualistic and collectivistic countries, hence, rejecting hypotheses two. Additionally, it was interesting to assess the influence of social media strategies and national culture on user engagement in terms of amount of likes, shares and comments found in posts.
Table 6: Influence on SMEB
n M SD Culture IDV 80 2.87 .13 COL 81 2.00 .13 SM Strategies Informative 86 2.07 .12 Interactive 38 2.61 .18 Both 37 2.63 .18
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p 2 National Culture 25.78 1 25.78 21.33 .000 .12 SM strategies 12.03 2 6.02 4.98 .008 .06 Culture * Strategies 1.26 2 .63 .52 .596 .007 Error 187.34 155 1.21 Total 1104.44 161 N=161
Results from a two-factor analysis of variance determined that there was not an interaction effect between social media strategies and national culture of organizations.
However, it was found a significant but weak effect of national culture; and a significant but very weak effect of social media strategies among user engagement. A post-hoc test indicated that the difference found was that between informative and interactive strategies (Mdifference= -.56,
p=.010) and between informative and “both” strategies (Mdifference= -.52, p= .016). It should be
noted that the assumptions of equal variances has been violated, Levene´s F (5,155) =, p= .000. For this reason, a Games-Howell post-hoc test was conducted in a one-way ANOVA between social media strategies and user engagement. The result showed that these differences between social media strategies were not statistically significant.
Further, four linear regressions were conducted to assess whether values and cognitive tendencies related to IDV and COL cultures were related to SMEB and engagement (likes, shares and comments). First of all, the regression models using SMEB as dependent variable were not significant: when IDV/COL values were used as independent variables, F (2, 111) = 2.08, p> .05; and when IDV/COL cognitive tendencies were used as independent variables, F (2, 111) = 2.07, p> .05. Similarly, these independent values did not predict the level of engagement (in terms of likes, shares and number of comments): F (2, 160) = 1.11, p> .05 (values) and F (2, 160) = 0.26, p> .05 (cognitive tendencies).
Finally, hypothesis three expected to find more present IDV values and cognitive tendencies in posts shared by organizations in IDV cultures; and to find reflected a higher incidence of COL values and cognitive tendencies in posts conveyed by organizations in COL cultures. This hypothesis was aimed to explore whether culture itself is integrated in the content of the messages. On the whole, most of the results of the bivariate analysis between values and countries were not significant. The four countries investigated scored higher in interdependence, group achievements, attribution of success to internal factors, attribution of failure to external factors. Next table shows an overview of the significant findings concerning exchange of
relationships (X2= 7.02, p= .008; V= .19, p= .008) and picture content (X2= 7.00, p= .008; V= .27,
p= .008). Notwithstanding, only two variables support the expectations stated by the hypothesis,
as it is shown in table 8; therefore, hypothesis three has to be rejected.
Table 8: Values and cognitive tendencies associated to individualistic and collectivistic cultures
Culture Values and cognitive
tendencies
IDV COL
Exchange of relationships Individuality 65 (66%)
46 (47%) Group relationships 34
(34%)
52 (53%) Picture Content No people or one
person
34 (69%)
21 (43%) More than 2 people 15
(31%)
28 (57%)
Discussion
This study gives insights on how non-profit organizations use social media strategies to engage with the public. The study takes into account cultural differences, in particular
through social media. Overall, and in accordance with other studies on social media,
organizations do not fully use the interactive possibilities offered by these social networks (Lee, 2014; Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Waters et al., 2009; Kennedy & Sommerfeldt 2015). Results from this study denote how the majority of messages conveyed by organizations have an informative nature, so that, the two-way “intrinsic” character of social media is again not demonstrated. This fact reinforces theories that connect interactivity as a characteristic of the process of communication more than a technological feature of the medium (Ariel & Avidar, 2015).
Call to action (“take-action”) is the most frequent interactive strategy used by non-profits, especially in individualistic contexts. This strategy engages users making them take part of a specific cause by signing a petition. The reason why this strategy is quite popular is that it does not necessarily imply dialogue and community building, but it is more centered on
organizations´ cause promotion and mobilization (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Additionally, findings show that the use of strategies that lead to a genuine dialogue is considerably low in both individualistic and collectivistic contexts, which indicates that cultural differences do not have an influence on them. Some of these strategies are live chats, posting issues for discussions or replies to user comments. This observation is in line with Kennedy and Sommerfeldt´s (2015) criticism to the majority of social media research. These authors argue that social media research anticipate the presence of dialogue when, in fact, real dialogue is undermined due to the potential unpredictable results that it entails.
Moving forward, the results of this study also suggest that, on average, users´ comments tend to be slightly more positive when posts contain some interactive element from organizations with collectivistic cultures; meanwhile organizations with individualistic cultures do not present differences in the type of behavior. Additionally, the number of likes and shares (as signs of user
engagement) is higher when interactive strategies are present, both in individualistic and collectivistic contexts. These results must be interpreted with caution because they were not significant. However, two conclusions could still be drawn from them.
On the one hand, the difficulties to prove statistically significant differences are consistent with the idea that Internet and social media may be gradually shifting cultural differences (Waters & Lo, 2012). This perspective is held by an area of research called Intercultural New Media Studies (INMS). Its aim is to investigate how information and communication technologies have influenced communication across cultures, “as well as hybridized cultures that have developed transnationally due to migration, diaspora, and time and space reconfigurations in a digital age” (Shuter, 2012, p.220). Within this perspective, social media are influencing the co-construction of a new social system in which interactions between people from different cultural contexts are shifting previous systems (McEwan & Sobre-Denton, 2011). The findings regarding cultural values and cognitive tendencies tied to individualism and collectivism are not able to prove patterns of use in any of the contexts. Only organizations from collectivistic contexts show a higher frequency of group relations both in texts and pictures, compared with a higher individuality by organizations from individualistic contexts. But these aspects are not sufficient in order to draw conclusions on cultural differences.
On the other hand, despite being non-significant, the findings related to user engagement appear to show the directions expected in the hypotheses. This may indicate that an improved sample with a greater number of organizations and posts per organization could offer more insights regarding the apparent greater effect of interactive elements on the positivity of user´s comments. Additionally, engagement seems to be slightly lower in collectivistic cultural backgrounds for any of the social media strategies followed by organizations (informative or interactive). This is consistent with Goodrich and De Mooij (2014) study, which states that
collectivistic and high power distant societies (as Chile and Colombia in this study) rely more on personal contacts to gather information and exchange opinions; while individualistic and low power distant societies search information more actively on social media. Finally, the tendency of engagement to be higher in both cultural contexts when organizations´ posts contain
interactive strategies is not surprising considering findings of previous research in this area. Some of the studies have demonstrated that interactivity on social media have a positive influence on the relationship between organizations and consumers, attitudes, credibility and perception of reputation towards companies (Dijkmans et al., 2015).
Limitations
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First of all, only individualism and collectivism from Hofstede´s framework of cultural variability are compared when there are five other sets of dimensions. Secondly, this study follows De Mooij and
Hofstede (2010) recommendation of adding at least three countries in cross-cultural research; besides, it includes international and local organizations. However, these facts have contributed to have a small sample size considering the short period of time to conduct the study. In addition, local organizations had practically no users´ comments, a fact that decreased the amount of valid units to conduct the analyses where user engagement was the dependent variable. Third,
frameworks of cultural differences may not be the most appropriate models to explore whether culture influences communication on social networks. More research is needed in this regard. Furthermore, Hofstede´s dimensions were initially operationalized for survey design. When items are adapted to content analysis there is a threat of misconstruing the instrument and results can be conceptually different (De Mooij, 2015). Finally, the research design does not make it possible to include other influential variables, such as passive social media engagement behavior (Dolan et al., 2015); and the influence of familiarity with social networks to have an active
behavior with these organizations, as suggested by Paek, Hove, Jung and Cole (2013).
Employing an experimental or survey design is highly recommended for further research in the area. International organizations usually encourage multicultural working environments, which makes it important to control these variables.
Conclusions and future directions
This research explores the use of communication strategies by non-profit organizations on social media from a cross-cultural perspective. It provides some insights on the dominance of information over involvement on social media messages and it suggests that the presence of interactive elements may influence user engagement in these social networks. The research also challenges the use of frameworks of national culture to investigate organization-user
relationships through these media, in the light of the results that show similar patterns in individualistic and collectivistic contexts.
Future study should examine whether social media is actually shifting cultures and, in turn, examine whether frameworks of cultural variability are useful to explain communication patterns on social media. Suther (2012) noted an uncertainty regarding the co-creation of cultural identities considering that “the West” dominates many aspects of the online sphere, so that, there is not a balance on cultural influences. Literature on online intercultural communication is scarce according to this author and it would be an interesting subject for a future study. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the underlying values that clarify motives of acting on social media when interacting with non-profit organizations across cultures. Finally, following Ariel and Avidar´s (2015) suggestions, further research could focus on how different levels of interactivity, in combination with information and sociability, affect individuals from different background by setting an experimental design.
References
Abbas, R. & Mesch, G.S. (2015). Cultural values and Facebook use among Palestinian youth in Israel. Computers in Human Behavior 48, 644–653.
Araujo, T. & Neijens, P. (2012) Friend me: which factors influence top global brands participation in social network sites. Internet Research, 22 (5), 626–640.
Ariel, Y. & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, interactivity, and social media. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23, 19–30.
Bechmann, A. & Lomborg, S. (2012). Mapping actor roles in social media: different perspectives of user participation. New Media & Society 15(5), 765–781. Bortree, D.S. & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: an analysis of
environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review 35, 317-319.
Bowen, F. Newenham-Kahindi, A. & Herremans, I (2010).When suits meet roots: the
antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business
Ethics 95, 297–318.
Buchanan-Oliver, M. & Fitzgerald, E. M. (2016). Industry and agency views of social media: issues implementing dialogic communication. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 22 (4), 437-454.
Caers, R., De Feyter, T., De Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C. & Du Bois, C. (2013). Facebook: a literature review. New Media & Society 15(6) 982–1002.
Calabrese, A. Capece, G. Costa, R. & Di Pillo, F. (2015). Global market and commercials. Understanding cultural diversities. Knowledge and Process Management, 22 (3), 167-179.
Carboni, J.L. & Maxwell, S.P. (2015). Effective social media engagement for nonprofits: what matters? Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 1(1), 18-28.
Charity Choice (n.d.). The Premier Guide and List of Charities in the UK. Retrieved from http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/charities
Charity Navigator (n.d.). Retrieved from Charity Navigator website
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.results&cgid=4
Chen, F.F. & West, S. G. (2008). Measuring individualism and collectivism: the importance of considering differential components, reference groups, and measurement invariance.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 259–294.
Choi, S. M., Kim, Y., Sung, Y. & Sohn, D. (2011). Bridging or bonding? Information,
Communication & Society, 14(1), 107-129.
Choo, Y-C., Thyroff, A. Rapert, M.I., Park, S.-Y. & Lee, H.J. (2013). To be or not to be green: exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior.
Journal of Business Research, 66, 1052–1059.
De Mooij, M. (2015). Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the confusion. International Marketing Review, 32 (6), 646 – 662.
De Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. Intemational Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 85-110. Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan-Tetik, A. & Beukeboom, C.J. (2015).Online
conversational and corporate reputation: a two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of exposure to the social media activities of a highly interactive company. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 632–648.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J. & Goodman, S. (2016) Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24 (3-4), 261-277.
Guesalaga, R. & Pitta, D. (2014). The importance and formalization of service quality
dimensions: a comparison of Chile and the USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(2), 145-151.
Goodrich, K & de Mooij, M. (2014). How ‘social’ are social media? A cross-cultural comparison of online and offline purchase decision influences. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20 (1-2), 103-116.
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalization. PRism,
6(2), 1-19.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication. An introduction.
Communication Research 24 (4), 327-348.
Hewett, K., Money, R.B. & Sharma, S (2006). National culture and industrial buyer-seller relationships in the United States and Latin America. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34 (3), 386-402.
Hoffmann, C. P. & Lutz, C. (2015). The impact of online media on stakeholder engagement and the governance of corporations. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2), 163–174.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), 1-26.
Hofstede, G. (n.d.). National Culture. Retrieved from Geert Hofstede website https://geert-hofstede.com/
Huang, C-M. & Park, D. (2013). Cultural influences on Facebook photographs. International
Journal of Psychology, 48 (3), 334-343.
Imada, T (2012). Cultural narratives of individualism and collectivism: a content analysis of textbook stories in the united states and japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Ingenhoff, D. & Koelling, A.M. (2009). The potential of Web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relations Review, 35, 66–73.
Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (n.d.). Registro de organizaciones. Retrieved from http://www.indh.cl/registro-de-organizaciones
Josan, I.J. (2010). Strategies and techniques of communication and public relations applied to non-profit sector. Leadership, Mentoring, Coaching and Motivation, 11, 79-91. Kennedy, A. K. & Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2015). A postmodern turn for social media research:
theory and research directions for public relations scholarship. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23 (1), 31-45.
Kent, M.L. & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web.
Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communications, 59, 172-188. Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y. & Nam, Y. (2014). The employment of dialogic principles in
website, Facebook, and Twitter platforms of environmental nonprofit organizations.
Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 590-605.
Knox, S. & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics 75, 115– 135.
Lee, S.T. (2014). A user approach to dialogic theory in a Facebook campaign on love and marriage. Media, Culture & Society, 36(4), 437–455.
Livermore, M. & Verbovaya, O. (2016). Doing collaboration: how organizations use Facebook to foster collaboration. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(5), 553-571.
Lovejoy, K. & Saxton, G.D. (2012). Information, community and action: how nonprofit
organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337– 353.
Maxwell, S.P. & Carboni, J.L. (2016). Social media management. Exploring Facebook engagement among high-asset foundations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
27(2), 251-260.
McEwan, B. & Sobre-Denton, M. (2011). Virtual cosmopolitanism: constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital through social media. Journal of International
and Intercultural Communication 4 (4), 252 258.
Men, L.R. & Tsai, W-H. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review, 38, 723-730.
Okazaki, S. & Alonso-Rivas, J. (2002). A content analysis of multinationals. Web
communication strategies: cross-cultural research framework and pre-testing. Internet
Research, 12(5), 380–390.
Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jung, Y. & Cole, R.T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: an exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review 39, 526–533.
Rendir Cuentas (n.d.). Ong que trabajan a nivel nacional en Colombia. Retrieved from http://rendircuentas.org/2011/01/colombia_nac2/
Saad, G., Cleveland, M. & Ho, L. (2015). Individualism– collectivism and the quantity versus quality dimensions of individual and group creative performance. Journal of Business
Saxton, G. & Guo, C. (2014). Online stakeholder targeting and the acquisition of social media capital. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 19, 286–300. Shuter, R. (2012) Intercultural new media studies: the next frontier in intercultural
communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(3), 219-237. Taylor, M., Kent, M.L. & White, W.J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet
to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27, 263–284.
Top Nonprotifs (2016). Top 100 nonprofits on the Web. Retrieved from Top Nonprotifs website https://topnonprofits.com/lists/best-nonprofits-on-the-web/
Triandis, H.C. & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psichology, 74(1), 118-128.
Uzunoglu, E. & Kip, S.M. (2014). Building relationships through websites: A content analysis of Turkish environmental non-profit organizations’ (NPO) websites. Public Relations
Review, 40, 113–115.
Vallaster, C. & Von Wallpach S. (2013). An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1505– 1515.
Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review,
35, 102-106.
Waters, R.D. & Lo, K.D. (2012). Exploring the impact of culture in the social media sphere: a content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ use of Facebook. Journal of Intercultural
Waters, R.D., Tindall, N.T.J. & Morton, T. S. (2010). Media catching and the journalist–public relations practitioner relationship: how social media are changing the practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22 (3), 241-264.
Yaprak, A. (2008). Culture study in international marketing: a critical review and suggestions for future research. International Marketing Review, 25 (2), 215 – 229.
Appendix A List of organizations
International Facebook Likes Facebook Followers
Greenpeace USA 587,000 564,000
Greenpeace UK 592,000 --
Greenpeace Chile 642,000 627,000
Greenpeace Colombia 538,000 --
American Red Cross 774,000 722,000
British Red Cross 247,000 --
Cruz Roja Chilena 15,000 15,000
Cruz Roja Colombiana 37,000 37,000
Amnesty International USA 855,000 --
Amnesty International UK 348,000 334,000
Amnistía Internacional Chile 49,000 48,000
Amnistía Internacional Colombia 5,000 5,000
Unicef USA 669,000 --
Unicef UK 294,000 286,000
Unicef Chile 44,000 43,000
Unicef Colombia 105,000 103,000
Local Facebook Likes Facebook Followers
Southern Environment Law Center (USA)
25,000 25,000
Alliance for the Great Lakes (USA) 12,000 11,000
Chicago Foundation for Women (USA) 5,600 5,500
Barnabas Center (USA) 700 700
Rainforest Concern (UK) 1,500 1,500
London Wildlife Trust (UK) 5,000 4,500
Migrant Voice (UK) 2,600 2,500
SARSA Support (UK) 700 700
Codeff Chile 14,000 14,000
Corporación Opción 2,600 2,500
Fundación Casa de la Paz Chile 4,000 4,000
Serpaj Chile 7,500 7,000
Corporación de Investigación y Acción Social y Económica - CIASE
1,000 1,000
COrporación PBA 800 800
Somo Más 2,600 2,500
Appendix B Codebook [General information] Q1 Organization name __ Q2 Post number Nº __ NA Q3 Date of post 30 to 21 Nov. 20 to 11 Nov. 10 to 1 Nov.. Before Nov Q4 Time of post 1 Morning 2 Afternoon 3 Evening 4 Night Q5 Type of organization 1 International 2 Local Q6 Country 1 U.S.A. 2 U.K. 3 Chile 4 Colombia
Q7 IDV or COL country
IDV COL
Q8 Number of likes of the account
Less 1000 1001 to 5000 5001 to 10000 10001 to 100000 More than 100001
Q9 Number of followers of the account
Less 1000 1001 to 5000 5001 to 10000 10001 to 100000
More than 100001
[Next questions are related to the organization´s SM strategies in posts] (Men. & Tsai, 2012; Waters et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2014)
Instructions: CODING A POST, select the presence or absence of all the elements within information and involvement. Take into account the text written by the organization and the type or component added to the post (link, photo, video, etc.).
Q10 Informative
Q10. 1Statement reflecting organization´s mission, declaration, opinion…
E.g. “Don’t buy it if you don´t need it” or “we are the generation that ends fossil fuels” (together with informative content are statements reflecting mission).
Q10. 2 Mention to an international day of …
Q10. 3 News Links (links to newspapers, blogs, other websites whose authors are not from de organization)
Q10. 4 Announcements (News or informative content whose authors come from the organization. Link can be derived from the website or any other source of the organization. If there is not a link is considered more like Q101. But sometimes when it is usual to find press releases and information related to specific past events. This information does not reflect opinion or mission in the way Q10.1 is considered, so it is Q10.4.Interview coming from another source but made to someone from the organization is here Q10.4
E.g. Claudia le pide a Juan Carrasco, alcalde de la comuna de Quilicura, un programa serio de reciclaje. Está convencida de que merecen una comuna limpia.
Si estás de acuerdo, firma la petición de Hagamos Eco y colabora E.g. Finding safe places for children to play in #Syria is difficult, especially in a besieged rural town in #Damascus. Which is why some volunteers have created an underground playground called "The Land Of Childhood".
Q10. 5 Campaign summaries or campaign related information. (It refers to a specific campaign or cause the organization is working on. A single day action does not count here
E.g. Greenpeace ship arrives to UK to do something related to the tuna campaign. It does not mention it is a campaign but it is clear it is part of a campaign.
E.g. Red Cross in Aleppo is a cause in which the organization is working on.
Q10. 6 Information or remainder of an upcoming event where the organization is the protagonist or participant (A conference is included here. It has to be a specific event)
Q10. 7 Photo, video, audio posted with informative content. (Select this also even though the organization has commented something else in the post)
Q10 8 Information of how to become affiliate Q11 Involvement
Q11. 1 Invitation to contact the organization offering organizational contacts Q11. 2 Statement inviting user to return to the Facebook page (Link to another Facebook page related to a campaign/activity/another organization is included here)
Q11. 3 Statement inviting user to like, share or tag friends Q11. 4 Message of gratitude to volunteers, members or citizens
Q11. 5 Posting issue for discussion. (Questions inviting users to participate in the conversation have to be present)
Q11. 6 Volunteer opportunities “take action”. Participate in donation,
demonstration, event, competition… (Note for Q12, Sometimes this take actions posts are accompanied with extent information that makes the post also an announcement, so that “both: informative and involvement”).
Q11. 7 Survey to voice opinion on issues Q11. 8 Opportunity to vote (poll) on issues
Q11. 9 Audio, video or photo with involvement content Q11. 10 Reply to user comment
Q11. 11 Live chat
Q12 In general terms, which SM strategy does the post use?
[Ne xt item s are relat ed to indi vidu alis m/c
ollectivism values reflected in organizations´ posts]
1 Informative This option is considered when the post is mainly informative, without any sign of involvement or
dialogue. Also just a “share it” at the end (so it is obvious the informative intention).
2 Involvement When the post includes any of the involvement elements, but it has to be clear that the main objective is to involve users.
3 Both Both strategies are equally present in the post.
The post is informative but the organization makes efforts to reply user´s comments. (If there are many comments and the organization only replies one, and the content of the post is informative, then select 1)
(Saad et al., 2015; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998)
Focus on the content of the unit analyzed and select in the 4 items the option that suits better. Q13.1 Self conception
1 Independence (the self is seen with an independent view)
Emphasis on the individual or organization as autonomous
Individuals´ acts are important to remark
Emphasis on the set of qualities of the organization
Emphasis on self-development
Focus on organization objectives
Story about volunteers remarking the self is independence. But if the story remarks the importance of collaboration is more interdependence. If it is not clear the distinction because both seem to be plausible, then select 3
2 Interdependence (the self cannot be
separated from the others and the surrounding social context)
Emphasis on the group thoughts, feelings, actions. These elements determine organization´s activities.
Collaboration, community and group support
Emphasis on group-development
3 Both
4 None of them
Q13.2 Exchange and relationships
1 Individuality Emphasis on competitiveness, self-confidence, freedom, curiosity, originality
Personal initiative, task achievement, leadership, self-control often to the detriment of relationships
2 Group relations Emphasis on communal feelings, social usefulness
Sense of belonging, friendship or affection
Mention any other organization because the same values are shared
Harmonious relationships might be deleterious to task accomplishment
3 Both
4 None of them
Q13.3 Goals and achievements
achievement pleasure, financial security
Emphasis on ambition, success, being influential, courage and bravery
Social recognition, public image 2 Group achievements
(the organization achieves something thanks to the common effort)
Group decisions putting faith in: expertise, order, duty, security provided by the organization.
Happiness in making others happy
Helpfulness to others, group integrity or well-being
Enjoying success with the group
3 Both
4 None of them
Q13.4 Relative importance on attitudes or norms
1 Importance on attitudes
Self-consciousness, self- actualization.
Right to private life, encouragement to express private opinions
Aggressiveness, calling for “fight”
E.g. “Brazil says NO to dirty coal industry” (this kind of decisions that seem to be individual decision from an organization, individual or institution following attitudes)
2 Importance on norms
Group decisions, references to harmony with others, respect for tradition, adjustment, moderation
E.g. La Campaña "Un símbolo de Esperanza para la Humanidad" que busca promover el buen uso y respeto de nuestro emblema.
3 Both
4 None of them
The following questions are related to cognitive tendencies associated to individualism and collectivism. Select the answer that suits better. (Imada, 2012).
Q14.1 Narrator of the story 1 First person narrative 2 Third person narrative
3 NA
Q14.2 Mention of Success vs. failure 1 Only success
together 3 Neither
Q14.3 Attribution of outcome or success 1 Internal (own effort/personality) 2 External (other people/situation)
3 Both
4 Neither
Q14.4 Attribution of failure
1 External (other people/personality) 2 Internal (own effort/situation)
3 Both
4 Neither Q14.5 Picture contents
1 No people or one person 2 Two or more than two people
3 NA Q14.6 Emotional words/phrases 1 Positive 2 Negative 3 Neutral 4 NA
[Next items are related to SMEB (Social Media Engagement Behavior)] (Only users’ comments)
(Scale based on: Dolan et al., 2016) Active behavior
Q15 Select the option that suits better (10 items with the same question to compute the mean of them in a new variable that is “SMEB”)
0 Co-destruction Writing complaints, reviews or testimonials about a specific issue in relation to the organization
Link to adverse social media pages for fellow community members to join, e.g. ‘I hate Apple Facebook Page’
