Corporate Communications: An International Journal

Facebook: examining the information presented and its impact on stakeholders

Michel M. Haigh Pamela Brubaker Erin Whiteside
Article information:
To cite this document:
Michel M. Haigh Pamela Brubaker Erin Whiteside, (2013),"Facebook: examining the information presented and its impact
on stakeholders", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 52 - 69
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281311294128
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 10:29 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2751 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Valerie Champoux, Julia Durgee, Lauren McGlynn, (2012),"Corporate Facebook pages: when “fans” attack", Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 22-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756661211206717
Sam H. Dekay, (2012),"How large companies react to negative Facebook comments", Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 289-299 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281211253539
Sertan Kabadayi, Katherine Price, (2014),"Consumer – brand engagement on Facebook: liking and commenting
behaviors", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 203-223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-12-2013-0081

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:210680 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


CCIJ
18,1
52
Received 10 January 2012
Revised 7 May 2012
7 August 2012
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)
21 September 2012
Accepted 4 October 2012
Corporate Communications: An
International Journal
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2013
pp. 52-69
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/13563281311294128
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
Facebook: examining the
information presented and its
impact on stakeholders
Michel M. Haigh and Pamela Brubaker
College of Communications, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania, USA, and
Erin Whiteside
School of Journalism and Electronic Media, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the content of for-profit organizations’ Facebook
pages and how the communication strategy employed impacts stakeholders’ perceptions of the
organization-public relationship, corporate social responsibility, attitudes, and purchase intent.
Design/methodology/approach – For Study 1, a content analysis examined the types of
information on for-profit organizations’ Facebook pages. Facebook pages were coded for
organizational disclosure and information dissemination, corporate social responsibility
information, and interactivity. Pages were also coded for using a corporate ability, corporate social
responsibility, or hybrid communication strategy. Three organizations were then selected based on the
content analysis results to serve as exemplars in the two-phase experiment. Participants filled out
measures of initial attitudes, perceptions of the organization-public relationship, corporate social
responsibility, and purchase intent. A week later, participants interacted with the organizations’
Facebook pages and then answered additional scale measures.
Findings – Study 1 found for-profit organizations discuss program/services, achievements, and
awards on their Facebook pages. The main communication strategy employed on Facebook is
corporate ability. Study 2 results indicate interacting with Facebook pages bolsters stakeholders’
perceptions of the organization-public relationship, corporate social responsibility, and purchase
intent. The organization employing a corporate social responsibility communication strategy had the
most success bolstering these variables.
Research limitations/implications – Several of the organizations did not have Facebook pages to
code for the content analysis. Some organizations’ pages were not coded because the page was just
starting and there was no information available. The content analysis included a small sample size
(n ¼ 114) which impacted the experiment. It limited the number of organizations that could be
employed in the experimental conditions.
Practical implications – When posting information on Facebook, organizations should employ the
corporate social responsibility communication strategy. However, regardless of the strategy employed,
interacting with Facebook information can bolster stakeholders’ perceptions of organizational-public
relationships, corporate social responsibility, attitudes, and purchase intent.
Originality/value – The paper adds to the experimental literature. There is very limited
experimental research examining the impact of Facebook on stakeholders. It provides practitioners
with some guidance on the types of communication strategy they should employ when posting on
Facebook.
Keywords Social networking sites, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate communications,
Attitudes, Organization-public relationships, Facebook, Purchase intent
Paper type Research paper
 Introduction Facebook
In the field of public relations, organizations use communication to build, nurture,
maintain, and bolster stakeholder relationships (Bruning and Ledingham, 2000). These
relationships are sometimes referred to as organization – public relationships in
corporate communications. The process of building relationships with stakeholders is
also known as relationship marketing (Solomon, 2002; Kim and Rader, 2010).
Organizations stress two types of associations in the relationship marketing 53
literature including: corporate ability associations and corporate social responsibility
associations (Kim and Rader, 2010). Corporate ability associations are “associations a
consumer has with an organization regarding its expertise in product and service
quality” whereas, “CSR [corporate social responsibility associations] are based on
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

consumers’ perceptions about a company’s social obligations as a member of society”

(Kim and Rader, 2010, p. 60).
Kim and Rader (2010) found organizations produce communication materials having
either a dominant corporate ability or corporate social responsibility frame. For example,
when an organization promotes corporate social responsibility activities, it employs a
corporate social responsibility focused communication strategy. When the organization
emphasizes quality of products and services, it employs a corporate-ability focused
communication strategy. Another communication strategy identified was the hybrid
strategy. Organizations use this approach when promoting both corporate ability and
corporate social responsibility information (Kim and Rader, 2010).
Organizations build and maintain relationships via the internet by disseminating
organizational information and promoting two-way communication ( Johnson, 1997).
Through corporate websites, organizations can communicate directly with key publics
(Hill and White, 2000; Kent and Taylor, 1998; Kent et al., 2003).
Previous research has examined how websites act as a public relations tool.
However, these studies performed a content analysis of the information presented on
nonprofit or for-profit corporations’ websites rather than Facebook pages (e.g. Bondy
et al., 2004; Callison, 2003; Esrock and Leichty, 1998, 2000; Gustavsen and Tilley, 2003;
Hachigian and Hallahan, 2003; Huizingh, 2000; Maynard and Tian, 2004; Robbins and
Stylianou, 2003).
More than 4,000 organizations created Facebook pages in 2008 when it first allowed
organizations to join. Facebook pages provide a way for organizations to share news
and company information (Porter, 2010). Stakeholders have shifted from visiting
organizations’ websites to visiting Facebook pages. A Webtrends (2011) found 68
percent of the top Fortune 100 companies have seen a decline in unique (first time
visitors) to their websites; while 40 percent of these companies have seen unique visits
to their Facebook sites increase.
The Webtrends study suggests stakeholders are now visiting Facebook pages more
frequently than corporate websites. There is little research examining the types of
information on organizations’ Facebook pages (e.g. Waters, 2009; Waters et al., 2009;
Vorvoreanu, 2009). And, more importantly, there is little experimental research examining
how interacting with Facebook and the different communication strategies employed
(e.g. corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, or hybrid) impacts stakeholders.
In Study 1, a content analysis of for-profit organizations’ Facebook pages is
conducted to see if Waters et al. (2009) findings for non-profit organizations’ Facebook
pages can be applied to for-profit organizations. Study 1 also identifies the
 CCIJ communication strategy employed on Facebook (corporate ability, corporate social
18,1 responsibility, or hybrid). After exemplar Facebook pages were identified through the
content analysis, Study 2 was conducted.
In Study 2, a two-phase experiment examines how interacting with organizations’
Facebook pages impacts stakeholders, as well as determines if the impact of
interacting with Facebook changes based on the communication strategy employed
54 (corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, or the hybrid approach). It extends
previous research by examining the impact of interacting with organizations’
Facebook pages rather than websites have on an individual. Finally, the current study
examines the impact interacting with Facebook has on stakeholders’ attitudes toward
the organization, perceptions of the organization – public relationship, corporate social
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

responsibility, and purchase intent.

Literature review
Organization – public relationships
Ledingham and Bruning (1998, p. 62) define organization – public relationships as “the
state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which actions of either
can impact the economic, social, cultural or political well being of the other.” There are
six components of organization – public relationships including: satisfaction (favorable
feelings about the relationship), commitment (decision to maintain/promote the
relationship), trust (confidence and willingness to be open), control mutuality (power to
influence the other), communal relationships (concerned with welfare of the other party),
and exchange relationships (equal exchange benefits) (Hon and Grunig, 1999).
These relationships are placed on a continuum. At one end is the “concern for
others,” or relationships where both parties receive benefits from the relationship,
known as a communal relationship. Exploitive relationships, relationships where one
party takes advantage of the other by not fulfilling an obligation, anchors the other end
of the continuum, “concern for self interest.” Organizations have different relationships
with different publics (Hung, 2005).
Sheldon (2008) found women used Facebook to maintain existing interpersonal
relationships. Men used Facebook to meet new people. Organizations employ Facebook
in the same way – to maintain relationships and make new ones. Nonprofit
organizations use Facebook to interact with stakeholders, educate others, and build
relationships (Waters, 2009).
The organization – public relationship dimensions of trust, openness, involvement,
commitment, and investment predict customer satisfaction toward an organization
(Ledingham and Bruning, 1998). Organizations highlight the relationships they have
with their publics in order to have a competitive advantage over their competition
(Bruning et al., 2006). An Emarketer (2010) study found the major reason individuals
“friend” an organization on Facebook is to learn about specials/sales and new product
features/services, supporting the idea organizations use the corporate ability
communication strategy (Kim and Rader, 2010) on their Facebook pages.

Corporate social responsibility

One way to bolster organization – public relationships is to bolster corporate social
responsibility activities. Kim and Reber (2008, p. 341) state corporate social
responsibility is “a central relationship-building activity”, or “scaffolding for mutually
 beneficial exchanges between an organization and its publics” (David et al., 2005, Facebook
p. 293). Carroll (1979) said society expected socially responsible businesses to
encompass economic, legal, and ethical decision-making.
There are three types of corporate social responsibility activities: relational
(e.g. striving to build long-term relations with its consumers and willing to listen to
stakeholders), discretionary (e.g. contributing to arts and cultural program, contributing
resources to raise social awareness of issues, and supporting children and family issues), 55
and moral/ethical (e.g. treating employees fairly and acting responsibly toward the
environment), (David et al., 2005). Research shows consumers will purchase products
from an organization supporting a cause (Ross et al., 1990-1991; Ross et al., 1992).
Corporations spent roughly $15.3 billion 2010 giving back (Giving USA Foundation,
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

2011). Corporate social responsibility perceptions are moderated by consumers’ responses

to the type of corporate social responsibility activity an organization is participating in as
well as quality of product (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Stakeholders’ awareness of
corporate social responsibility activities leads to a more positive association with the
organization and greater purchase intent (Sen et al., 2006; Lee and Shin, 2010).
Study 1 examines the content of for-profit organizations’ Facebook pages. Waters
et al. (2009) found most nonprofits list the site administrator, describe the organization,
and link to their websites. Nonprofits appear to use Facebook to maintain their
organization – public relationships. The current study expands Waters et al. (2009)
findings by examining for-profit organizations’ Facebook pages instead of nonprofit
organizations’ pages. It also expands Kim and Rader’s (2010) results by applying their
typology of communication strategies (corporate ability, corporate social
responsibility, or hybrid) to Facebook rather than websites. The following research
questions guide Study 1:
RQ1. How do for-profit organizations use Facebook to: a) disclose information,
b) disseminate information, c) promote corporate social responsibility
activities, and d) promote two-way communication to stakeholders?
RQ2. Do for-profit organizations employ a corporate ability, corporate social
responsibility, or a hybrid communication strategy in regards to Facebook?

Study 1
Method
A list of unique organizations was compiled from a variety of lists of ethical
companies. Companies were selected from six, industry-recognized award lists
including Forbes’ 100 Best Corporate Citizens, Fortune’s Most Accountable Companies,
and the World’s Most Admired Companies in Social Responsibility, Ethisphere
Magazine’s 2009 World’s Most Ethical Companies (Ethisphere, 2012a, b), PR News’
2009 Overall Leaders in corporate social responsibility, and the top 50 ranking
companies from the Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute’s 2009 Corporate
Social Responsibility Index. Of the 175 unique US organizations identified on the lists,
only 114 companies had Facebook pages.
Coders examined the posts on the Facebook wall, the tabs, and the information
presented as a whole (N ¼ 114). Facebook posts appear in reverse chronological order.
To insure recent and past posts were examined, coders read through the posts and
click on “older posts” until they had read through the posts on the Facebook wall.
 CCIJ Two students enrolled at a Mid-Atlantic, US university conducted the content
18,1 analysis. A coding instrument was developed to code the sample (Table I lists coding
categories). Coding norms were established during a supervised training session. Then
nine percent of the sample (n ¼ 10) was randomly selected and coded independently
for training. After intercoder reliability was calculated, coders coded the rest of the
sample independently. Holsti’s (1969) formula was used to assess inter-coder reliability
56 for nominal level data (93 percent agreement for categories); and inter-coder reliabilities
of 0.94 (Rosenthal, 1984, 1987) for the interval level data examining corporate social
responsibility.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Organizational disclosure
Programs/services 78 (36)
Organizational history 49 (65)
Mission statement 50 (64)
Link or website address 108 (6)
Logo 104 (10)
Official Facebook page statement 22 (92)
Legal statement 4 (110)
Link to twitter feed 43 (71)
Link to blog 27 (87)
Information dissemination
Links to news items 49 (65)
Photographs 104 (10)
Video files 70 (44)
Audio files (114)
Press releases 51 (63)
Campaign summaries 53 (61)
Info about achievements/awards 84 (30)
Corporate social responsibility reports 5 (109)
Involvement
Email address 3 (11)
Phone number 11 (103)
Message board 5 (109)
Calendar of events 46 (68)
Volunteer opportunities 12 (102)
Fan wall 103 (11)
Company wall 74 (40)
Discussion forum 68 (46)
Tabs
Information 114
Video 60 (54)
Photo 104 (10)
Note 40 (74)
Discussion forum 68 (46)
Interactivity 59 (53)
Table I. Corporate social responsibility mean of 3.72 (n ¼ 50)
How organizations use
Facebook: content Note: Categories coded are above; actual number and not percents are shown; numbers in parentheses
analysis findings indicates absent
 Variables coded Facebook
The content analysis employed several categories from Waters et al. (2009) and Chaudhri
and Wang (2007). Categories measured included organizational disclosure, information
dissemination, and involvement. Organizational disclosure was assessed by the presence
of: description of the organization’s programs and services, organizational history,
mission statement, link or address for organization’s website, and logo (Waters et al.,
2009). Four categories were added for the current study: page indicates if it is the “official” 57
Facebook page, presence of a legal statement, link to twitter, and a link to a blog.
Information dissemination was evaluated by determining whether links to news
items, photographs, video files, audio files, press releases, and campaign summaries
were posted (Waters et al., 2009), presence of information/documents about
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

achievements, awards, and corporate social responsibility reports (Chaudhri and

Wang, 2007).
Involvement was assessed if the following were available: email address to the
organization, phone number, message board, calendar of events, and volunteer
opportunities (Waters et al., 2009). Several categories were added for the current study
including: presence of a fan wall, company wall, and a discussion forum.
Demographic information assessed included: number of friends, number of tabs,
and days since last update.
Interactivity of the page was measured (Liu, 2003) as a way to examine the
organizational – public relationship. The question was adapted as a yes/no question,
“This Facebook page facilitates two-way communication between the visitors and the
organization.”
No content analysis research examines Facebook pages for corporate social
responsibility information. The current study adapted one item from Dowling (2001)
and two items from Lichtenstein et al. (2004) corporate social responsibility scales. The
final items were measured on five-point, interval-level scales. Coders indicated how
much corporate social responsibility information was present in the Facebook posts by
answering the following statements: “The organization appears to be a good corporate
citizen,” “The organization is committed to using a portion of its profits to help
nonprofits,” and “The organization is involved in corporate giving” (a ¼ 0:82).

Study 1 results
Facebook updates ranged from 0 days to 365 days since last update by the
organization. The average time between posts was 15.82 days. The minimum number
of fans for a page was two, while the maximum was more than five million. The mean
number of fans was 239,142.
Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to answer Research Question 1:
“How do for-profit organizations use Facebook to: a) disclose information, b)
disseminate information, c) promote corporate social responsibility activities, and d)
promote two-way communication to stakeholders?”
Organizational disclosure results indicate 68.4 percent of organizations post
information about programs and services, 43 percent include organizational history
and a mission statement. More than 90 percent include a link to the organization’s
website. Only 19.3 percent indicate the page is the organization’s “official” Facebook
page, while 3.5 percent include a legal statement. Almost 38 percent include a link to a
twitter feed, while 23 percent include a link to a blog.
 CCIJ Organizations use Facebook to disseminate information; 43 percent include news
18,1 links, 91.2 percent include photos, 61.4 percent include video files, 44.7 percent include
press releases, and 46.5 percent include campaign summaries on Facebook pages.
Involvement measures found 2.6 percent of organizations include a person to email, 9.6
percent include a phone number to call, 4.4 percent include a message board, 40.4
percent include a calendar of events, and 10.5 percent include information on volunteer
58 opportunities.
Overall, organizations used Facebook as a PR engine as well as a forum for
stakeholders to voice comments. More than 51 percent of the organizations promoted
two-way communication on Facebook by answering posts or interacting with
stakeholders. About 73 percent of the organizations discuss awards and recognitions.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Five organizations include a corporate social responsibility report on Facebook.

However, when examining the posts on the organizations’ walls, 50 organizations
include the corporate social responsibility information in the wall posts (M ¼ 3:72,
SD ¼ 0:99). Please see Table I for complete content analysis results.
In regards to Research Question 2, organizations mainly used a corporate ability
communication strategy on Facebook. Only five organizations posted a corporate
social responsibility report, and very few organizations employed a hybrid approach
(promoting both corporate social responsibility and corporate ability). Less than half of
the organizations studied (n ¼ 50) employed a corporate social responsibility approach
on Facebook either in posts or via a report.

Study 1 discussion
Content analysis results of for-profit Facebook pages replicate Waters et al. (2009)
findings for non-profit Facebook pages. The same type of information is available on
for-profit pages as on nonprofit Facebook pages (e.g. organizational history, mission,
link to website, and logo). The current study also found for-profit organizations label
their pages as “official Facebook page” so individuals can determine if the page is built
by fans or the organization. For-profit organizations often include a legal statement, a
link to twitter, and a link to a blog, things not studied by Waters et al. (2009).
Information dissemination for non-profit (Waters et al., 2009) and for-profit
organizations’ Facebook pages is also very similar. Both types of organizations include
photographs, video files, press releases, and campaign summaries. The current study
found some organizations include corporate social responsibility reports and information
about achievements and awards, things not studied in regards to nonprofit
organizations. These findings support Porter’s (2010) suggestion organizations use
Facebook as a pressroom. For-profits organizations rely on the company wall, fan wall,
or discussion board for two-way communication with stakeholders.
In the end, when applying Kim and Rader’s (2010) typology of communication
strategies, most organizations employ the corporate ability communication strategy on
Facebook. Very few organizations employ a dominant corporate social responsibility
communication strategy on Facebook.

Study 2 – experiment
Hong and Rim (2010) find interacting with an organization’s website bolsters
organization – public relationships. If general, company information on a website can
bolster the organization – public relationship, then discussing general company
 information on a Facebook page should also bolster stakeholders’ perceptions about Facebook
the organization – public relationship and attitudes toward the organization. However,
there is no research examining how interacting with an organization’s Facebook page
impacts stakeholders.
Pfau et al. (2008) found press coverage discussing corporate social responsibility
activities bolstered individuals’ perceptions of an organization’s reputation, image, and
credibility. Facebook provides organizations another outlet to discuss corporate social 59
responsibility activities. Hong and Rim’s (2010) survey results indicate the more
customers use a corporate website, the higher their perceptions of corporate social
responsibility for the company. If organizations promote their corporate social
responsibility activities on Facebook, this type of information should bolster
perceptions of the organization, replicating what Pfau et al. (2008) found for press
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

coverage and Hong and Rim (2010) findings for websites.

Results from an Emarketer (2010) study found the major reason individuals “friend”
an organization on Facebook is to find out about the organization’s culture,
environmental responsibility, and workers’ policies, all forms of corporate social
responsibility. Stakeholders’ awareness of corporate social responsibility activities
leads to a more positive association with the organization and greater purchase intent
(Sen et al., 2006; Lee and Shin, 2010). It is also important to determine if the different
communication strategies (corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, or the
hybrid approach) impact stakeholders differently, something not studied by Kim and
Rader (2010). Little is known about the impact interacting with Facebook has on
individuals, but the impact might differ based on the communication strategy
employed. Therefore the following questions asked:
RQ1. Can interacting with a Facebook page bolster stakeholders’ a) attitudes toward
the organization, b) perceptions of the organization – public relationship,
c) perceptions of corporate social responsibility, and d) purchase intent?
RQ2. Do the different forms of communication strategies employed on Facebook
(corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, or the hybrid approach)
impact stakeholders differently (e.g. attitudes toward the organization,
perceptions of the organization – public relationship, perceptions of
corporate social responsibility, and purchase intent)?

Study 2 – experimental procedures

For Study 2, the three “extreme” organizations identified in the content analysis were
used. The content analysis data revealed Kellogg’s as the organization employing
corporate social responsibility communication strategy most frequently. An
organization relying on the corporate ability communication strategy was Best Buy,
and Walmart employed the hybrid approach – meaning it blended the corporate
ability and corporate social responsibility strategies when communicating via
Facebook. Another reason these three organizations were used in the experiment is
because students already had awareness about these organizations. They had not
looked at these organizations’ Facebook pages and were not “friends” of the
organizations. It was important to use organizations students were aware of so there
were initial attitudes and perceptions about the organization to provide baseline
measures.
 CCIJ Participants and procedures
18,1 Undergraduate communication students (N ¼ 275) from a Mid-Atlantic US university
participated in the two-phase experiment for extra credit in communications courses
during the spring of 2010 and fall of 2010 – 80 percent were women. The average age
was 20.24 with a standard deviation of 1.74 and a range of 18 to 41 years of age. A
majority of participants were upper division students (40.7 percent sophomores, 21.8
60 percent juniors, and 12.4 percent seniors), who were Caucasian (63.6 percent). While 6.2
percent were non-Hispanic white, 2.2 percent were African-American, and more than 4
percent reported other ethnicities. Participants spent an average of 64 minutes on
Facebook per day interacting with friends/family, and less than five minutes per day
interacting with organizations’ Facebook pages.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

During Phase 1, participants (n ¼ 300) came to a computer lab. They were provided
with written instructions and the study url to complete the online, Phase 1
questionnaire. Once participants logged in to the study, they completed the informed
consent form and were then randomly assigned to one of the three companies
(Walmart, Kellogg’s, or Best Buy). After random assignment, participants filled out
questionnaire items addressing: perceptions of the organization – public relationship,
corporate social responsibility activities, attitude toward the organization, and
purchase intent. Phase 1 was conducted over a ten-day period.
There was a retention rate from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of 92 percent (n ¼ 300phase1 ,
n ¼ 275phase2 ). Phase 2 was conducted the following ten days (N ¼ 275). Data analysis
was conducted for participants completing both phases.
During Phase 2, students came back to the computer lab. They were provided
written instructions including the url for the online survey instrument. They were
matched with the organization they had been randomly assigned to answer questions
about during Phase 1 and linked to the organization’s Facebook page. For example, the
Best Buy group was linked to the Best Buy Facebook page. Students did not have to
log in to their personal Facebook accounts in order to interact with the Walmart
(n ¼ 74), Best Buy (n ¼ 101), or Kellogg’s (n ¼ 100) Facebook pages.
After participants examined the organizations’ Facebook pages, they answered
knowledge items. They had to interact with the organizations’ Facebook pages through
the tabs and wall in order to answer the 11 knowledge items (number
correct ¼ M ¼ 8:20, SD ¼ 1:97). After filling out the knowledge items, participants
filled out questionnaire items asking: perceptions of the organization – public
relationship, corporate social responsibility, attitude toward the organization, and
purchase intent.

Variables measured
Independent variable. The independent variable was the organization’s communication
strategy. Kellogg’s employs the corporate social responsibility strategy. Best Buy
employs the corporate ability strategy, and Walmart employs the hybrid strategy. This
was determined in Study 1. The following were the dependent variables.
Overall attitude. Overall attitude toward the organization was assessed with a
global attitude measure adapted from Burgoon et al. (1978). It consisted of six,
7-interval semantic differential scales including: good/bad, positive/negative,
wise/foolish, valuable/worthless, favorable/unfavorable, and acceptable/unacceptable
(a ¼ 0:94Phase1 , a ¼ 0:95Phase2 ).
 OPRs. Four dimensions of the Ki and Hon (2007) organization-public relationship Facebook
scale were employed in this study. The questions were placed on seven-point,
Likert-type scales. Questions were reworded slightly to fit the purpose of this study.
Dimensions include:
.
Control mutuality (the organization: believes public opinion is legitimate;
respects the public; has a tendency to throw its weight around; listens to what the
public has to say; seems to ignore public opinion in the decisions affecting the 61
public; when the public interacts with the organization, it feels it has some sense
of control; cooperates with the public; and the public can influence the decision
makers at the organization) a ¼ 0:80Phase1 , a ¼ 0:84Phase2 .
.
Satisfaction (both the organization and the public benefit from their relationship; the
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

public is dissatisfied with its interaction with the organization; the public is happy
with the organization; generally speaking, the public is unhappy with the
relationship the organization has established with them; the public enjoys dealing
with the organization; the organization fails to satisfy the public’s needs; the public
feels it is important to the organization; and in general, and nothing of value has
been accomplished by the organization for the public) a ¼ 0:81Phase1 , a ¼ 0:85Phase2 .
.
Trust (the organization treats the public fairly and justly; whenever the
organization makes an important decision, the organization considers the
decision’s impact on the public; the organization can be relied on to keep its
promises; the organization takes public opinion into account when making
decisions; the public feels very confident about abilities of the organization;
sound principles guide the organization’s behavior; and the organization
misleads the public) a ¼ 9:84Phase1 , a ¼ 0:89Phase2 .
.
Commitment (the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment; the
organization wants to maintain a positive relationship; compared to other
organizations, the public values its relationship with this organization the most;
the public would rather work with the organization than against it; and the
public feels a sense of loyalty to the organization) a ¼ 0:85Phase1 , a ¼ 0:87Phase2 .

Corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility was measured using the
following items: the organization is committed to using a portion of its profits to help
nonprofits; the organization gives back to the communities in which it does business;
local non-profits benefit from the organization’s contributions; the organization
integrates charitable contributions into its business activities; the organization is
involved in corporate giving (Lichtenstein et al., 2004) (a ¼ 0:93Phase1 , a ¼ 0:93Phase2 ).
Purchase intent. Purchase intent was measured by combining two scales from Gill
et al. (1988), and Urbany et al. (1997). The questions asked participants if they had the
opportunity, if they would purchase this organization’s products/services. There were
six bipolar adjective pairs. Adjective pairs included: unlikely/likely;
nonexistent/existent; improbable/probable; impossible/possible; uncertain/certain;
definitely would not/definitely would (a ¼ 0:95Phase1 , a ¼ 0:95Phase2 ).

Study two – experimental results

Paired sample t-tests were computed on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 measures to answer
Research Question 1. Results indicate stakeholders’ attitudes toward the organizations
 CCIJ became more positive tð274Þ ¼ 7:86, p , 0:001 from Phase 1 (M ¼ 5:05, SD ¼ 1:21) to
18,1 Phase 2 (M ¼ 5:54, SD ¼ 1:12). Perceptions of the organization-public relationship
also become significantly more positive on all dimensions: “control mutuality”,
tð274Þ ¼ 27:90, p , 0:001, “satisfaction”, tð274Þ ¼ 26:45, p , 0:001, “trust”,
tð274Þ ¼ 8:69, p , :001, and “commitment”, tð274Þ ¼ 7:87, p , 0:001 from Phase 1
to Phase 2. Stakeholders’ purchase intent ðtð274Þ ¼ 3:59, p , 0:001) was significantly
62 bolstered after interacting with organizations’ Facebook pages (M ¼ 5:26, SD ¼
1:18Phase1 to M ¼ 5:45, SD ¼ 1:17Phase2 ). Finally, stakeholders’ perceptions of
corporate social responsibility were significantly bolstered after interacting with the
organizations’ Facebook pages (tð274Þ ¼ 20:53, p , 0:001; M ¼ 3:94, SD ¼ 1:02Phase1
to M ¼ 5:62, SD ¼ 1:21Phase2 ). Therefore, the answer to Research Question 1 is yes;
interacting with organizations’ Facebook pages bolsters stakeholders’ attitudes toward
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

the organization, perceptions of the organization-public relationship, corporate social

responsibility, and purchase intent. Table II depicts the means and standard deviations
for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was computed to examine the
Research Question 2, which asked, “Do the different forms of communication strategies
employed on Facebook (corporate ability, corporate social responsibility, or the hybrid
approach) impact stakeholders differently (e.g. attitudes toward the organization,
perceptions of the organization – public relationship, perceptions of corporate social
responsibility, and purchase intent)?”
The omnibus results indicated significant differences for experimental condition,
“communication strategy” (Kellogg’s/corporate social responsibility strategy; Best
Buy/corporate ability strategy; and Walmart/hybrid strategy), Wilks’
lFð16; 530Þ ¼ 8:14, p , 0:001, partial h 2 ¼ 0:20. Subsequent univariate tests
revealed significant differences for the independent variable experimental condition,
“communication strategy” (Kellogg’s/corporate social responsibility strategy; Best
Buy/corporate ability strategy; and Walmart/hybrid strategy), on the dependent
variables: attitude (Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 15:60, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:10), organization-public
relationship (control mutuality Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 8:42, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:06; satisfaction

Time 1 Time 2
Dependent variables Mean SD Mean SD

Attitude 5.05 1.21 5.54 1.12 *

Corporate social responsibility 3.94 1.02 5.62 1.21 *
OPR – control mutuality 4.53 0.73 4.95 0.90 *
OPR – satisfaction 4.70 0.92 5.10 1.06 *
OPR – trust 4.49 0.89 5.02 1.07 *
OPR – commitment 4.85 0.97 5.32 0.99 *
Purchase intent 5.26 1.17 5.45 1.17 *
Notes: * significant compared to Phase 1 at p , 0:001 level; Means and standard deviations are listed
for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Respondents’ attitude toward the organization were measured using six
bipolar adjective pairs developed by Burgoon et al. (1978). Corporate social responsibility was
Table II. measured by a five-item scale developed by Lichtenstein et al. (2004). Purchase intent was measured
Change in dimensions of using the scales from Gill et al. (1988) and Urbany et al. (1997). Perceptions of the organization – public
dependent variables from relationship were measured using the Ki and Hon (2007) scale. All items were placed on seven-point
time 1 to time 2 Likert-type scales
 Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 18:14, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:12; trust Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 14:61, p ¼ 0:000, Facebook
h 2 ¼ 0:10; and commitment Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 8:70, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:06); corporate
social responsibility Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 32:20, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:19; and purchase intent
Fð2; 274Þ ¼ 5:70, p ¼ 0:000, h 2 ¼ 0:04.
Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons of means indicated those in the
Kellogg’s/corporate social responsibility strategy indicated significantly more
positive attitudes (M ¼ 6:00, SD ¼ 0:79) than those in the Best Buy/corporate 63
ability strategy (M ¼ 5:40, SD ¼ 1:18) and Walmart/hybrid strategy (M ¼ 5:12,
SD ¼ 1:02) conditions. When organizations employ the corporate social responsibility
communication strategy, this leads to more positive attitudes than when organizations
employ the corporate ability or hybrid communication strategies.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Those in the Kellogg’s/corporate social responsibility strategy condition also had

significantly more positive perceptions of the organization-public relationship (control
mutuality M ¼ 5:23, SD ¼ 0:74; satisfaction M ¼ 5:38, SD ¼ 1:05; trust M ¼ 5:45,
SD ¼ 0:86; and commitment M ¼ 5:62, SD ¼ 0:84 than those in the Best
Buy/corporate ability strategy (control mutuality M ¼ 4:75, SD ¼ 0:97; satisfaction
M ¼ 4:58, SD ¼ 1:07; trust M ¼ 4:69, SD ¼ 1:11; and commitment M ¼ 5:06,
SD ¼ 1:07), and Walmart/hybrid strategy (control mutuality M ¼ 4:84, SD ¼ 0:92;
satisfaction M ¼ 5:26, SD ¼ 0:83; trust M ¼ 4:87, SD ¼ 1:9; and commitment
M ¼ 5:28, SD ¼ 0:96) conditions. Those reading Facebook pages employing the
corporate social responsibility strategy had more favorable perceptions of the
organization-public relationship than those reading Facebook pages employing the
corporate ability communication strategy or a hybrid strategy (see Table III).
Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons of means found those in the Kellogg’s/corporate
social responsibility strategy condition had significantly higher perceptions of
corporate social responsibility (M ¼ 6:14, SD ¼ 0:71) than those in the Best

Experimental condition
Kellogg’s Walmart Best Buy
(n ¼ 100) (n ¼ 74) (n ¼ 101)
Dependent variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Attitude 6.00 0.79 * * * 5.12 1.02 5.40 1.18

Corporate social responsibility 6.14 0.71 * * * 5.84 0.91 * 4.94 1.46
OPR – control mutuality 5.23 0.74 * * * 4.84 0.92 4.75 0.97
OPR – satisfaction 5.38 1.05 * * * 5.26 0.83 * 4.58 1.07
OPR – trust 5.45 0.86 * * * 4.87 1.09 4.69 1.11
OPR – commitment 5.62 0.84 * * 5.28 0.96 5.06 1.07
Purchase intent 5.76 0.96 * * 5.32 1.34 5.24 1.17
Notes: * Walmart significant compared to Best Buy at the p , 0:001 level; * * Kellogg’s significant
compared to Best Buy at the p , 0:01 level, and Walmart at p , 0:05 level; * * * Kellogg’s significant
compared to Walmart and Best Buy at the p , 0:01 level; Respondents’ attitudes toward the
organization were measured using six bipolar adjective pairs developed by Burgoon et al. (1978).
Corporate social responsibility was measured through a five-item scale developed by Lichtenstein et al. Table III.
(2004). Perceptions of the organization – public relationship were measured using the four-dimension Scores for dependent
scale by Ki and Hon (2007). Purchase intent was measured using scales from Gill et al. (1988) and variables based on
Urbany et al. (1997). All items were placed on seven-point, Likert-type scales organization
 CCIJ Buy/corporate ability strategy (M ¼ 4:94, SD ¼ 1:46), and Walmart/hybrid strategy
18,1 (M ¼ 5:84, SD ¼ 0:91).
Those reading Facebook pages employing the corporate social responsibility
communication strategy had more favorable perceptions of the organization’s
corporate social responsibility efforts than those reading Facebook pages employing
the corporate ability or hybrid strategies (see Table III).
64 Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons of means found those in the Kellogg’s/corporate
social responsibility strategy condition indicated significantly higher purchase intent
(M ¼ 5:76, SD ¼ 0:96) than those in the Best Buy/corporate ability strategy
(M ¼ 5:24, SD ¼ 1:17), and Walmart/hybrid strategy (M ¼ 5:32, SD ¼ 1:34).
Therefore, employing the corporate social responsibility communication strategy
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

impacts stakeholders’ likelihood of purchasing a product when compared to

stakeholders reading Facebook pages employing a corporate ability approach or a
hybrid communication approach.

Study 2 discussion
Experimental results indicate interacting with organizations’ Facebook pages can
bolster attitudes toward the organization, perceptions of the organization – public
relationships, corporate social responsibility, and purchase intent. These findings
support Hong and Rim (2010) who found interacting with an organization’s website
bolstered attitudes toward the organization and enhanced the organization – public
relationship. The current study provides stronger support for these findings because it
included a pretest/posttest experimental design and included multiple organizations
rather than just one organization as did Hong and Rim (2010).
This was the first experiment to compare Kim and Rader’s (2010) typology of
communication strategies in regards to Facebook pages rather than corporate
websites. The results indicate Facebook pages employing a corporate social
responsibility communication strategy bolster stakeholders’ attitudes, perceptions of
the organization-public relationship, corporate social responsibility, and purchase
intent better than Facebook pages employing a corporate ability or hybrid
communication approach.
Hong and Rim (2010) found perceptions of corporate social responsibility can be
bolstered by interacting with a corporation’s website. However, they did not examine
how specific information presented on the corporation’s website impacted perceptions
of corporate social responsibility, whereas the current study did.
Stakeholders’ awareness of corporate social responsibility activities leads to greater
purchase intent supporting the findings of Sen et al. (2006) and Margolis and Walsh
(2003) who found a positive association between corporate social responsibility and a
company’s financial performance. Organizations should employ the corporate social
responsibility strategy on Facebook in order to bolster stakeholders’ purchase intent.
Though the study results find employing a corporate social responsibility
communication strategy leads to positive attitudes and perceptions in stakeholders,
organizations should also include information about products/services in order to meet
the consumers needs (to learn about specials/sales and new product features/services)
identified in the Emarketer (2010) study. Discussing the corporate social responsibility
information meets the other category of needs (need for information about the
 organization’s culture, environmental responsibility, and workers’ policies) identified Facebook
by Emarketer (2010).
The current study extends the literature. The findings suggest perceptions of
corporate social responsibility, organization-public relationships, attitudes, and
purchase intent are bolstered by interacting with an organization’s Facebook page
(regardless of type of communication strategy employed). The current study extends
the research by also examining the type of communication strategy employed. 65
Findings suggest if organizations want their Facebook pages to have the most impact,
the corporate social responsibility communication strategy should be employed when
posting and disseminating information via Facebook.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

General discussion
The current studies examined Facebook as a public relations tool. Past research has
examined how organizations use corporate websites to communicate directly with key
publics (Hill and White, 2000; Kent and Taylor, 1998; Kent et al., 2003); as well as how
websites act as a public relations tool (e.g. Callison, 2003; Esrock and Leichty, 1998,
2000). The current study examines Facebook pages instead of websites. It is important
to examine corporate Facebook pages because there is a decline in unique, first time
visitors to corporate websites, and an increase in unique visits to corporate Facebook
pages (Webtrends, 2011).
Content analysis results indicate organizations currently employ more corporate
ability communication strategies than corporate social responsibility or hybrid
strategies. Experimental results indicate the communication strategy an organization
employs impacts stakeholders’ perceptions. It appears when organizations employ the
corporate social responsibility communication strategy it leads to more positive
attitudes, perceptions of the organization-public relationship, corporate social
responsibility, and purchase intent than when organizations employ corporate
ability or hybrid strategies.
This study expands on the Vorvoreanu (2009) findings. She found participants were
not likely to friend an organization when they first started having a presence on
Facebook. Participants in the current study now “friend” and interact with organizations
on Facebook for less than five minutes a day. Organizations should include corporate
ability information when communicating on Facebook because the Emarketer (2010)
study suggests stakeholders “friend” an organization on Facebook in order to learn
about specials/sales and new product features/services. However, the major
communication strategy employed should be the corporate social responsibility
strategy because it has the most impact on stakeholders’ perceptions of the organization.

Limitations
Although this study expands the literature, it does have some limitations. Several of
the organizations did not have Facebook pages to code for the content analysis. Some
organizations’ pages were not coded because the page was just starting and there was
no information available. The content analysis included a small sample size (N ¼ 114).
This small sample impacted the experiment. It limited the number of organizations
that could be employed in the experimental conditions. It was important to use
organizations students had a sense of, were impartial to, and had not interacted with
the organization on Facebook prior to the study. Although Kellogg’s is an organization
 CCIJ that has specific products, Best Buy and Walmart are also organizations that produce
18,1 specific products (they each have their own brand) besides offering services. There
were limited organizations that fell into each of the three communication strategies, so
that is why these three organizations were used.
The experiment employed pre/posttest measures. A week passed between each phase,
and the Greenhouse Geisser adjustment was used in the data analysis to control for
66 biases that may occur when using repeated measures. It should be noted the students
had not interacted with these organizations’ Facebook pages prior to Phase 2, were not
“friends” with the organizations, and had not previously visited the organizations’
Facebook pages. One of the benefits of conducting this study in a lab was the fact
participants were monitored. Another benefit was participants did not log in to Facebook
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

using their personal accounts. The students could examine the corporations’ Facebook
pages without logging in to Facebook or becoming a Facebook member.

Future directions
There is still a lot to learn about Facebook and communicating with stakeholders. More
effects studies are needed to determine the impact of corporate websites, Facebook
pages, and other forms of social media on stakeholders. The same type of experiment
could be conducted with nonprofit organization pages identified by Waters et al. (2009).
The communication strategies used on fan pages versus organization pages could also
be examined. Future studies could also determine how “updating” impacts
stakeholders’ perceptions. They may expect Facebook pages to be updated quicker
than the average of every 15 days. Also, research should compare the impact of a
website versus that of a Facebook page. The type of information and format it is
presented is different, so the impact on stakeholders may be different as well.

Conclusion and practical implications

This study provides marketing communications professionals with guidelines on how
to craft messages for Facebook. Organizations use Facebook to bolster stakeholders’
attitudes, perceptions, and purchase intent. Organizations should include corporate
ability information on Facebook, but most of the information presented should be
written using the corporate social responsibility communication strategy.
Understanding the types of information presented and how the information
presented impacts stakeholders’ is key so practitioners can produce efficient messages.

Acknowledgements
Haigh would like to thank Julie Marusak, Anna Sofio, Erin Fegely, Kristen Gunnison,
Kim Nguyen, Dan LePera, Michelle Turli, Anna Zwolak and Kyle Casey,
undergraduates in the College of Communications at the time the study was
conducted, for their assistance in coding, data entry, and monitoring the lab. Special
thanks to Yu-Tai Chung, system administrator for the College for his assistance in
helping prepare the randomization and token management for the online survey.
Earlier versions of Study 1 and Study 2 were presented at the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication annual meeting in 2010 and at the
2011 International Communication Association Annual meeting.
 References Facebook
Bondy, K., Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2004), “The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs:
a three-country comparative study”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 109 No. 4,
pp. 449-77.
Bruning, S.D. and Ledingham, J.A. (2000), “Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of
satisfaction: an exploration of interaction”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
Bruning, S.D., DeMiglio, P.A. and Embry, K. (2006), “Mutual benefit as outcome indicator: factors 67
influencing perceptions of benefit in organization – public relationship”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 33-40.
Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M.D. and Montgomery, C.L. (1978), “An empirical test of a model
of resistance to persuasion”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Callison, C. (2003), “Media relations and the internet: how Fortune 500 company web sites assist
journalists in news gathering”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Chaudhri, V. and Wang, J. (2007), “Communicating corporate social responsibility on the internet:
a case study of the top 100 information technology companies”, Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 232-47.
David, P., Kline, S. and Dai, Y. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate
identity, and purchase intention: a dual-process model”, Journal of Public Relations
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 291-313.
Dowling, G. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image, and Performance, Oxford
University Press, Oxford and New York, NY.
Emarketer (2010), available at: www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R¼1007476&AspxAuto
DetectCookieSupport¼1
Esrock, S.L. and Leichty, G.B. (1998), “Social responsibility and corporate web pages:
self-presentation or agenda setting?”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 305-19.
Esrock, S.L. and Leichty, G.B. (2000), “Organization of corporate web pages: publics and
functions”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 327-44.
Ethisphere (2012a), “2009 world’s most ethical companies”, available at: http://ethisphere.com/
wme2009/ (accessed September 1, 2011).
Ethisphere (2012b), “About Ethisphere”, available at: http://ethisphere.com/about-ethisphere/
(accessed September 1, 2011).
Gill, J.D., Grossbart, S. and Laczniak, R.N. (1988), “Influence of involvement, commitment and
familiarity on brand beliefs and attitudes of viewers exposed to alternative claim
strategies”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 33-43.
Giving USA Foundation (2011), Annual Report on Philanthropy 2010, available at: www.aafrc.
org/press_releases/gusa.cfm
Gustavsen, P.A. and Tilley, E. (2003), “Public relations communication through corporate
websites: towards an understanding of the role of interactivity”, PRism, Vol. 1 No. 1,
available at: www.praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/issue1/
refereed_articles_paper5.pdf
Hachigian, D. and Hallahan, K. (2003), “Perceptions of public relations web sites by computer
industry journalists”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 43-62.
Hill, L. and White, C. (2000), “Public relations practitioners’ perception of the World Wide Web as
a public relations tool”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
 CCIJ Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis For the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
18,1 Hon, L.C. and Grunig, J.E. (1999), Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations,
The Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation,
Gainesville, FL.
Hong, S.Y. and Rim, H. (2010), “The influence of customer use of corporate websites: corporate
68 social responsibility, trust, and word-of-mouth communication”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-91.
Huizingh, E.K.R.E. (2000), “The content and design of web sites: an empirical study”,
Information and Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 123-34.
Hung, C.F. (2005), “Exploring types of organization-public relationships and their implications
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

for relationship management in public relations”, Journal of Public Relations Research,

Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 151-76.
Johnson, M.A. (1997), “Public relations and technology: practitioner perspectives”, Journal of
Public Relations Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 213-36.
Kent, M. and Taylor, M. (1998), “Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 321-34.
Kent, M., Taylor, M. and White, W. (2003), “The relationship between web site design and
organizational responsiveness to stakeholders”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 63-77.
Ki, E. and Hon, L. (2007), “Reliability and validity of organization – public relationship
measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization”,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 419-38.
Kim, S. and Rader, S. (2010), “What they can do versus how much they care: assessing corporate
communication strategies on Fortune 500 web sites”, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Kim, S. and Reber, B.H. (2008), “Public relations’ place in corporate social responsibility:
practitioners define their role”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 337-42.
Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (1998), “Relationship management in public relations:
dimensions of an organization-public relationship”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 55-65.
Lee, K.H. and Shin, D. (2010), “Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: the linkage between
increased awareness and purchase intention”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 36, pp. 193-5.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E. and Braig, B.M. (2004), “The effect of corporate social
responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 16-32.
Liu, Y. (2003), “Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 207-16.
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003), “Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
business”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 268-305.
Maynard, M. and Tian, Y. (2004), “Between global and glocal: content analysis of the Chinese
web sites of the 100 top global brands”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 285-91.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M.M., Simms, J. and Wigley, S. (2008), “The influence of corporate social
responsibility campaigns on public opinion”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 145-54.
Porter, J. (2010), “Facebook for public relations”, available at: www.prweekus.com/the-use-of-
social-media-is-no-longer-a-question-of-if-but-how/printarticle/149590/
 Robbins, S.S. and Stylianou, A.C. (2003), “Global corporate web sites: an empirical investigation Facebook
of content and design”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 205-12.
Rosenthal, R. (1984), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Rosenthal, R. (1987), Judgment Studies: Design, Analysis, and Meta-analysis, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ross, J.K., Patterson, L.T. and Stutts, M.A. (1992), “Consumer perceptions of organizations that
use cause-related marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, 69
pp. 93-7.
Ross, J.K., Stutts, M.A. and Patterson, L.T. (1990-1991), “Tactical considerations for the effective
use of cause-related marketing”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 58-65.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer
reactions to corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 225-43.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2006), “The role of corporate social responsibility in
strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 158-66.
Sheldon, P. (2008), “Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use”, Southwestern
Communication Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 39-53.
Solomon, M.R. (2002), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Urbany, J.E., Bearden, W.O., Kaicker, A. and Smith-de Borrero, M. (1997), “Transaction utility
effects when quality is uncertain”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 45-55.
Vorvoreanu, M. (2009), “Perceptions of corporations on Facebook: an analysis of Facebook social
norms”, Journal of New Communication Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
Waters, R.D. (2009), “Comparing the two sides of the nonprofit organization-donor relationship:
applying coorientation methodology to relationship management”, Public Relations
Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 144-6.
Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. and Lucas, J. (2009), “Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook”, Public Relations Review,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 102-6.
Webtrends (2011), available at: http://blogs.webtrends.com/

About the authors

Michel M. Haigh (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2006) is an Associate Professor in the College of
Communications at The Pennsylvania State University. Michel M. Haigh is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: mmh25@psu.edu
Pamela Brubaker (PhD, Penn State, 2012) was a Doctoral student in the College of
Communications at The Pennsylvania State University.
Erin Whiteside (PhD, Penn State, 2010) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism
and Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Chetna Kudeshia, Pallab Sikdar, Arun Mittal. 2016. Spreading love through fan page liking: A perspective
on small scale entrepreneurs. Computers in Human Behavior 54, 257-270. [CrossRef]
2. Hyojung Park, Soo-Yeon Kim. 2015. A moderated mediation model of corporate social responsibility.
Journal of Communication Management 19:4, 306-323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Julia Daisy Fraustino, Colleen Connolly-Ahern. 2015. Corporate Associations Written on the Wall:
Publics’ Responses to Fortune 500 Ability and Social Responsibility Facebook Posts. Journal of Public
Relations Research 27, 452-474. [CrossRef]
4. Rodney Graeme Duffett. 2015. Facebook advertising’s influence on intention-to-purchase and purchase
amongst Millennials. Internet Research 25:4, 498-526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Weiting Tao, Christopher Wilson. 2015. Fortune 1000 communication strategies on Facebook and
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 10:29 30 January 2016 (PT)

Twitter. Journal of Communication Management 19:3, 208-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Arif Perdana, Alastair Robb, Fiona Rohde. 2015. XBRL Diffusion in Social Media: Discourses and
Community Learning. Journal of Information Systems 29, 71-106. [CrossRef]
7. Sanjaya S. Gaur, Chayanin Saransomrurtai, Halimin Herjanto. 2015. Top Global Firms’ Use of Brand
Profile Pages on SNS for Marketing Communication. Journal of Internet Commerce 14, 316-340.
[CrossRef]
8. Linchi Kwok (Lingzhi Guo), Feifei Zhang, Yung-Kuei Huang, Bei Yu, Prabhukrishna Maharabhushanam,
Kasturi Rangan. 2015. Documenting business-to-consumer (B2C) communications on Facebook.
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 7:3, 283-294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Marie-Cécile Cervellon, Danielle Galipienzo. 2015. Facebook Pages Content, does it Really Matter?
Consumers’ Responses to Luxury Hotel Posts with Emotional and Informational Content. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing 1-10. [CrossRef]
10. Michel M Haigh, Shelley Wigley. 2015. Examining the impact of negative, user-generated content on
stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 20:1, 63-75. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
11. Enrique Bonsón, Sonia Royo, Melinda Ratkai. 2015. Citizens' engagement on local governments'
Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe.
Government Information Quarterly 32, 52-62. [CrossRef]
12. Ashleigh K. Shelton, Paul Skalski. 2014. Blinded by the light: Illuminating the dark side of social network
use through content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 33, 339-348. [CrossRef]
13. Alexander Moutchnik. 2013. Im Glaslabyrinth der Kommunikation. Der Dialog mit Stakeholdern über
Umwelt, Nachhaltigkeit und CSR in Social Media. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 21, 19-37. [CrossRef]