The Effects Of Interactivity Of An Organization’s Facebook Page On The Public’s Perception Of The Organization.
A Multiple Mediation Model
J. Zijlstra, BSc.
Master Track: Corporate Communication Student number: 10811095
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. R. Kühne
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of the interactivity of organizational Facebook pages on the public’s attitude towards that organization. Recent studies investigated the importance of interactivity for organizations. However, studies focusing on the public’s perception of
organization’s interactivity are scarce. An experiment is conducted to investigate the effects of responsiveness and direct addressing on attitude and whether or not these effects were mediated by credibility, control mutuality, perceived trust or perceived openness. The results showed no significant effects of the interactivity on attitude. Furthermore, the results showed a significant indirect effect of interactivity on attitude mediated by control mutuality. The relevance and implications of these findings are discussed
Keywords: Interactivity, Facebook page, attitude, control mutuality, credibility, trust, perceived openness.
The Effects Of Interactivity Of An Organization’s Facebook Page On The Public’s Perception Of The Organization.
A Multiple Mediation Model
This study explores the effect of interactivity of organizations on their Facebook page on the public’s attitude towards the organization. It is relevant to gain insight in this relationship and the context of this relationship for today’s organizations, because they are dependent on the legitimization by their publics (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011). This means, organizations are able to develop justifications of their social position by engaging and interacting vis-à-vis a public audience. Therefore organizations are dependent on their public to claim a certain position. They create and maintain these justifications by engaging in public relations (PR) (Patriotta et al., 2011; Berger & Reber, 2013).
Especially in today’s online world, organizations are expected to interact with the public to create relationships with them (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). In these interactions the public has gained more power and influences in the relationship with organizations (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010). This is because the Internet allows people to interact on a large scale, and make these interactions visible for everybody at any time. Organizations should interact with their public to maintain their own power (Ki & Hon, 2007). Interactivity with the public will shape or influence the public’s expressions and reactions. It is therefore essential to gain insight in when and how to interact with their publics. An important way to gain this insight is to pay attention to the
public’s perception on the interactivity process.
In an interactivity process between an organization and the public, the control over the communication is divided (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010). For example, in a debate about a subject
relevant to both parties, the organization and the publics can show their expertise or give their opinion. If an organization interacts adequately with the public, it is able to gain more control over the communication and therefore gain more power. This control and power is not to overrule the public, but rather to create relations with the public. Therefore interactivity is an important process for organizations to control over communication, gain power and manage relationships with the public.
One explicitly relevant place to have interactions with the public is on social media. Social media and Social Network Sites (SNS) are simply made for social interactivity (Kent, 2010). Especially Facebook is used to have interactions and create relationships between users (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). Creating a Facebook page is an easy and cheap way for an organization, to engage in interactions with the public nowadays. Facebook is free and Facebook pages are standard formatted, which will minimalize the maintenance, and it focuses on having conversation and exchanging information.
Although interactivity is a concept that is intensively investigated in contexts like interactivity on social media, less is known about how people respond to Facebook pages of organizations which are interactive or not. However, a lot of organizations try to be as interactive as possible on Facebook to have control over the communication on Facebook and gain power without knowing what people prefer or how people react (Kietzmann et al., 2011). To know how and why organizations should interact with the public, it is relevant to gain insight in how people perceive this interactivity.
This research will contribute to the insight of interactivity on Facebook pages between organizations and their public, by exploring the effects of the interactivity of an organization on the public’s attitude towards that organization on Facebook.
The main research question in this study is the following:
To what extend does the interactivity of an organization on their Facebook page influence the public’s attitude towards that organization?
Theoretical development Interactivity on social media
Organizations are dependent on legitimization by their publics (Patriotta et al., 2011). To develop justifications of their social position organization can engage in interaction and build relationships with their public. In recent days, the legitimization of organizations is made easier by social media and social network sites (SNS). Organization can engage in interactions with their public on social media or social network sites, which are made for social interactivity (Kent, 2010; Schultz et al., 2011). Namely, Facebook is created for having dialogues with and between users and building up relationships with friends (Kietzmann et al., 2011). These SNS, especially Facebook, have an enormous number of members. Facebook only, has 1.44 billion registered active users (Smith, 2015). Accordingly, an organization is able to engage in relationships and dialogues with thousands of people and with low costs.
However, the active majority on SNS is the public instead of organizations. Besides, the power and control in the communication is more equally divided (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010). Organizations were and are able to send one-way communication messages on traditional media, because people cannot react or respond to the messages (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011). This gave and still gives the organizations power and control about what they communicated. Instead of one-way communication messages on and in traditional media, social media request
organizations to use two-way communication messages (Schultz, Utz, & Göritz, 2011). This means that companies not only send their messages to the public, but the public should be able to engage in interaction with the organization (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010; Van Ruler & Vercic, 2009). Hereby the messages go two ways, from the organization to the public and from the public to the organization.
Interactivity is a concept whereby messages are transmitted between different users with encouragement for response (Ariel & Avidar, 2015; Kelleher, 2009). In that sense, interactivity contains two-way messages. The interactivity of organizations is therefore an important element in their communication and public relations. Although it is important, interactivity has no conforming definition in the literature (Ariel & Avidar, 2015; Kelleher, 2009; McMillan & Hwang, 2002). In the next section different operational definitions of interactivity will be elucidated.
Interactivity
The concept interactivity has frequently and differently been investigated in studies about websites. Ariel and Avidar (2015) sum up ten different popular concepts of interactivity (e.g. hypertextuality, connectedness, experience and responsiveness), which have been used in computer-mediated communication studies. To see through the fog, they divided various
concepts of interactivity into different perspectives of interactivity. Based on other studies, Ariel and Avidar (2015) came up with three perspectives that should cover interactivity in its
completeness. One perspective is to see interactivity as a perception-related variable. The focus is on participant’s experience and self-reports. It is about the way various elements of a medium (such as multimedia) can affect how one perceives the interactivity of a medium. Interactivity as
a perception-related variable is often applied in the fields of advertising or marketing. One other perspective is to see interactivity as a process-related variable. Hereby the focus is on the ways in which participants transfer information to one another. Interactivity is seen as a two-way flow of messages and information between a sender and a receiver as in a conversation. The messages itself should encourage for responses. Ariel and Avidar (2015) state it as the ‘continuation of an interaction’. It means that messages are relevant for the whole conversation and refer to earlier transmitted messages. It won’t bring the interaction to an end. The last perspective is to see interactivity as a medium characteristic. It focuses on the medium and its ability to generate activity. The characteristics of media (e.g. user control) that enhances the interactivity are central in this perspective. Interactivity is interpreted as the extent medium in which users contribute in by modifying the content and form of a medium environment.
Kelleher (2009) stated that there are two general ways to look at interactivity:
interactivity as functional and interactivity as contingency. Functional interactivity focuses on the features of the media. It is seen as the interface’s capacity to have a dialogue or information exchange between the user and the interface. Similar to the perspective to see interactivity as a medium characteristic, the concept functional interactivity has especially been used to investigate Web-based communication in the design features of Web pages. Contingency interactivity is seen as a process that involves users, media and messages in which communication roles need to be interchangeable for fully interactivity to occur (Kelleher, 2009). In an interactive process, messages should be contingent upon previous messages. Kelleher (2009) clarifies it as follows: “The more that one person’s response to another depends on the content of the previous
interactive the process is said to be” (p.175). This concept agrees with the perspective process-related variable.
In this study interactivity will be perceived as a contingent and process related variable. The transmission of messages between different users, with encouraging for response, will be the center of interactivity. In this case interactivity is comparable with having a dialogue.
Interactivity then can be seen as: “a condition of communication in which simultaneous and continuous exchange occur, and these exchanges carry a social, binding force” (Rafaelli & Sudweeks, 1997, p. 4)
Hypotheses
Interactivity and attitude towards the organization
Social Network Sites are designed and built for interaction between the users (Kent, 2010; Kent & Taylor, 2002). Although the majority of organizations do not yet fully engage in interactivity and therefore not using the full potential of SNS (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kent, 2010), it is stated that engaging in interaction on SNS will have a positive effect on the
relationship between the users and the organization (Theunissen, 2015; Jo & Kim, 2003; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011). When an organization
interacts with people, they point out that they are investing time and effort in those people. People feel that the organization is acknowledging them, because the organization must be aware of the people when interacting. This causes the positive effect on their relationship (Theunissen, 2015).
In this study the effect of people’s perception of an organization’s interactivity on a Facebook page is measured. The majority of Facebook users experience the interactivity only by
seeing interactivity of other users and organizations, instead of engaging in interaction
themselves (Kent, 2010). Those people are called ‘lurkers’. They visit Facebook pages and read the posts and look at interaction between other users, but rarely participate in interactions on those pages themselves. In this study interactivity is the transmission of messages between different users, with encouraging for response. However, people do not experience this interactivity themselves, but rather observe this interactivity by other users (Kent, 2010).
The interactivity of an organization on their Facebook page is affecting the attitude towards the organization according to Van Noort et al. (2012). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) define attitude as a function of one’s salient believe and feelings at a given point of time. It is an
internal evaluation of an object (Ki & Hon, 2007). Therefore, an attitude is more an evaluation of an organization that includes feelings and believes and which is measurable at certain points of time, instead of a concept like the public’s relationship perception (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ki & Hon, 2007; Van Noort, Antheunis, & Reijmersdal, 2012).
While people perceive that they are accepted or acknowledged by interacting with an organization and spending time with the organization, their attitude towards the organization will be positively affected (Van Noort et al., 2012). Although Van Noort et al. (2012) found these results based on interactivity on a campaign on Hyves (the largest former Dutch SNS) these results posits an effect of interactivity of an organization on a SNS on the attitude towards the company. This is also supported by Kent & Taylor (2002) whom stated that people’s attitudes emerge and are shaped by spontaneous interactions.
Besides the findings of Van Noort et al. (2012) and Kent and Taylor (2002), Saffer, Sommerfeldt and Taylor, 2013 investigated the effect of an interactive corporate twitter accounts
on the attitude towards the company. They found that a interactive twitter account was of more value to the people than an non-interactive account.
The attitude of an organization can be influenced by the experienced interactivity, although observed. Thus, based on the findings of Ki & Hon (2007), Van Noort et al. (2012), Kent & Taylor (2002) and Saffer et al. (2013) and the effect interaction has on perceived relationship by the public (Theunissen, 2015; Jo & Kim, 2003; Waters et al., 2009; Briones et al., 2011) the following hypothesis is stated:
H1: There is a positive direct effect of the interactivity of the organization on their Facebook page on the public’s attitude towards that organization.
Perceived credibility
In this study, different factors are selected to discover if, and how the interactivity on a Facebook page is affecting the public’s attitude toward the organization. These mediating mechanisms may produce the effect of interactivity on the attitude towards the organization. One mechanism is credibility.
Especially in the communication of the organization is credibility an essential factor. It is an indispensable part in the justification of an organization. Incredible organizations will, for example, receive disbelief and negative responses on their performances (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, 2002). Different studies examined the effect of communication on the perceived credibility (Bottom et al., 2002; Yang, Kang, & Johnson, 2010; Grönroos, 2004). It can be assumed that interactivity influences credibility. Namely, an essential part for receiving credibility of the public was for the organization being interactive with the public. In the study of
Grönroos (2004) two different marketing processes with two different ways of messaging was used to investigate which way of messaging perceived the highest credibility. One way was planned messages, those were messages sent as a part of the planned process. In this case, organizations used messages more as advertisement than for engaging in dialogues. The other way messages were created was throughout interaction processes and unplanned messages. Grönroos (2004) stated that the interaction process received the highest credibility of the public, if organization used messages in their marketing process in the last mentioned way.
Further studies investigated the effect of organization interactivity on credibility (Jo & Kim, 2003; Bruning, Dials, & Shirka, 2008; Bruning & Galloway, 2003 Grunig & Grunig, 1992). These studies used credibility as a variable to explain the effect of interactivity on the organization-public relationship. For example Grunig and Grunig (1992) stated that credibility is a crucial symmetry concept in the relationship between organization and the public. This
symmetry means that credibility reciprocal influences the organization communication and the public’s attitude. Grunig and Grunig (1992) state that this mutuality will appear in the dialogue or interaction, which forms a two-way communication process between the organization and the public. This two-way communication process reduces audiences’ suspicion of manipulative or inaccurate information (Yang, Kang, & Johnson, 2010), which can be translated as reducing the incredibility of the organization. This all leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: There is a positive effect of the interactivity of the organization on their Facebook page on perceived credibility.
The public determines the way they evaluate the organization by, among other things, the perceived credibility (Wathen & Burkell, 2002). If an organization is believable, people will create a more positive attitude towards the organization than when an organization is not believable or incredible (Wathen & Burkell, 2002; Yoo & MacInnis, 2005). Different studies found a positive relationship between the perceived credibility and the organization-public relationship (Jo & Kim, 2003; Bruning et al., 2008).
According to these studies, which found a significant relationship between the perceived credibility of an organization and the attitude of the organization, the following hypothesis is stated:
H3: There is a positive effect of the perceived credibility of the organization on the attitude towards the organization.
Control Mutuality
The concept control mutuality is about power balance. It refers to the distribution of power and control in the relationship between communication partners (Jo & Kim, 2003). Control mutuality is how both parties interpret the rightful power one has to influence one another in an interaction (Yang, 2007). The distribution in control and power is also present in the interactivity on Facebook. For example, organizations can give the public power in an interaction by letting the public’s complains or suggests on their Facebook page influence organizational decisions or messages. Some imbalance in this power balance is natural.
Although, the control mutuality requires that both parties have some control over each other and agree with the control distribution (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2007).
Interactivity on Facebook pages can influence the control mutuality. With interactivity on Facebook pages, organization distributes the control over the discourses. Instead of one-way communication messages whereby the public only can assume or reject the messages, the interactive way will give the public the power to respond to the messages. Besides the
organization, the public also can influence the further message transmission. High interactivity gives the public control over the discourse and can therefore influence organization’s decisions and thus leads interactivity to control mutuality.
Saffer et al. (2013) and Theunissen (2015) found also the effect of interactivity on control mutuality. Both studies used control mutuality as a variable for the organization-public
relationship concept. In both studies control mutuality was highlighted as an important mediator (which was highly significant) between interaction and relationship. According to these findings the following hypothesis is stated:
H4: There is a positive effect of the interactivity of the organization on their Facebook page on the control mutuality.
Ki & Hon (2007) investigated control mutuality as a mediator between interactivity and attitude towards the organization. They found that control mutuality significantly affected the attitude towards the organization. Though, their research was not about the control mutuality on social media. They investigated the effect of students control mutuality on the attitude towards the university. The interactivity used here was about the interactivity students had with their
university. Although control mutuality is used in a different context, the study provides an
applicable indicator for this study. Besides, Saffer et al. (2013) state that if the public experiences a fair balance in power in the interactivity with the organization they perceive the relationship between them also better. Therefore the following hypothesis is stated:
H5: There is a positive effect of control mutuality on the attitude towards the organization.
Perceived trust
Trust is an important factor in interactions. Hon and Grunig (1999) define trust as follows: “one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party” (p.19). If the public or organizations for example are not willing to open themselves there could not be much interaction between the two. Interaction and trust have a complex and dual
relationship while impacting each other (Van Oortmerssen, Woerkum, & Aarts, 2013). When people have trust in each other’s interaction process, the interaction content and interaction atmosphere will be improved. It is also the other way around. Van Oortmerssen et al. (2013) state that the interaction between people will positively affect the trust they will have in each other. Trust then, is created from the communication process in which both parties develop shared norms, values and meanings. So, interactivity appears to influence trust.
In different studies trust is seen as the principal factor between interactivity and the organization-public relationship (Ki & Hon, 2007; Saffer, Sommerfeldt, & Taylor, 2013; Huang & Zhang, 2013). This principal factor creates an environment of trust according to Grönroos (2004). In this environment a shared discourse appears. Interactivity influences then trust.
Grönroos (2004) state that “[Trust] is to build shared meanings, and get insights in what the two parties can do together and for one another through access to a common meaning or shared field of knowledge” (p.107). These shared and common meanings are created by interactivity.
Therefore, in the process of interaction people develop trust in each other. The following hypothesis is stated:
H6: There is a positive effect of the interactivity of the organization on their Facebook page on the perceived trust.
Trust is a variable, which is linked with positive evaluations. For example: trust in a relationship will contribute to a good relationship, because people are willing to take risks for the other by being vulnerable (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). This has a positive effect on the cooperation between the two parties. Besides, trust in an organization will contribute to job satisfaction and a positive attitude towards the organization (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009; Costigan, Ilter, & Berman, 1998). The link Thomas et al. (2009) and Costigan et al. (1998) found between trust and attitude, has also been stated by Renn and Levine (1991). They found that the trust the public has on the organization and their attitude towards it. When the trust in an
organization increases, the attitude people has of the organization will also increase. According to these studies the following hypothesis is stated:
H7: There is a positive effect of the perceived trust on the attitude towards the organization.
Perceived Openness
The last factor that is taken into account is perceived openness. According to Wathne et al. (1999) and Yang et al. (2010), interactivity in an organization creates a perception of
openness of the organization. For when an organization is interactive, in this case with knowledge, people perceive it as more open. Interaction is able to cause the perception of
openness. This is because when organization is interactive they share more information and give more insight in their own organization. They shall be perceived as more open.
According to Bruchell & Cook (2008) the dialogue organizations engage in, should be open. It is just the openness that distinguishes dialogue from a debate, mediation or negotiation. The intention of a dialogue carries the openness, because in a dialogue the intention is not to advocate, argue or convince, but to inquire, explore and discover (Bruchell & Cook, 2008). These dialogues can be compared with interactivity of an organization. If organizations engaging in interactions or dialogues with the public, the public should therefore perceive the organization as a more open organization than if the organization is not engaging in interactivity. The organization is namely willing to open up via the interactions. So the interactivity of an organization on social media should let the public perceive the organization as more open than if the organization is not interacting with the public. The following hypothesis is therefore stated:
H8: There is a positive effect of the interactivity of the organization on their Facebook page on the perceived openness.
Bruchell & Cook (2008) state the attitude towards the organization can be improved by the openness an organization receives by engaging in interaction. This assumption is empirically
tested by Yang, Kang, & Johnson (2010). They found a significant effect of perceived openness on the attitudes towards the company, because of the interaction. Besides these findings, the concept perceived openness is also used in the study of Ledingham & Bruning (1998). They measured the effect between the perceived openness of the organization and the organization-public relationship and found a significant effect. Although it does not measure the effect of perceived openness of the organization on the attitude the public has on that organization, it is relevant guideline for this study. As follows from these studies, the following hypothesis can be stated:
H9: There is a positive effect of perceived openness on the attitude towards the organization.
All the hypotheses are combined in a conceptual model, which can be found in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the hypotheses. (Note: * Total effect of the interactivity on attitude before including the mediators in the model.)
Methodology Participants
The participants of this study are collected via Facebook and e-mail. People were asked to share the link to the survey. Via snowball sampling, 327 people participated in this study (N=327). The group existed out of 129 men (39,4%) and 193 women (59%) 1,5% did not fill in their gender (n=5). The mean age of the group was 25,77 years with 18 years as youngest participants (n=27) and 68 as oldest (n=1) and the mode was 21 years (n=57). Most of the respondents had finished a college degree (in Dutch HBO) (n=146) subsequent by high school (n=76) and University (in Dutch WO)(n=72).
Procedure
The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions in a 2 (High interactivity versus low interactivity with posting a question) x 2 (High interactivity versus low interactivity with posting a statement) design.
The participants were briefed about their anonymity and their freedom to withdraw from this study anytime they preferred. Before they could participate, they could agree on their
volunteering participation. Besides, contact information of the supervisor and the Ethics
Committee of the ASCoR (Amsterdam School of Communication Research. This is an institute of the university of Amsterdam that guarantee the ethical correctness of the study) was provided for question, remarks or complaints. When the participants agreed on the conditions they were informed about Yonk Drinks and the screenshot of the Facebook Page. The importance of looking and reading the screenshot carefully was emphasized. After being exposed to one of the
four randomly assigned screenshots, the survey was administered. Afterwards the participants were thanked for participating and were instructed to leave the questionnaire. The average time for completing the complete survey was 9 minutes. This study has received ethical approval of the Ethics Committee of ASCoR.
Stimuli
This study focuses on the organization interactivity on Facebook and the attitude towards the organization. Four different stimuli are used to manipulate interactivity. First, the
construction of the stimuli is explained, than the manipulations are explained.
For the stimuli a screenshot was created of a Facebook page of fictive organization. The organization is a company named Yonk Drinks, which makes yogurt drinks and is according to the story active in the Netherlands since 2012. The screenshot had a banner on top where a promotion picture was placed of two boys drinking Yonk Drinks. Beneath the banner the normal Facebook options and buttons were located. The profile picture contained the name of the organization, Yonk Drinks, in a logo style. In the block for the information about the page was a short welcome written, which was derived from other existing yogurt drink Facebook pages. The block for the pictures contained six pictures, which assumed that Yonk had post at least six pictures on their timeline. On the timeline of Yonk Drinks there was a message with a picture posted. Beneath this picture three reactions were posted of random people. These reactions were selected from other Facebook pages and modified to this organization. Furthermore, the
Facebook page contained on the left side a block for ‘messages on the page’. Three reactions were placed there. The rest of the Facebook pages (e.g. copyright lines, rest information) were identical with real Facebook pages. An example of the stimulus can be found in the appendix.
The interactivity of an organization on Facebook is manipulated in two ways. These two ways are base upon the selected definition of interactivity namely: the transmission of messages between different users, with encouraging for response (Ariel & Avidar, 2015). The first
manipulation is the manipulation of the transmission of messages between different users. On the Facebook page of Yonk Drinks three people reacted on the post of Yonk Drinks. Besides, in the ‘message on the page’ box three people posted a question or a comment. In two stimuli Yonk respond to these reactions and thus engages in interaction. On the Facebook page it can be seen that there are also reactions on the comments and question in the ‘message on the page’ box (this is indicated by a text balloon with a number of reactions attached to it). These stimuli are
considered as interactive because of the transmission of messages between different users. In the other two stimuli Yonk does not respond to the reactions and there are no reactions on the messages in the ‘messages on the page’ box. These stimuli are considered as not interactive. The variable, which contains this manipulation of the interactivity, is further being called
responsiveness.
The second manipulation is the manipulation of the encouraging for response. The post Yonk Drinks did on their Facebook page contains a question in two stimuli (i.e. “What are you going to do this weekend, besides enjoying a good glass of Yonk Drinks?”. The original Dutch sentence reads: “Wat ga jij doen dit weekend, naast het genieten van een goed glas Yonk Drinks?”) By posting a question Yonk Drinks encourage their public directly for responses. These stimuli are considered as interactive because by addressing the public directly Yonk Drinks encourage their public to respond. The other two stimuli Yonk Drink did a post containing a statement (i.e. “Have a nice weekend with a good glass of Yonk Drinks”. The original Dutch sentence reads: ”Geniet van het weekend met een goed glas Yonk Drinks”). These
stimuli are considered as not interactive. The variable, which contains this manipulation of the interactivity, is further being called direct address.
The independent variable interactivity is in this study measured with two variables responsiveness and direct address. These variables describe a process wherein users transmit messages and encourage each other for responses. However, this describes a process that is hard to measure. In this study these concepts will be measured, but not in the process form. By using a screenshot the participants are restricted to observe the interactivity instead of experience it by themselves. As stated, the majority of Facebook users are used to observe a page and not engage in the interactivity. Still, these stimuli lack in experience of the interactivity process.
For the exact reactions and posts of Yonk Drinks see the stimulus in the appendix. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four stimuli before they could answer the questions.
Measures
For all the measures that are going to be mentioned in this section, a factor analysis is conducted. The principal axis factor analysis is used with the rotation method Oblimin. All analyses but one resulted in a one-dimensional solution. Oblique rotation was used in the principal axis factor analysis for perceived openness because this resulted in a two-dimensional solution. The rating scales used in this study are a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) or a 7-point differential semantic differential scale.
The central dependent variable in this study is attitude towards the organization. A factor analyses identified one dimension. The indicators had a loading between .79 and .90. The
variable is measured with four indicators (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005). Each indicator had a 7-point semantic differential scale (e.g. positive – negative) and was based on the same statement (i.e. “My overall feeling of the organization is…”). The indices of the scales are based on
summarizing items. For the index of attitude towards the organization the items were also summarized (M=4.74, SD=1.06). This scale is considered plausible for this study, because previous studies encountered it as a reliable and a valid scale (Yoo & MacInnis, 2005; Van Noort et al., 2012). The scale had in this study a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
In the following paragraphs the variables functioned as mediators are construed. Control mutuality was measured as a mediator. A factor analysis identified one dimension. The loadings of the items were between the .5 and .91. The variable is measured with five indicators, as used by Jo and Kim (2003) and Hon and Grunig (1999) (e.g. “This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.”). All the items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The scale is developed by Hon and Grunig (1999) and Ledingham and Bruning (1998) to measure the organizational-public relationship. It is developed in previous research (Bruning, 2002). The reliability and validation of this scale is therefore high and applicable for this study. The five indicators were summarized for the index (M=4.00, SD=1.13).. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.
Trust is measured with six items (e.g. “This organization treats people like me fairly and justly”). A factor analysis identified one dimension. The loadings of the items were between the .79 and .90. The reliability and validity of the scale have been developed over time (Jo & Kim, 2003) and is therefore applicable in this study. All items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The indicators were summarized for the index (M=3.97, SD=1.04) The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .91.
The scale perceived openness is measured with seven items (Yang et al., 2010) (e.g. “The organization Yonk Drinks seems to ignore others’ perspectives or opinions”). The factor analysis identified two dimensions. One dimension had an explained variance of 38,56% and the second dimension of 25,78%. The factors were examined with the Oblimin rotation. The loadings for three items in the first factor were below .5 those were in the second factor above .5. The other four loadings in the second factor were below .5, though above .5 in the first factor. This stresses to use two different dimensions. However, the two dimensional solution is likely the product of using two sets of differently “poled” items. Since the items are assumed to represent the same theoretical concept (Yank et al., 2010), one overall index was formed (M=4.66, SD=0.80). Yang et al. (2010) used this scale for a comparable research with a relatively the same sample. Instead of the effect of interactivity on a Facebook page on perceived openness, they investigated the effect interaction of a blogger has on the perceived openness. The items are adapted to the fictive organization of this study. Five items were negative items and are recoded. All these items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha of the concept was .61.
Credibility was measured with five items (Yang et al., 2010). The factor analysis identified one dimension. The loadings of the items were between .70 and .87. Each item had a seven-point semantic differential scale (e.g. trustworthy – untrustworthy). The items were summarized in the index (M=4.17, SD=1.06). This concept is used in the same study as where the concept perceived openness is derived from. The concept received high reliability and validity in this study (Yang et al., 2010). This concept is therefore used because it is an applicable and reliable concept for this study. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .87.
Following are the control variables perceived enjoyment, perceived attractiveness and Facebook use. Perceived enjoyment and attractiveness were taken into account because the way
people perceive the visual aspects of a site can influence the attitude they form about the site owner (Van Der Heijden, 2003). Besides the interactivity on a Facebook page can influence the perceived enjoyment or attractiveness. According to Van Der Heijden (2003) does people
perceive interactivity as attractive and joyful. This is possible because the perceived goodness of interactivity can spillover to the enjoyment and attractiveness (Van Der Heijden, 2003). The perceived ‘goodness’ of this present interactivity can spillover to these variables. For example, if people in this study do not perceive the Facebook page as attractive, their negativity can spillover to other variables wherefore their answers about the other variables can be more negative.
Van Der Heijden (2003) measured perceived enjoyment for website use on the attitude towards their use. The concept had three items (e.g. “I browse this Facebook page for pleasure”). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The factor analysis showed loading between 0.87 and .94. All the items were summarized in the mean index for perceived enjoyment
(M=3.04, SD=1.08) The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .82.
The variable perceived attractiveness is measured with three items (e.g. “The colors that are used on the Facebook page are attractive”). This concept is also derived from the study of Van Der Heijden (2003). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The loadings were between .65 and .92. All items were summarized in the mean index for perceived attractiveness (M=2.02, SD=0.83). The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .93.
The last control variable is Facebook use. This variable consisted out of three different dimensions, active public Facebook use, active private Facebook use and passive Facebook use (Frison & Eggermont, 2015). The factor analysis and the Chronbach’s alpha allowed the merging of the dimensions into one concept existing of seven items (e.g. “How often do you post a
based on summarizing items (M=2.23, SD=0.79). This variable is taken into account to control the differences in Facebook use and the effect it can have on the evaluations of the other variables. When people are used to be active on Facebook, they can possible perceive the interactivity of Yonk Drinks differently compared to someone who never visit Facebook. This can be due to people’s expectations of an organization on Facebook. The concept of Frison and Eggermont (2015) is therefore applicable, because the scale measures the active Facebook use and the passive Facebook use. Besides, the concept was found reliable and valid. The scale in this study had a Cronbach’s alpha of .81.
Results
In the analyses of this study, the effect of interactivity of a company’s Facebook page on the perceived attitude towards that organization is investigated. The analyses will explore the effect of Facebook page interactivity on the attitude towards the organization as well as the mediating mechanisms underlying this relationship. The independent variable in this study is the interactivity of an organization’s Facebook page. This variable is split up into two dimensions, whether or not the organization was responsive on the comments on their Facebook
(“responsiveness”), and the whether or not they address the public directly with a question (direct address). The dependent variable is the attitude towards the organization. Furthermore, perceived credibility, control mutuality, trust and perceived openness were inserted as mediators. However, before measuring the mediating effects of those concepts, a test of the direct effects in a path model should be tested (Kühne, Weber, & Sommer, 2015). Indirect effect cannot be based on separate tests of the constituent paths.
First, analyses of covariance are conducted (ANCOVA), to explore the direct effects and to check whether responsiveness and direct address interacted.
The variables responsiveness and direct address functioned as the independent variables in the ANCOVA analysis. The dependent variables were the attitude towards the organization and the four mediators. Gender, education, age and Facebook use were included as covariates. The analysis found no violation of the assumption of equality of variances except for the variable perceived openness.
The analysis showed no significant effect of the responsiveness on the attitude towards the organization (F(1, 306)=1.19, p=.28) or of the direct address on attitude towards the organization (F(1, 306)=0.01, p=.92). Besides, no significant interaction effect was found between the responsiveness and direct address (F(1, 306)=1.02, p=.75). Hypothesis 1, which implied that there was an effect, is therefore rejected. This direct effect is important, however it is not found. To investigated if there is an indirect effect of the responsiveness and direct address on attitude a multiple mediation model will be tested later on.
The further ANCOVA analyses were conducted to identify whether responsiveness and direct address interacted with each other. Analysis showed a significant effect of responsiveness on control mutuality (F(1, 306)=25.73, p<.001). This did not apply for direct address (F(1, 306)=0.05, p=0.82). Also the interaction effect between the two interactivity treatments was not significant (F(1, 306)=0.25, p=.62). A significant effect was also found of responsiveness on trust (F(1, 306)=7.36, p<.01), however not of direct address on trust (F(1, 306)=0.03, p=.86).
Responsiveness and direct address did not interact (F(1, 306)=0.01, p=.93). No significant effects are found of responsiveness on credibility (F(1, 306)=3.38, p=.07) or of direct address on credibility (F(1, 306)=0.03, p=.86). Besides, responsiveness and direct address did not interact
(F(1, 306)=0.00, p=.99). For the effect of responsiveness and direct address on perceived openness was only a significant effect found of responsiveness on perceived openness (F(1, 306)=26.29, p<.001) and not on direct address on perceived openness (F(1, 306)=0.01, p=.94). Also there was not found an interaction between responsiveness and direct address (F(1, 306)=1.58, p=.21) For the effects of the covariates, see table 1.
Table 1
The covariate effects on attitude, control mutuality (CM), trust, credibility and perceived openness (PO). Age (M=25.77 SD=9.81) SS MS F(1,306) η2 Attitude 7.55 7.55 7.24** 0.02 CM 4.51 4.51 4.11* 0.01 Trust 9.38 9.38 9.88** 0.03 Credibility 5.00 5.00 4.59* 0.02 PO 3.83 3.83 6.57* 0.02 Facebook Use (M=2.23, SD=0.79) SS MS F(1,306) η2 Attitude 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.00 CM 11.33 11.33 10.35*** 0.03 Trust 11.33 11.33 11.93*** 0.04 Credibility 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 PO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gender (M=1.60 SD=0.49) SS MS F(1,306) η2 Attitude 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.00 CM 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.00 Trust 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.00 Credibility 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.00 PO 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Education (M=3.66, SD=1.07) SS MS F(1,306) η2 Attitude 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.00 CM 0.76 0.76 0.69 0.00 Trust 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Credibility 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.00 PO 0.94 0.94 1.62 0.01 Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Furthermore, the analysis showed that there was no interaction effect of the two independent variables. This allows using responsiveness as independent variable and direct address as a control variable. Responsiveness is taken as independent because it did have some significant effects and direct address as control variable because it did not have any significant effects.
To test the hypotheses that form the model, as in figure 1, a multiple mediation model was estimated with PROCESS (Hayes, 2012). First, a model was estimated in which the dummy variable responsiveness was included as the independent variable and the dummy variable direct address as a control variable. In the model attitude functioned as the dependent variable and the mediators were control mutuality, trust, credibility and perceived openness. Perceived
enjoyment, perceived attractiveness, age, education, gender and Facebook use are included as control variables. First, the hypotheses of the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables and the associated mediators are tested. Afterwards the effects of the
controlling variables are discussed. The indirect effects were tested with the bootstrap procedure of the PROCESS tool. 95% bias-corrected confidence interval is selected (95% bc CI).
Hypothesis 2 posits that Facebook interactivity influences perceived credibility. However, no positive effect was found for responsiveness (b=0.15, SE=0.12, p=.20) or direct address (b=−0.03, SE=0.12, p=.80) on perceived credibility. Hypothesis 2 is therefore rejected. Hypothesis 3 posits that perceived credibility influences the attitude towards the organization. This hypothesis is corroborated. The perceived credibility has a positive direct effect on the attitude towards the organization (b=0.48, SE=0.05, p<.01). Furthermore, no indirect effect was found (b = 0.07; 95% bc CI: −0.04 to 0.19.)
Hypothesis 4 stated that there is an effect of Facebook page interactivity on control mutuality. The analysis showed a significant effect of responsiveness on control mutuality (b=0.51, SE=0.12, p<.01). Direct address did not affect control mutuality (b=0.03, SE=0.12, p=.84.) This hypothesis is therefore partially supported. Hypothesis 5 posits that control mutuality influences the attitude towards the organization. This hypothesis is
corroborated. Control mutuality had a significant effect on the attitude towards the organization (b=.20, SE=0.07, p<.01). The mediation tested, is from Facebook page interactivity (the
responsiveness part) to the control mutuality (H4) and from control mutuality to the attitude towards the organization (H5). Analyses showed a significant mediation effect; b = 0.10; 95% bc CI: 0.03 to 0.20. It can be stated that control mutuality significantly mediates the effect of the responsiveness (Facebook page interactivity) on the attitude towards the organization.
Hypothesis 6 posits that Facebook page interactivity influences trust. This hypothesis is rejected. Neither responsiveness influenced trust (b=0.21, SE=0.12, p=.06) nor direct address influenced trust (b=−0.03, SE=0.12, p=.81). Hypothesis 7 posits that trust influences the attitude towards the organization. However, no significant results were found
(b=0.10, SE=0.08, p=.18). The indirect effect of interactivity on attitude towards the organizations, mediated by trust was not significant (b = 0.02; 95% bc CI: −0.00 to 0.09).
Hypothesis 8 posits that Facebook page interactivity influences perceived openness. Responsiveness had a significant effect on the perceived openness (b=0.39, SE=0.09, p<.01). Nevertheless, there was no significant effect of direct address on perceived openness (b=0.03, SE=0.09, p=.72) Hypothesis 8 is therefore partially supported. The hypothesis 9 posits that perceived openness influences the attitude towards the organization. No significant effect was found (b=−0.03, SE=0.8, p=.69). Hypothesis 9 is therefore rejected. Besides, no the indirect effect of interactivity on attitude towards to organization mediated by perceived openness was not significant
Two variables, perceived enjoyment en perceived attractiveness, were included as mediators to control their influences on the variables. The only significant effect found was the effect of perceived enjoyment on the attitude towards the organization (b=0.34, SE=0.05, p<.01)
Figure 2. Tested mediation model
Note: a Results related to the responsiveness variable. b Results related to the addressing directly variable. * Total effect of the interactivity on attitude before including the mediators in the model **p<0.01
Discussion
In this study the effect of Facebook page interactivity on the attitude towards the organization was investigated. Four different mediators were included to clarify the possible indirect effects. Interactivity was split up into two variables, the responsiveness of the
organization and the way they, whether or not, addressed the public directly with a question. First of all, the direct effect of Facebook page interactivity on attitude towards the organization was not significant. The responsiveness of the organizations on their Facebook page compared to the non-responsiveness on their page and the direct addressing compared to the not direct addressing
on the Facebook page did not have a significant effect on the attitude towards the organization (H1). To investigate if there were indirect effects, four variables were taken into account. There was only one indirect effect. This indirect effect was of responsiveness of the organization on their Facebook on the attitude (H4 and H5) via control mutuality. If an organization interacts with the public via the comments, the public perceives the mutual control between the
organization and themselves as positive. In turn, this positive control mutuality leads to a more positive attitude towards the organization.
Furthermore, the results showed a significant positive effect of perceived credibility on the attitude towards the organization (H3). If people perceived the organization as credible they had a higher attitude towards the organization. In addition, if people were exposed to the responsive Facebook page they perceived the organization as more open (H8).
Some of the findings of this study are not in line with the hypotheses of this study. Interactivity should have an effect on credibility. There are some possible reasons why this study has found otherwise. First of all this study focused on the interactivity on a Facebook page. The
implementation of the interactivity of organization on Facebook pages differs from the implementation of interactivity that was investigated in the studies that led to the hypothesis. Grönroos (2004) found an effect of interactivity in a marketing campaign on credibility instead of interactivity on a Facebook page. It is possible that the effect of interactivity decline if it is on Facebook. Facebook is namely made for interactivity between users (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Therefore the organization is probibly not seen more credible when interacting, because they are expexted to do so. People’s expectations for the interactivity can therefore decline the effect the perceived interactivity of an organization has on the credibility. Although research state that organization’s credibility can be influenced by interactivity (Grönroos, 2004; Jo & Kim, 2003;
Bruning et al., 2008; Grunig & Grunig, 1992), it is possible that perceiving an organization as credible will need long-term interactions. In this study people only could observe the
interactivity of the organizations. They could not experience the interactions themselves or could not visit the page regularly to see the long-term interactivity of the organization.
This long-term problem is also applicable on the findings of the interactivity on trust that conflict with the stated hypothesis. Besides this problem, the result could also differ because of the newness of the organization. This study used a fictional organization. The participants saw the organization therefore for the first time. With seeing this screenshot of an organization that did have or did not have interaction with their public, people had to create a perception about their perceived credibility and the perceived trust of the organization instantly. Oortmerssen, Woerkum, & Aarts (2014) state that interactivity can lead to trust. However, they state also that interactivity should consist of frequent and profound exchange of messages. To build up trust with the public, an organization is dependent on frequent and profound interactivity. In this experiment the participants did not participate in long-term interactivity. They saw the
interactivity of the organization Yonk one time in a screenshot. Probably long-term interactivity is essential for building trust.
Besides, the experiment treated the participants as lurkers. They visited the Facebook page of the organization, though they did not engage in the interactions. Thereby missed the participants the experience of participating in the interaction with the organization. Probably, people can built trust and credibility with an organization if they actually participate in the interactivity of the organization instead of only observing this interactivity.
These two arguments can be a disadvantage for interactivity of organizations on Facebook. Namely, Facebook and organizations on Facebook rely most of the time on people
who not engage in conversations according to Kent (2010), the so-called lurkers. They visit Facebook pages, however they do not engage in the interaction but only observe them and when interacting they do not have profound and frequent interactions. Although SNS request of organizations to be interactive, eventually the public does not experience the organization’s interactivity most of the time.
The rejected hypothesis of the effect of perceived openness on the attitude towards the organization can probably be explained by the fact that the research of Yang, Kang and Johnson (2010) focused on the effect of perceived openness on the attitude in a crisis time. Perhaps the effect of the perceived openness is stronger when people depend on the organization. Namely, in a crisis people can find information of an organization that decreases or avoid further damage (Yang et al., 2010). An organization perceived as open will cause certainty, because of the relevant information provided. The openness of the organization in this study did not have to be relevant of damage decreasing for the participants. There was no case of a crisis. The study differs from the study of Yang et al. (2010) and it could be that the results therefore differ.
The interactivity of an organization on their Facebook page does influence the public’s attitude towards the organization in one way. This is via control mutuality. People have a better attitude towards an organization if they perceive the organization as interactive on their
Facebook page. This perceived interactivity influences the way people perceives the control mutuality and this affects the attitude towards the organization. Furthermore, the interactivity of an organization on a Facebook page influences the perceived openness and the perceived credibility influences the attitude towards the organization. So the interactivity on a Facebook page does influence the attitude towards the organization, but via control mutuality.
Although some effects were not significant, some recommendations for
organizations can be done based on the effect that were significant. These significant effects were mainly because of the responsiveness of the organizations Facebook page. It could therefore be recommended to organizations to invest in their responsiveness, for example by adequately responds on reactions on their page. Namely, according to this study it can be stated that the responsiveness will affect positively the perception of the mutual control. If the public then sees the discourse between organization and themselves honestly divided, they create a more positive attitude towards that organization. Furthermore, the responsiveness will influence the perceived openness of the public. This openness is a positive characteristic, which possibly can influence the public’s perception of the organization.
This study has also limitations. First, this research focuses completely on interaction on Facebook pages. Unfortunately the experiment lacks real experience of interactions on a Facebook page for the participants. As in reality people do not have to experience the interactivity of an organization on a Facebook page by themselves, most of the time people only skimming a Facebook page (Kent, 2010). However, if people experience the interactivity by themselves it probably has more effect on the results. The responses they receive from the organization are addressed to themselves so they really engage in the interaction. The evaluation of the organization is then based on own experiences instead of reading about others having that experience. Probably, own experiences of interactivity with organizations makes the organization coming closer to the participants wherefore it could more affect other variables and the attitude towards the organization.
Second, additional research could focus on other organizations and real
those organizations. This probably changes the outcomes of the effect of interactivity on trust and credibility. Existing organizations have had time to build up a reputation. If participants experience interactivity on a real Facebook page, it is possible that the participant’s expectations, created by the existing reputation of the organization, are fulfilled or not fulfilled. The fulfilling or the failing of the fulfilling of the expectation are then shaping the existing attitude towards the organization. Interactivity can influence then the perception of the organization.
This study contributes to the research of the effects of interactivity on Facebook. Organizations are expected to be active on social media. This study shows that it is particularly relevant to invest in the perception of the mutual control on an organizations Facebook page. This will significantly influence the public’s attitude towards the organization.
Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015). Information, Interactivity, and Social Media . Atlantic Journal of Communication , 23 (1), 19-30.
Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, K. J. (2002). When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation. Organization Science , 13 (5), 497-513.
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, 37-43.
Bruchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: changing relationships between companies and NGOs . Business Ethics: A European Review , 17 (1), 35-46.
Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review , 28, 39-48. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization–public relationship scale:
exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review , 29, 309-319.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships Between Organizations and Publics: Development of a Multi-Dimensional Organization-Public Relationship Scale. Public Relations Review , 25 (2), 157-170.
Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization–public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review , 34, 25-31.
Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A Multi-Dimensional Study of Trust in Organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues , 10 (3), 303-317.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : an introduction to theory and research. In M. Fishbein, & I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : an introduction to theory and research (p. 578). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .
Fortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research , 58, 387-396.
Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2015). Exploring the Relationships Between Different Types of Facebook Use, Perceived Online Social Support, and Adolescents’ Depressed Mood . Social Science Computer Review , 1-19.
Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: communication, interaction, dialogue, value . Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , 19 (2), 99-113 .
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of Public Relations and Communication. In J. E. Grunig, Management, Excellence in Public Relation and Commuication (pp. 285-325). New York: Routledge.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations . Institute for Public Relations . Florida: Institute for Public Relations .
Huang, Y.-H. C., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges. Public Relations Review , 39 (1), 85-87.
Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The Effect of Web Characteristics on Relationship Building. Journal of Public Relations Research , 15 (3), 199-223.
Kühne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond Cognitive Framing Processes: Anger Mediates the Effects of Responsibility Framing on the Preference for Punitive Measures . Journal of Communication , 65 (2), 259–279.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons , 53, 59-68.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational Voice, Communicated Commitment, and Public Relations Outcomes in Interactive Online Communication . Journal of Communication , 59, 172-188.
Kent, M. L. (2010). Directions In Social Media For Professionals And Scholars. In R. L. Heath, The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 643-655). Houston: SAGE.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review , 28, 21-37.
Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the Linkages Among the Organization–Public Relationship and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions . Journal Of Public Relations Research, 19 (1), 1-23.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons , 54, 241-251.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review , 24 (1), 55– 65.
Luoma-aho, V., & Vos, M. (2010). Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: acknowledging multiple issue arenas . Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 15 (3), 315-331.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust . Academy of Management , 20 (3), 709-734.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J.-S. (2002). Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity. Journal of Advertising , 31 (3), 29-42.
Oortmerssen , L. A., Woerkum , C. M., & Aarts, N. (2014). The Visibility of Trust. Public Management Review , 16 (5), 666–685 .
Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justificationsjoms_990 1804..1836 . Journal of Management Studies , 48 (8), 1804-1836.
Rafaelli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked Interactivity . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communicatio , 4 (2), 0.
Rafaelli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 4 (2), 0.
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication . In R. E. Kasperson, & P. J. Stallen, Communication Risks To The Public (pp. 175-218). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships . Public Relations Review , 39 (3), 213– 215.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media . Public Relations Review , 37, 20-27.
Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media . Public Relations Review , 36, 329-335.
Smith, C. (2015, May 23). Facebook Stats. Opgeroepen op June 04, 2015, van DMR Digital Marketing: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-17-amazing-facebook-stats/
Theunissen, P. (2015). The Quantum Entanglement of Dialogue and Persuasion in Social Media: Introducing the Per–Di Principle . Atlantic Journal of Communication , 23, 5-18.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The Central Role Of Communication In Developing Trust And Its Effects On Employee Involvement. Journal of Business Communication , 46 (3), 287-310 .
Van Der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Information & Management , 40, 541–549 .
Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the underlying mechanism . Journal of Marketing Communications , 18 (1), 39–53 .
Van Oortmerssen, L. A., Woerkum, C. M., & Aarts, N. (2013). The Visibility Of Trust: Exploring the connection between trust and interaction in a Dutch collaborative governance
boardroom . Public Management Review , 16 (5), 666-685.
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 Communication Research , 41 (3), 297-319.
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.
Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe It or Not: Factors Influencing Credibility on the Web . Journal Of The American Society For Information Science And Technology , 53 (2), 134–144 .
Wathne, K., Roos, J., & Von Krogh, G. (1999). Towards a Theory Of Knowledge Transfer In a Cooperative Context. In G. Von Krogh, & J. Roos, Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition (pp. 55-81). London: Sage.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An Integrated Model for Organization–Public Relational Outcomes, Organizational Reputation, and Their Antecedents . Journal Of Public Relation Research , 19 (2), 91-121.
Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of Narratives, Openness to Dialogic Communication, and Credibility on Engagement in Crisis Communication Through Organizational Blogs . Communication Research , 37 (4), 473-497.
Yoo, C., & MacInnis, D. (2005). The brand attitude formation process of emotional and informational ads . Journal Of Business Research , 58, 1397–1406 .
Appendix Stimulus
Measurements Table 2
Names, questions and items of the variables.
Variable Name Question Items
Attitude towards the organization
Mijn algehele gevoel over deze organisatie is:
Slecht – Goed
Onaangenaam – Aangenaam Negatief – Positief
Leuk – Niet leuk
Control Mutuality Deze organisatie en mensen zoals ik geven
aandacht aan wat er gezegd wordt
De organisatie Yonk Drinks gelooft dat de meningen van mensen zoals ik er toe doen In omgang met mensen zoals ik wil de organisatie Yonk Drinks nog wel eens besluiten andere beslissingen te nemen. De organisatie Yonk Drinks luistert naar mensen zoals ik
Ik geloof dat mensen zoals ik invloed kunnen hebben op de beslissing die organisatie Yonk Drinks maakt Perceived Trust De organisatie
Yonk Drinks:
Behandelt mensen zoals ik eerlijk en rechtvaardig
