Journal of Interactive Advertising

ISSN: (Print) 1525-2019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujia20

Why Isn't Everyone Doing It? A Comparison of

Antecedents to Following Brands on Twitter and
Facebook

Kelty Logan

To cite this article: Kelty Logan (2014) Why Isn't Everyone Doing It? A Comparison of
Antecedents to Following Brands on Twitter and Facebook, Journal of Interactive Advertising,
14:2, 60-72, DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2014.935536

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2014.935536

© 2014 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis© Kelty Logan

Published online: 23 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5995

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujia20
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(2), 60–72
Published with license by Taylor & Francis
ISSN: / 1525-2019 online
DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2014.935536
Why Isn’t Everyone Doing It? A Comparison of Antecedents
to Following Brands on Twitter and Facebook
Kelty Logan
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA
This research compares the antecedents to young adults’ inten-
tions to follow brands on Twitter and Facebook. The three con-
clusions that emerge from this study are not entirely consistent
with planned behavior or technology acceptance models. First,
perceived ease of use directly affects users’ intentions to follow
brands on Facebook and Twitter. Second, peer pressure is an im-
portant factor in the decision to follow brands on Facebook and
Twitter. Third, consumers’ attitudes toward following brands on
Facebook and Twitter do not directly affect their intentions to fol-
low brands. In addition, following brands on Facebook and Twitter
appears to satisfy different user gratifications.
Keywords social media advertising, Twitter, Facebook, Technology
acceptance model, Theory of planned behavior
Social media have revolutionized the role of media in con-
sumers’ lives by disintegrating the fourth wall between media
providers and media users and facilitating genuine dialogue.
Social media are defined by Boyd and Ellison (2007) as “web-
based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public
or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate
a list of other users with whom they share a connection and,
(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made
by others within the system” (211). According to Burst Media
(2013), 65% of online adults have at least one personal social
media account and 59% use their accounts at least once a day.
The growing penetration of social media has spurred advertisers
to get involved in the medium. Nearly 90% of advertisers use
social media free tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, and
75% of them use paid social media advertising, such as paid
ads on Facebook or sponsored blogs. While advertisers have
opportunistically jumped on the social media bandwagon,
70% of them have invested less than 10% of their advertising
budgets on the new medium (Nielsen Company 2013).
© Kelty Logan
Address correspondence to Kelty Logan, Journalism and Mass
Communication, Armory Building, 1511 University Avenue, 478
UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0478. E-mail:
kelty.logan@colorado.edu
Kelty Logan (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant
professor at University of Colorado, Boulder.
60
Advertisers’ reluctance to commit significant budgets to so-
cial media advertising appears to be attributable to the lack of
metrics to assess advertising effectiveness versus other online
and offline alternatives (Nielsen Company 2013). It could be ar-
gued, however, that the development of “media-agnostic” adver-
tising metrics is greatly complicated by the lack of meaningful
measures related to the effects of interactivity. Currently, so-
cial media campaigns are measured on the basis of “likes/pins,”
“click-throughs,” “views,” and “shares/reposts.” These metrics
are analogous to the measures used to assess broadcast media
audience size. While measures of site traffic certainly provide a
means to compare audience size across media, they will not pro-
vide insight regarding the advantages of social media compared
to other, traditional media alternatives in terms of message effec-
tiveness. This study investigates why consumers follow brands
on Facebook and Twitter, providing insight regarding the factors
that are most important to young adults (ages 18 to 34) when
forming the intention to follow brands. These insights are cru-
cial to the development of measures that can, ultimately, provide
media-agnostic comparisons of advertising effectiveness.
SOCIAL NETWORK SITES
The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) divides social me-
dia into three categories: social media sites, blogs, and mobile
social media (IAB 2009). Facebook, an online social networking
service, is categorized as a social media site. Facebook functions
as a proprietary walled garden, limiting what developers can do
with the application interface (API) and thus allowing the site
to retain user data. Users must register before using the site
and can subsequently add other users as friends. In addition, a
“Follow” button allows users to subscribe to public groups or
organizations without adding them as friends. Facebook is used
primarily to maintain personal connections.
Younger users (ages 15 to 24) are more likely to use Facebook
to manage their social lives (Exact Target 2010b). Facebook
offers two categories of ads: premium ads and marketplace ads.
Premium ads appear in the newsfeed, on the right-hand side
of the page, in the mobile newsfeed, and on the logout page.
Marketplace ads also appear on the right-hand side of the page.
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT?
All premium Facebook ads begin as content posted to a brand
page.
Twitter, an instant messaging system that allows users to send
text messages up to 140 characters in length to a list of follow-
ers, is categorized as a microblogging site. Users can also share
videos and links to other content in their tweets. Tweet broad-
casts can be public or private. Registered users can read and post
tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. In addition,
Twitter’s flexible API streams tweets to other online forums,
such as blogs and corporate sites. Compared to Facebook, Twit-
ter functions more as an open platform, allowing developers to
build upon it. In an effort to monetize the site, however, Twitter
is also beginning to restrict the terms of its API, moving to-
ward a proprietary walled garden. Twitter provides users with
unprecedented access to influencers across many markets, in-
cluding celebrities and thought leaders in various industries. On
Twitter, brands can advertise using direct advertising (promoted
tweets, trends, and accounts), third-party network advertising
(sponsored tweets), and publisher direct advertising, wherein
brands hire influential individuals to publish brand tweets. Both
Facebook and Twitter can be accessed on mobile applications.
Industry research has measured the demographics and be-
havior of social media users. In terms of demographics, social
media skew female, young, and White. Approximately 54% of
social media users are female (Edison 2012). The slight female
skew is reflected across social media accounts. Specifically, 56%
of online women have Facebook accounts compared to 49.5%
of online men and 16.9% of online women have Twitter ac-
counts compared to 15.5% of online men (Burst Media 2013).
Social media users are also young. Over half of social media
users are between ages 12 and 34 (Edison 2012). Among 12-
to 24-year-olds, approximately 80% maintain a personal pro-
file on Facebook and 18% have a Twitter account. In terms
of race and ethnicity, however, the results reveal an interesting
skew. While non-Whites account for only 15% of the total so-
cial media users, social media penetration among the non-White
population exceeds that of the White population. Specifically,
75% of the Black Internet users and 80% of Hispanic Internet
users use social networking sites compared to 70% of White
Internet users (Pew 2013). In the case of Twitter, penetration
among non-White Internet users is almost twice as high as pen-
etration among White Internet users. Specifically, Twitter users
account for 27% of Black Internet users and 28% of Hispanic
Internet users compared to only 14% of White Internet users.
Following brands on Facebook and Twitter has doubled from
2010 to 2012 (Vision Critical 2013). Specifically, 33% of social
media users (age 12 and up) reported that they followed com-
panies or brands during 2012 compared to 16% in 2010. The
primary reason provided for following brands on Facebook and
Twitter was “Sales/discounts/coupons.” About 43% of social
media users reported that they purchased products after inter-
acting with the brand on social media (Vision Critical 2013).
In contrast to the industry focus on social media user de-
mographics and behavior, academic research has focused on
61
consumer perceptions. This study builds on a growing body of
scholarly research that explores how individuals perceive so-
cial media and what motivates their involvement with Facebook
and Twitter. Specifically, this study probes the factors that are
most important to young adults (ages 18 to 34) when forming the
intention to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter. The remain-
der of this article provides a review of the relevant literature, the
research hypotheses, method, results, and conclusions. Finally,
research limitations and opportunities for future research are
reviewed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Motivations for Social Media Use
Because social media is relatively new, academic research
has sought to define both the medium and the user. There
are studies identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications
(Bonds-Raacke and Raacke 2010; Langstedt 2013; and Raacke
and Bonds-Raacke 2008), the psychology of social media use
(Phillips 2008), the determinants of user engagement (Chu and
Kim 2011), and the personalities of the users (Ross et al. 2009).
Research suggests that although social media use varies accord-
ing to the users’ personalities and familiarity with the technol-
ogy, motivation to use social media is not associated with any
personality variable (Ross et al. 2009). Rather, the use of so-
cial media appears to relate to the gratifications sought. Social
networks satisfy the need for information, friendship, and con-
nection (Bonds-Raacke and Raacke 2010; Raacke and Bonds-
Raacke 2008). In their study regarding sports fans’ Twitter use,
Witkemper, Lim, and Waldburger (2012) found that information
and entertainment were both key motivations among users. Agri-
foglio and colleagues (2012) found that entertainment was an
important gratification for Twitter users depending upon the con-
text of use. Specifically, intrinsic motivation (enjoyment) better
explained Twitter usage than extrinsic motivation (information)
unless Twitter was used in a work context. These findings were
supported by subsequent research that suggested that consump-
tion of social media was aligned with ritual, passive use and
using social media as a source of information was indicative of
instrumental, active use (Langstedt 2013). The research found
that social media users were more likely to consume information
than to communicate information, suggesting that Facebook and
Twitter are used primarily in a passive manner to satisfy the need
for entertainment.
Brands and Social Media
Advertisers use social media to involve their brands in the
social networks of consumers. Unlike other media, social me-
dia allows advertisers to create brand-related content that evokes
immediate advertiser-consumer interaction. For example, adver-
tisers establish brand profiles on social networks that provide
opportunities for consumers to respond in the form of com-
ments, photos, videos, and recommendations. Consumers can
also reach out to the brand’s other users by responding to their
62 K. LOGAN
brand-related postings. The advantages of brand presence on
social media are not yet reliably calculated, however.
Advertisers appear to benefit from the social network it-
self. Chatterjee (2011) found, for example, that consumers were
more likely to respond to brand postings on their friends’ so-
cial network sites if the posting was generated by their friend
rather than by the brand. People who had not visited the brand
page before were more likely to click on the brand link posted
on a friend’s site. Therefore, the friend’s posting successfully
generated brand response among less involved consumers. In
fact, brands benefit not only from the exposure to an individ-
ual’s network of friends but also from trust and peer influence
associated with the individual (Chu and Kim 2011). Peer in-
fluence may have a direct effect regarding whether consumers
engage with specific organizations and corporations on social
media. Furthermore, Facebook and Twitter may yield different
levels of peer influence. When comparing determinants of Twit-
ter and Facebook use, Lee and Cho (2011) found that use of
Facebook was more influenced by social factors than Twitter.
This disparity may be explained by the nature of communication
on different social media sites. Facebook encourages commen-
tary among a community of users who are quick to exchange
remarks on the photos, videos, and experiences posted by oth-
ers. Twitter provides a far less chatty forum given the brevity
required by its headline format. Similarly, branded tweets are
viewed differently than branded postings on Facebook. Kwon
and Sung (2011) found, for example, that consumers interacted
with brands as a collective on Facebook while perceiving their
brand interaction on Twitter as more individualistic due to the
human characteristics of a tweet.
This explanation aligns with the findings of Smith, Fischer,
and Yongjian (2012) in their study regarding the differences
in brand-related, user-generated content between Twitter, Face-
book, and YouTube. Consistent with the notion that Twitter is
more individualistic and Facebook is more collective, they de-
termined that Twitter was the most likely social media to feature
prominent branding but generated less positive content about the
brands compared to Facebook and YouTube. The more collec-
tive nature of Facebook appeals to those who wish to hear about
others’ experiences with the brand. Twitter followers, on the
other hand, are more interested in hearing from the brand itself
rather than the brand followers.
This study investigates factors that affect the decision to
follow brands on social media by exploring factors that have
been found to predict consumer acceptance of new technology,
brands, and advertising.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND HYPOTHESES
Two theories that have been applied to the intention to use
social media inform the research design for this study. The first,
the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), proposes that atti-
tude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control underlie
an individual’s intentions and actions. Behavioral beliefs affect
attitudes toward the act, while normative beliefs affect the indi-
vidual’s perceptions of subjective norms. Perceived behavioral
control focuses on the individual’s perception of the easiness
of the behavior, consistent with Bandura’s (1986) concept of
self-efficacy. Pelling and White (2009) applied the theory of
planned behavior to young people’s use of social networking
sites. They found only partial support for the model, however,
in that perceived behavioral control did not predict behavioral
intent or behavior.
The second theory, the technology acceptance model (TAM),
suggests that adoption of technology is not influenced by subjec-
tive norms at all (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989). Rather,
the authors contend that attitudes and intentions to use specific
technology are influenced by the perceived usefulness and ease
of use (perceived behavioral control) related to the technology.
Their study indicated, however, that subjective norms may in-
fluence behavioral intent indirectly, through attitudes. In a study
regarding factors affecting attitudes toward shopping on social
media (Lee and Cho 2011), it was determined that such attitudes
were affected by perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, security
of the shopping service, and suitability of the items in regard to
the social network.
Both theories posit that attitudes have a direct effect on in-
tention to act. While TAM proposes that perceived ease of use
affects attitude toward the act, the theory of planned behavior
assumes that perceived ease of use has a direct effect on inten-
tion to act. Neither model appears to completely explain users’
social media behavior. As a consequence, this study employs
variables from both models to determine whether they form
new relationships to explain following brands on Facebook and
Twitter.
Perceived Ease of Use
Both theories suggest that social media users’ perceived self-
efficacy (or perceived ease of use) in terms of navigating social
media would affect their continued use of social media. Inter-
net self-efficacy, the need to belong, and collective self-esteem
have all been found to be positively related to students’ atti-
tudes toward social networking sites and their willingness to
use such sites (Gangadharbatla 2008). Lee and Cho (2011),
Agrifoglio and colleagues (2012), and Barnes and Böhringer
(2011) proposed that the users’ perceived self-efficacy in terms
of navigating social media affected their amount of social media
use as well.
Consistent with their findings, Lee and Cho (2011) found that
the length of time users had Facebook accounts related positively
to continuous usage. Longtime Facebook members would most
likely have acquired self-efficacy specifically related to Face-
book. They indicated that continuous Twitter use, on the other
hand, was positively related to heavy mobile phone use, indicat-
ing that Twitter depended on the ease of using mobile technol-
ogy. Agrifoglio and colleagues (2012) also found that perceived
ease of use directly affected continuous use of Twitter. Draw-
ing on expectation-confirmation theory (ECT) from consumer
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT?
behavior, Barnes and Böhringer (2011) determined that the con-
tinuous use of Twitter was at least partially determined by habit,
which again would suggest perceived ease of use. The literature
suggests, consistent with the theory of planned behavior and
TAM, that social media users’ perceptions of ease of Facebook
and Twitter use have a direct effect on their continued use of
those social media.
H1: Users’ perceptions regarding the ease of following brands on
Facebook and Twitter positively affect their intentions to follow
brands on Facebook and Twitter.
Perceived Usefulness
McCorkindale, Distaso, and Sisco (2013) determined that
Millennials were more likely to engage with organizations and
corporations on social media if they were already engaged with
the organization offline. In the absence of a previously es-
tablished relationship, they found that consumers were more
likely to engage with organizations and corporations that pro-
vided incentives such as discounts or other special offers. This
finding conforms to the industry research regarding the con-
sumer motivations for following brands on Facebook and Twitter
(Vision Critical 2013). Specifically, industry research indicates
that consumers follow brands on Facebook and Twitter in or-
der to receive discounts and promotions (Exact Target 2010a,
2010b). In addition, Facebook and Twitter users follow compa-
nies, brands, and associations to learn about updates on future
products and to stay informed about the companies’ activities.
It would appear, then, that the perceived utility attributed to
following brands on Facebook and Twitter relates to discounts,
promotions, and information. TAM proposes that the perceived
usefulness of a technology directly affects intentions to use the
technology.
H2: Users’ perceptions regarding the usefulness of following brands
on Facebook and Twitter positively affect their intentions to follow
brands on Facebook and Twitter.
Normative Beliefs
Normative beliefs refer to the perceived behavioral expec-
tations of important referent individuals or groups. The theory
of planned behavior posits that normative beliefs—perceived
approval or disapproval of a particular behavior—will affect
individuals’ intentions to engage in the behavior. Research sug-
gests that peer influence varies across social media categories.
Lee and Cho (2011) found that use of Facebook was more in-
fluenced by social factors than was use of Twitter. Given the
collective nature of Facebook compared to the individualistic
nature of Twitter, it is likely that normative beliefs are a more
important factor in the decision to follow brands on Facebook
rather than on Twitter.
H3: Normative beliefs affect users’ intentions to follow brands
on Facebook to a greater extent compared to following brands on
Twitter.
63
Subjective Norms
Subjective norms represent individuals’ motivations to con-
form to social pressure regarding whether to engage in a specific
behavior. In the realm of social media, peer pressure is exerted
in the form of affiliations as well as comments. For example,
Witkemper, Lim, and Waldburger (2012) determined that one of
the key constraints to following athletes on Twitter was the belief
that peers were not using Twitter to follow athletes, suggesting
the influence of subjective norms. Research also indicates that
brands benefit from the trust and peer influence associated with
social networks (Chatterjee 2011; Chu and Kim 2011). Specifi-
cally, consumer ad evaluations were found to have an effect on
consumers’ receptivity to social media ads (Steyn et al. 2011).
Subjective norms should, therefore, have a direct effect on indi-
viduals’ intentions to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter.
H4: Subjective norms affect users’ intentions to follow brands on
Facebook and Twitter.
Attitude Toward Following Brands on Facebook
The theory of planned behavior and TAM both posit that be-
havior is affected by attitudes toward the behavior (Ajzen 1991;
Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989). Therefore, if consumers
have positive attitudes toward following brands on social media
they would have positive intentions to follow brands on social
media.
H5: Consumers’ attitudes toward following brands on Facebook
and Twitter will positively affect their intentions to follow brands on
Facebook and Twitter.
Information-Seeking Behavior
Information-seeking behavior is generally associated with
consumers’ desires to reduce risk when making purchase deci-
sions. Schiffman, Schus, and Winer (1976) found a positive cor-
relation between perceived risk levels and brand loyalty and in-
formation seeking, for example. The role of information-seeking
behavior among social media users is not clear. While research
suggests that information is a gratification sought by social me-
dia users (Agrifoglio et al. 2012; Bonds-Raacke and Raacke
2010; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke 2008; Witkemper, Lim, and
Waldburger 2012), there are also indications that social media
users are more often passive consumers of information rather
than active communicators of information (Langstedt 2013). In
fact, followers of brands on Facebook and Twitter are about
twice as likely to indicate that they do so to obtain brand in-
formation rather than to post brand information (Exact Target
2010a, 2010b).
It is possible, therefore, that social media is used to simplify
the information-seeking process. Information-seeking behav-
ior suggests consulting many sources, but social media users
may be satisfied with brand updates and comments. This low-
intensity version of information seeking is reflected in the
fact that while Liang and colleagues (2011) ascertained that
a key determinant for consumers’ intent to use social commerce
in the future was the quality of information provided by the
64
site, Wolny and Mueller (2013) found that information-seeking
behavior did not affect the frequency of consumer engagement
with fashion brands on social networks. There are indications,
however, that Twitter brand followers are less passive than Face-
book brand followers. Among brand followers on Twitter, 20%
want to provide feedback (Exact Target 2010a) compared to
13% of Facebook brand followers (Exact Target 2010b).
H6: Information-seeking behavior affects users’ intentions to follow
brands on Twitter to a greater extent compared to Facebook.
Online Advertising Skepticism
Research indicates advertising that appears on social net-
works is evaluated in terms of information and entertainment
(Taylor, Lewin, and Strutton 2011), consistent with the way tra-
ditional advertising value is assessed (Ducoffe 1995). However,
because the primary reasons to follow brands on Facebook and
Twitter appear to be transactional in nature (discounts, sam-
ples, and promotions), it is unclear whether the act of following
brands is perceived as engagement with brand advertising. Ad-
vertising skeptics may avoid advertising messages yet remain
susceptible to the lure of following brands.
Boush, Friestad, and Rose (1994) suggest that skepticism
toward television advertising is a predisposition to reject what-
ever advertising is shown on television. Their findings indicate
that advertising messages are accepted or rejected based on the
perceived reliability of the source of information. Consumers
have general beliefs regarding the credibility of various kinds
of information sources based on their cumulative experience
regarding the fairness and factualness of specific sources of in-
formation. Consistent with the early work of Hovland and Weiss
(1951–52), certain types of information sources are viewed as
credible, or trustworthy, and other sources are viewed as un-
trustworthy. Ultimately, consumers’ acceptance of information
is mitigated by the credibility of the source. Consumer attitudes
toward social media advertising should, therefore, reflect per-
ceptions regarding the trustworthiness of social media as well
as attitudes toward advertising in general.
Recent scholarship indicates that the credibility of social
media is enhanced by frequency and recency of postings (West-
erman, Spence, and Van Der Heide 2014; Xu 2013). In addi-
tion, postings that required cognitive—or careful—processing
were positively correlated with overall credibility (Westerman,
Spence, and Van Der Heide 2014). Xu (2013) found that the
sheer quantity of social recommendations was a powerful in-
fluencer because it allowed users to expend little effort when
determining which news articles to access. A study of source
effects in consumer-generated advertising (Steyn et al. 2011)
determined that consumer comments significantly affected per-
ceptions of online advertising, indicating the interrelationship
of comments and source credibility. Brands that maintain good
social media relationships in terms of frequency, recency, and
promotional value of postings may be perceived as more credible
sources than traditional advertising and “following brands” may
be perceived as more authentic brand communication compared
K. LOGAN
to traditional advertising. Therefore, individuals’ skepticism re-
garding advertising may be inversely related to their likelihood
to follow brands.
H7: Online advertising skepticism positively affects users’ intentions
to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter.
Brand Consciousness
Because price promotion appears to be a primary motivation
to follow brands on social media (Vision Critical 2013), the
role of brand consciousness may also be important. Research
indicates that brand consciousness is a means to reduce risk
when purchasing an item (Donthu and Gilliland 1996). Brand-
conscious consumers were found to be less willing to try new
or different brands than consumers who were not brand con-
scious. In other words, brand loyalty is motivated by the desire
to predict consistent, desired product performance. Research
also suggests that those who follow brands on social media are
likely to be familiar with the brands they follow. Wolny and
Mueller (2013) determined that users who were involved with
particular brands were most likely to engage with the brands
on social media. Given the fact that the primary motivation for
following brands on social media is to receive discounts and
samples (Vision Critical 2013), it would appear that brand loy-
alists are using social media to reduce purchase price. Brand
consciousness may, therefore, influence the decision to follow
brands on Facebook or Twitter as a means to ensure that the
individual is aware of all price promotions and product news
about certain trusted brands.
H8: Brand consciousness positively affects users’ intentions to fol-
low brands on Facebook and Twitter.
METHOD
Procedure
A 90-item online questionnaire was developed for users of
Facebook and Twitter. Respondents were asked about their be-
liefs and attitudes regarding social media in general and their
usage of Facebook and Twitter in particular. Respondents were
also asked about their intentions to follow brands on Facebook
and Twitter. In addition, demographic data were gathered from
all participants. All data were collected electronically by an on-
line research company during a one-week period (March 26 to
April 1, 2012). Roughly 72 respondents were collected each day
to ensure an even distribution of respondents on each day of the
week.
Participants
The final sample consisted of 502 current social media users.
Qualified respondents reported using Facebook and Twitter at
least once a month. According to the Pew Internet Project (Dug-
gan and Brenner 2013), the age segment representing the great-
est participation in social media is teens and young adults (ages
18 to 29). For this study, participants were recruited between
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT?
the ages 18 and 34. Of the participants, 51.6% (N = 259) were
male and 48.4% (N = 243) were female. The sample was also
balanced in terms of age distribution in that 49.2% (N = 247)
were between the ages of 18 and 24, and 50.8% (N = 255) were
between the ages of 25 and 34.
Participants were screened for social media use, age, gender,
race, ethnicity, geographic representation, and income. In all,
87% of participants reported daily use of Facebook and 56% of
participants reported daily use of Twitter. There were no signif-
icant differences in frequency of use based on age or gender.
Participants were also screened to reflect the demographics of
the U.S. adult Internet users. The racial, ethnic, geographic, and
income composition of the sample was roughly comparable to
those of U.S. Internet users, although it was less skewed to
the Southern region and included a greater percentage of Asian
participants.
Measures
Established scales were adapted to measure the variables
(see appendix, Table A1). Specifically, perceived ease of use
and perceived usefulness (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989),
information seeking (Raju 1980), brand consciousness (Shim
and Gehrt 1996; Donthu and Gilliland 1996), normative beliefs
(Karahanna, Straub, and Chervany 1999), and advertising skep-
ticism (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998) were measured us-
ing seven-point, Likert-type scales (1 = Very strongly disagree,
7 = Very strongly agree). Subjective norms (Fishbein and Ajzen
1975) and attitude toward the act (Donthu and Gilliland 1996)
were measured using seven-point semantic differential scales.
The dependent variable, behavioral intent (Bauer et al. 2005),
was measured using a seven-point, Likert-type scale.
Data Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 21 was
used to establish construct reliability and validity. Chi square
(χ 2), degrees of freedom (df ), the ratio of chi square to de-
grees of freedom (χ 2/df ), the p value, comparative fit index
(CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) are reported. SPSS statistical soft-
ware was used for all statistical analyses. Pearson correlations
and variance inflation factor tests were analyzed to assess multi-
collinearity issues. Multiple regression analyses were used to ex-
amine how the variables influenced intentions to follow brands
on Facebook and Twitter.
RESULTS
Measurement Validation
A first-order CFA was conducted to evaluate the appropri-
ateness of the measurement model for the latent constructs. The
initial model fit for the Facebook and Twitter CFA models was
poor and the standardized regression weights were examined for
each latent variable indicator. Two brand consciousness items,
one information seeking item, and two attitude toward the act
65
items were eliminated from each model because they did not
meet the recommended .70 threshold weight. The revised mod-
els achieved acceptable fit in accordance with the guidelines
proposed by Hair and colleagues (2010). Specifically, fit in-
dices for the revised Facebook model (χ 2 = 1683.07, df = 743,
χ 2/df = 2.26, p < .05, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .05)
and the revised Twitter model (χ 2 = 1579.80, df = 743, χ 2/df =
2.13, p < .05, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05) suggested
satisfactory fit for the data. The significant p values are most
likely attributable to the large sample size and therefore were
not considered problematic.
Measures of latent variables achieved satisfactory reliability
levels. Construct reliability was assessed using two measures of
internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reli-
ability (CR). Values for both measures should be above 0.70 to
indicate an acceptable reliability (Chin 1998). Table 1 provides
measures of construct reliability and validity. The constructs
were also determined to meet the necessary criteria for validity
according to Hair and colleagues (2010). Convergent validity
was achieved when the CR assumed values greater than the
average variance extracted (AVE), and if the AVE was greater
than 0.5. Discriminant validity was achieved if the values of
the maximum squared shared variance (MSV) and the average
shared squared variance (ASV) were less than the AVE.
Pearson correlations revealed significant, strong correlations
between all of the nine observed composite variables for each
model, suggesting possible multicollinearity issues (see ap-
pendix, Tables A2and A3). Variance inflation factor (VIF) tests
revealed that the multicollinearity issues were not a problem,
however. Specifically, the VIFs were less than 5 in the worst
cases (Hair et al. 2010).
Hypotheses Testing
Observed variable multiple regressions were utilized to ana-
lyze the net effects of each variable on intent to follow brands on
Facebook and Twitter. Initially, all eight independent variables
(information seeking, online ad skepticism, brand conscious-
ness, subjective norms, normative beliefs, attitude toward the
act, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use) were in-
cluded for the multiple regressions.
For intention to follow brands on Facebook, the eight predic-
tors explained 76% of the variance, R2 = .76, adj. R2 = .76, F
(8, 493) = 198.39, p < .001. Perceived ease of use (t = 13.25,
p < .001), perceived usefulness (t = 10.15, p < .001), and sub-
jective norms (t = 2.94, p < .01) each significantly predicted
behavioral intent. For intention to follow brands on Twitter, the
eight predictors explained 74% of the variance, R2 = .74, adj.
R2 = .74, F (8, 493) = 176.76, p < .001. Perceived useful-
ness (t = 13.16, p < .001), perceived ease of use (t = 8.72,
p < .001), information seeking (t = 2.50, p < .01), subjective
norms (t = 2.43, p < .01), online ad skepticism (t = −2.22,
p < .05), and brand consciousness (t = −2.02, p < .05) each
significantly predicted behavioral intent. Table 2 displays the
66 K. LOGAN

TABLE 1
Measures of Construct Reliability and Validity
α CR AVE MSV ASV
Information Seeking∗ 0.89 0.88 0.59 0.55 0.36
Online Advertising Skepticism∗ 0.95 0.96 0.71 0.57 0.31
Brand Consciousness∗ 0.91 0.91 0.66 0.57 0.28
Normative Beliefs∗ 0.91 0.93 0.69 0.57 0.40
Subjective Norms∗ 0.71 0.75 0.52 0.39 0.12
Attitude Toward Following Brands on FB 0.91 0.91 0.77 0.39 0.14
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on FB 0.93 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.41
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on FB 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.72 0.32
Intent to Follow Brands on FB 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.78 0.40
Attitude Toward Following Brands on TW 0.91 0.92 0.79 0.38 0.13
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on TW 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.78 0.43
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on TW 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.64 0.32
Intent to Follow Brands on TW 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.78 0.40
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum squared shared variance;
ASV = average shared squared variance; FB = Facebook; TW = Twitter.
∗
Results are reported for the Facebook measurement model because there were negligible differences between Facebook and Twitter models.

unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standard error, and
standardized regression coefficients (β) for each variable.
Reduced models were achieved by iteratively removing the
variables with the lowest levels of significance while maintain-
ing the adjusted R2. The reduced model for Facebook consisted
of five independent variables (online ad skepticism, subjective
norms, normative beliefs, perceived usefulness, and perceived
ease of use) and explained 76% of the variance, R2 = .76, adj.
R2 = .76, F (5, 496) = 318.31, p < .001. Perceived ease of use
(t = 13.79, p < .001), perceived usefulness (t = 10.43, p < .001),
and subjective norms (t = 3.73, p < .001), each significantly
predicted behavioral intent.
The reduced model for Twitter was achieved by iteratively
removing the two variables that did not significantly predict
behavioral intent while maintaining the adjusted R2. The re-
duced model consisted of six independent variables (informa-
tion seeking, online ad skepticism, brand consciousness, sub-
jective norms, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use)
and explained 76% of the variance, R2 = .74, adj. R2 = .74,
F (5, 496) = 235.14, p < .001. All of the variables signifi-
cantly predicted behavioral intent. Specifically, perceived use-
fulness (t = 13.88, p < .001), perceived ease of use (t =
8.79, p < .001), online ad skepticism (t = −2.5, p < .01),
information-seeking (t = 2.47, p < .01), subjective norms
(t = 2.06, p < .05), and brand consciousness (t = −1.99, p
< .05) each significantly predicted behavioral intent. Table 3
displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B), stan-
dard error, and standardized regression coefficients (β) for each
variable.
Perceived ease of following brands was one of the strongest
indicators of intent to follow brands for both Facebook and
Twitter, supporting hypothesis 1. Individuals were more likely

TABLE 2
Multiple Regressions for Facebook and Twitter: Full Models
Facebook Twitter
Predictor variable B SE B β B SE B β
Information Seeking .01 .04 .01 .10 .04 .09∗
Online Ad Skepticism −.04 .04 −.04 −.09 .04 −.09∗
Brand Consciousness .02 .04 .02 −.07 .04 −.07∗
Subjective Norms .09 .03 .08∗∗ .07 .03 .07∗
Normative Beliefs .08 .05 .07 .01 .05 .01
Attitude Toward Following Brands .02 .02 .02 −.04 .02 −.04
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands .39 .04 .38∗∗∗ .55 .04 .03∗∗∗
Perceived Ease of Use of Following Brands .44 .03 .43∗∗∗ .30 .03 .29∗∗∗
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT? 67

TABLE 3
Multiple Regressions for Facebook and Twitter: Reduced Models
Facebook Twitter
Predictor variable B SE B β B SE B β Hypotheses
Perceived Ease of Use of Following Brands .44 .03 .43∗∗∗ .30 .03 .29∗∗∗ 1 Supported
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands .40 .04 .38∗∗∗ .54 .04 .52∗∗∗ 2 Supported
Normative Beliefs .08 .04 .07∗ — — — 3 Not supported
Subjective Norms .10 .03 .09∗∗ .05 .03 .05∗ 4 Supported
Attitude Toward Following Brands — — — — — — 5 Not supported
Information Seeking — — — .10 .04 .08∗∗ 6 Supported
Online Ad Skepticism −.06 .03 −.05 −.10 .04 −.09∗∗ 7 Not supported
Brand Consciousness — — — −.07 .04 −.07∗ 8 Not supported
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter if they believed that
the activity was easy to accomplish.
Perceived usefulness of following brands was also a signifi-
cant indicator of intent to follow brands for both Facebook and
Twitter, supporting hypothesis 2. Individuals were more likely
to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter if they believed that
the activity was useful.
Normative beliefs represent the individuals’ beliefs regarding
the opinions of people they hold in esteem regarding following
brands on Facebook or Twitter. Although normative beliefs were
included in the reduced Facebook model they were not a sig-
nificant predictor in regard to following brands on Facebook.
Normative beliefs were also not significant in regard to follow-
ing brands on Twitter and, furthermore, were not included in the
reduced Twitter model. Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Subjective norms were significant indicators of intent to fol-
low brands for both Facebook and Twitter, supporting hypothe-
sis 4. The more peer pressure individuals experienced to follow
brands on Facebook and Twitter, the more likely they intended
to do so.
The results indicated that individuals’ attitudes toward fol-
lowing brands on Facebook or Twitter were not significantly
predictive of their intentions to follow brands on Facebook or
Twitter. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. This result was unex-
pected due to the fact that attitudes toward the behavior directly
affect intention to act in the theory of planned behavior and
TAM.
Information-seeking behavior was not a significant predic-
tor of following brands on Facebook and was not included in
the reduced Facebook regression model. However, information-
seeking behavior was a significant predictor of following brands
on Twitter, supporting hypothesis 6. Information-seeking behav-
ior is a more significant factor in the decision to follow brands
on Twitter than to follow brands on Facebook.
Online advertising skepticism did not significantly predict
following brands on Facebook. Online advertising skepticism
was, however, a significant, negative predictor of following
brands on Twitter. Hypothesis 7 was not supported. Contrary
to expectations, following brands on social media was not more
likely to occur among those who were skeptical of online ad-
vertising. On the contrary, following brands on Facebook was
not related to advertising skepticism at all, and following brands
on Twitter was negatively related to advertising skepticism. In
other words, the more skeptical individuals felt about online ad-
vertising, the less likely they were to follow brands on Twitter.
Brand consciousness was not a significant predictor of fol-
lowing brands on Facebook and was not included in the re-
duced Facebook regression model. Although brand conscious-
ness was a significant predictor of following brands on Twitter,
when controlling for the other predictors the net effect of brand
consciousness on following brands on Twitter was negative. In
other words, the more positively individuals felt about branded
products, the less likely they were to follow brands on Twit-
ter. Hypothesis 8 was not supported. Brand consciousness does
not positively affect individuals’ intentions to follow brands on
Facebook and Twitter.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results suggest that the decision to follow brands on
Facebook or Twitter may be more impulsive than the process
suggested by the theory of planned behavior and TAM. The
fact that users’ intentions to follow brands were most strongly
affected by their perceptions of the usefulness and easiness of
the activity in combination with the strong, positive effect of
peer pressure indicates that following brands may resemble the
act of an impulse purchase.
Impulse buying has been defined as a spontaneous decision
that is not based on thoughtful consideration (Rook 1987).
Impulse-buying research appears to fall into three streams of
study focusing on consumption impulsivity, social and cultural
factors, and individual-level constructs that explain differences
in perception, motivation, and behaviors or “normative beliefs”
(Xiao and Nicholson 2011, 2519). Viewed through the prism
68 K. LOGAN
of this research, an individual’s perception of “ease of use”
when deciding to follow a brand suggests a conducive shopping
environment similar to the enticement of a candy display near
the checkout counter (Rook and Fisher 1995). The perceived
“usefulness” of following brands suggests the magnetic pull of
a desired object and the power of peer pressure—“subjective
norms”—overwhelms the normal decision-making process
(Lin and Chen 2012). In fact, those who purchase on impulse
do so despite normative influences (Rook and Fisher 1995).
In other words, respected wisdom (“normative beliefs”) does
not always prevail when the individual succumbs to immediate
gratification.
Therefore, the significant, predictive nature of subjective
norms, ease of use, usefulness, and the unimportance of nor-
mative beliefs when following brands conforms to explanations
of impulse-buying behavior. It would appear that attitude toward
the act is overwhelmed by those factors. In fact, this study did
not reveal compelling information linking attitudes toward ad-
vertising and brands to intentions to follow brands on Facebook
and Twitter. While online advertising skepticism was negatively
related to intent to follow brands on Twitter, suggesting that
Twitter usage corresponds to a favorable predisposition to ad-
vertising, attitudes toward online advertising were not at all
predictive of intent to follow brands on Facebook. Furthermore,
attitudes toward brands were not predictive of intent to follow
brands on either Facebook or Twitter. The lack of influence
attributed to attitudes may suggest that—in the realm of so-
cial media—attitudes are less important than peer pressure and
perceived gratifications.
The unimportance of brand consciousness, for example, may
reflect the discount orientation of those who follow brands on
social media. Specifically, 40% of those who follow brands on
Facebook and 30% of those who follow Twitter are most inter-
ested in brand discounts and promotions (Exact Target 2010a,
2010b). This study suggests that brand followers may be indis-
criminately pursuing bargains regardless of the brands. Follow-
ing brands on Twitter also appears to satisfy a need for infor-
mation. The study indicated that information-seeking behavior
was an important factor for Twitter users’ intentions to follow
brands but not significant for following brands on Facebook.
Overall, three main conclusions emerge from this study. First,
consumers who follow brands on Facebook and Twitter assume
that the activity is easy and useful. While both the theory of
planned behavior and TAM propose that perceived usefulness
has a direct effect on intention to act, both also posit that per-
ceived ease of use indirectly affects intention to act through
attitudes. This study proposes that perceived ease of use di-
rectly affects users’ intentions to follow brands on Facebook
and Twitter.
Second, peer pressure is an important factor in the decision
to follow brands on Facebook and Twitter. The fact that peers
are engaged in the activity increases the attractiveness of the
activity.
Third, following brands on Facebook and Twitter may satisfy
different user gratifications. For example, information seeking
was a significant factor for Twitter followers but not for Face-
book followers.
For practitioners, these findings indicate that using social
media should be an effortless experience for users that provides
promotional incentives. Advertisers would be wise, however,
to regard branded communication on Facebook very differently
compared to branded communication on Twitter.
Those who follow brands on Facebook have involved them-
selves in a collective activity and should be privy to many
comments and responses from brand users. Brand followers
on Facebook are more interested in the comments of real people
as opposed to corporate messages. Branded messages should,
therefore, be used to open conversations, such as Dove’s invita-
tions to comment on postings or photos. “Sound Off: Girls Night
In or Ladies Night Out?” generated 200 likes and 25 comments
within a day, for example. Alternatively, Facebook can be used to
publicly involve brand followers in promotions such as the Crate
and Barrel “Ultimate Wedding“ sweepstakes. Those who fol-
low brands on Twitter, on the other hand, are more information
seeking, tolerant of branded messaging, and focused on one-
on-one communication. They should receive frequent, chatty
tweets from the brand, and those brand followers who retweet
brand news should be rewarded. Pantene ingeniously tweeted
real-time commentary about celebrity hairstyles during red car-
pet arrivals at the 2013 Academy Awards (#WantThatHair),
complete with sketches and how-to instructions. Arby’s cre-
ated a sensation simply by commenting on the similarity be-
tween an artist’s hat and the Arby’s logo during the Grammy
Awards.
Finally, advertisers should be aware of the lack of brand
loyalty among brand followers. Promotional efforts on social
media should be designed to create added value rather than
discounts. Examples of using Facebook promotions to create
consumer involvement include the Dove “selfie” sweepstakes
event, the Victoria’s Secret announcement of an in-store sweep-
stakes event, and the Best Buy discounted smartphone activation
with a preorder of Game of Thrones season 3.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
A limitation of this study is that it relied on self-reported
data. A survey instrument was used based on the belief that
a broad, nationally representative sample would provide more
useful information than an experiment. Self-reporting could al-
low for overestimations of respondents’ perceived social media
self-efficacy and underestimations of their brand consciousness.
Furthermore, it is also conceivable that respondents were more
positive regarding their intentions to follow brands on Facebook
and Twitter than their subsequent actions would demonstrate.
A second limitation is the fact that participation in the survey
was limited to subjects with relatively extensive social media
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT?
use. Specifically, participants were screened to ensure that they
had used a social media site, such as Facebook; a daily-deal site,
such as Groupon; and Twitter, a microblogging site. The exten-
sive screening may have resulted in a sample with exceptionally
strong social media self-efficacy (M = 5.09, SD = 1.26) and
thus skewed the survey findings.
The findings of this study indicate a number of areas for fu-
ture research. First, given the importance of perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness, it would be beneficial to examine
the antecedents for both constructs in terms of uses and grat-
ifications. For example, the concept of usefulness may reflect
consumers’ needs for value. While there are academic studies
regarding the use of online coupons (Dickinger and Kleijnen
2008; Kang et al. 2006), current social media studies have not
addressed the price promotion properties of social media. In-
dustry research indicates that more than half of the women who
interact socially with brands do so to access offers and coupons
(Burst Media 2013). It is possible that this aspect of social me-
dia use is acknowledged by consumers as “usefulness” or an
implicit reward for social media use.
Further investigation is required to determine the role of
attitudes when consumers form the intent to engage with brands
on social media. Given the instantaneous nature of the decision,
the attitude toward the act of following brands may actually be
incorporated within the notions of usefulness and easiness. A
more robust attitude measure may be required.
Finally, the most interesting area for future research is the
investigation of impulsive-buying theory to better explain the
process of consumer involvement with brands on social media.
REFERENCES
Agrifoglio, Rocco, S.U.E. Black, Concetta Metallo, and Maria Ferrara (2012),
“Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Motivation in Continued Twitter Usage,” Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 53 (1), 33–41.
Ajzen, Icek (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.
Bandura, Albert (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barnes, Stuart J., and Martin Böhringer (2011), “Modeling Use Continuance
Behavior in Microblogging Services: The Case of Twitter,” Journal of Com-
puter Information Systems, 51 (4), 1–10.
Bauer, Hans H., Tina Reichardt, Stuart J. Barnes, and Marcus M. Neumann
(2005), “Driving Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Marketing: A Theoret-
ical Framework and Empirical Study,” Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 6 (3), 181–92.
Bonds-Raacke, Jennifer, and John Raacke (2010), “MySpace and Facebook:
Identifying Dimensions of Uses and Gratifications for Friend Networking
Sites,” Individual Differences Research, 8 (1), 27–33.
Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994), “Adolescent
Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 165–75.
Boyd, Danah M., and Nicole B. Ellison (2007), “Social Network Sites: Defini-
tion, History, and Scholarship,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-
cation, 13 (1), 210–30.
Burst Media (2013), “Online Insights: Expanding the Conversation: Leveraging
Social Media for Brand Interaction,” April, http://www.burstmedia.com/pdf/
burst media online insights 2013 04.pdf.
69
Chatterjee, Patrali (2011), “Drivers of New Product Recommending and Referral
Behaviour on Social Network Sites,” International Journal of Advertising,
30 (1), 77–101.
Chin, Wynne W. (1998), “Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling,”
MIS Quarterly, 22 (1), vii–xvi.
Chu, Shu-Chuan, and Yoojung Kim (2011), “Determinants of Consumer En-
gagement in Electronic Word-of-Mouth (Ewom) in Social Networking
Sites,” International Journal of Advertising, 30 (1), 47–75.
Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), “User Accep-
tance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,”
Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.
Dickinger, Astrid, and Mirella Kleijnen (2008), “Coupons Going Wireless:
Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Redeem Mobile Coupons,” Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 22 (3), 23–39.
Donthu, Naveen, and David Gilliland (1996), “Observations: The Infomercial
Shopper,” Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (2), 69–77.
Ducoffe, Robert H. (1995), “How Consumers Assess the Value of Advertising,”
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 17 (1), 1–18.
Duggan, Maeve, and Joanna Brenner (2013), “The Demographics of So-
cial Media Users—2012,” Pew Research Internet Project, February 14,
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-users.aspx.
Edison Research (2012), The Social Habit, http://socialhabit.com/.
Exact Target (2010a), “Report #4: Twitter X-Factors,” http://pages.exacttarget.
com/SFF4-US?ls=Website&lss=SubscribersFansFollowersFacebookX&
lssm=Corporate&camp=701A00000005OadIAE.
Exact Target (2010b), “Report #5: Facebook X-Factors,” http://pages.exact
target.com/SFF5-US?ls=Website&lss=SubscribersFansFollowersFacebook
X&lssm=Corporate&camp=701A00000005OadIAE.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Be-
havior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Gangadharbatla, Harsha (2008), “Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need
to Belong, and Internet Self-Efficacy as Predictors of the iGeneration’s At-
titudes toward Social Networking Sites,” Journal of Interactive Advertising,
8 (2), 5–15.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hovland, Carl I., and Walter Weiss (1951–52), “The Influence of Source Credi-
bility on Communication Effectiveness,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (4),
635–50.
Interactive Advertising Bureau (2009), Social Media Ad Metrics Defini-
tions, May, http://www.iab.net/media/file/SocialMediaMetricsDefinitions
Final.pdf.
Kang, Hyunmo, Minhi Hahn, David R. Fortin, Yong J. Hyun, and Yunni Eom
(2006), “Effects of Perceived Behavioral Control on the Consumer Usage
Intention of E-Coupons,” Psychology and Marketing, 23 (10), 841–64.
Karahanna, Elena, Detmar W. Straub, and Norman L. Chervany (1999), “In-
formation Technology Adoption across Time: A Cross-Sectional Compar-
ison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs,” MIS Quarterly, 23 (2),
183–213.
Kwon, Eun Sook, and Yongjun Sung (2011), “Follow Me! Global Marketers’
Twitter Use,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12 (1), 4–16.
Langstedt, Eric (2013), “An Examination of the Role of the Communicator on
Gratifications Attained on Social Network Sites,” Journal of Social Media
in Society, 2 (1), 126–44.
Lee, Sangwon, and Moonhee Cho (2011), “Social Media Use in a Mobile Broad-
band Environment: Examination of Determinants of Twitter and Facebook
Use,” International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 6 (2), 71–87.
Liang, Ting-Peng, Yi-Ting Ho, Yu-Wen Li, and Efraim Turban (2011), “What
Drives Social Commerce: The Role of Social Support and Relationship
Quality,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16 (2), 69–90.
Lin, Yi-Hsiu, and Chen-Yueh Chen (2012), “Adolescents’ Impulse Buying:
Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence and Fear of Negative Evaluation,”
Social Behavior and Personality, 40 (3), 353–58.
70 K. LOGAN
McCorkindale, Tina, Marcia W. Distaso, and Hilary Fussell Sisco (2013), “How
Millennials Are Engaging and Building Relationships with Organizations
on Facebook,” Journal of Social Media in Society, 2 (1), 66–86.
Nielsen Company (2013), “The Paid Social Media Advertising Report 2013: In-
dustry Update and Best Practices,” January 25, http://www.nielsen.com/us/
en/reports/2013/the-paid-social-media-advertising-report-2013.html.
Obermiller, Carl, and Eric Spangenberg (1998), “Development of a Scale to
Measure Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7 (2), 159–86.
Pelling, E.L., and K.M. White (2009), “The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied
to Young People’s Use of Social Networking Web Sites,” Cyberpsychology
and Behavior, 12 (6), 755–59.
Pew Research Center (2013), “The Demographics of Social Media Users -
2012,” Washington, DC, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-
users.aspx.
Phillips, David (2008), “The Psychology of Social Media,” Journal of New
Communications Research, 3 (1), 79–85.
Raacke, John, and Jennifer Bonds-Raacke (2008), “MySpace and Facebook: Ap-
plying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking
Sites,” CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11 (2), 169–74.
Raju, Puthankrissi S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship
to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 7 (3), 272–82.
Rook, Dennis W. (1987), “The Buying Impulse,” Journal of Consumer Research,
14 (2), 189–99.
Rook, Dennis W., and Robert J. Fisher (1995), “Normative Influences on Im-
pulsive Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 305–13.
Ross, Craig, Emily S. Orr, Mia Sisic, Jaime M. Arseneault, Mary G. Simmering,
and R. Robert Orr (2009), “Personality and Motivations Associated with
Facebook Use,” Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 578–86.
Schiffman, Leon G., Stephanie Schus, and Leon Winer (1976), “Risk Perception
as a Determinant of In-Home Consumption,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 4 (4), 753–63.
Shim, Soyeon, and Kenneth C. Gehrt (1996), “Hispanic and Native Ameri-
can Adolescents: An Exploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping,”
Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 307–24.
Smith, Andrew N., Eileen Fischer, and Chen Yongjian (2012), “How Does
Brand-Related User-Generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook,
and Twitter?,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26 (2), 102–13.
Steyn, Peter, Michael T. Ewing, Gene Van Heerden, Leyland F. Pitt, and Lydia
Windisch (2011), “From Whence It Came: Understanding Source Effects
in Consumer-Generated Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising,
30 (1), 133–60.
Taylor, David G., Jeffrey E. Lewin, and David Strutton (2011), “Friends, Fans,
and Followers: Do Ads Work on Social Networks?,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 51 (1), 258–75.
Vision Critical (2013), “From Social to Sale: 8 Questions to Ask
Your Customers” [White Paper], Vancouver, BC, Canada, http://www.
visioncritical.com/social2sale.
Westerman, David, Patric R. Spence, and Brandon Van Der Heide (2014),
“Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility
of Information,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (2),
171–83.
Witkemper, Chad, Choong Hoon Lin, and Adia Waldburger (2012), “Social
Media and Sports Marketing: Examining the Motivations and Constraints
of Twitter Users,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21 (3), 170–83.
Wolny, Julia, and Claudia Mueller (2013), “Analysis of Fashion Consumers’
Motives to Engage in Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication through
Social Media Platforms,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (5/6),
562–83.
Xiao, Sarah Hong, and Michael Nicholson (2011), “Mapping Impulse Buying:
A Behaviour Analysis Framework for Services Marketing and Consumer
Research,” Service Industries Journal, 31 (15), 2515–28.
Xu, Qian (2013), “Social Recommendation, Source Credibility, and Recency:
Effects of News Cues in a Social Bookmarking Website,” Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 90 (4), 757–75.
 WHY ISN’T EVERYONE DOING IT? 71

APPENDIX

TABLE A1
Indicator Factor Loadings and Construct Descriptive Statistics
Indicators Loading M SD
Information-Seeking Behavior (IS) 4.84 1.26
IS1: I like to browse through mail-order catalogs even when I don’t plan to buy anything. .75
IS2: I often read the information on the package of products just out of curiosity. .76
IS4: I often read advertisements just out of curiosity. .80
IS5: I often opt in to follow brands on Facebook or Twitter to obtain brand relevant information. .80
IS6: I often give my e-mail address to retailers to receive product offers and information. .73
Online Advertising Skepticism (SK) 4.51 1.32
SK1: We can depend on getting the truth in most online advertising. .84
SK2: Online advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer. .80
SK3: I believe online advertising is informative. .80
SK4: Online advertising is generally truthful. .87
SK5: Online advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products. .86
SK6: Online advertising is “truth well told.” .82
SK7: In general, online advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised. .86
SK8: I feel I have been accurately informed after viewing most online advertisements. .86
SK9: Most online advertising provides consumers with essential information. .84
Brand Consciousness (BC) 4.44 1.34
BC1: The well-known national brands are best for me. .82
BC2: The more expensive brands are usually my choices. .82
BC3: The higher the price of a product the better the quality. .82
BC4: Nice department stores and specialty stores offer me the best products. .79
BC5: I usually purchase name-brand products. .80
Subjective Norms (SN) 4.78 1.37
“Most people who are important to me probably consider my use of social media advertising to be. . .”
SN1: Foolish—Wise .40
SN2: Valuable—Worthless .82
SN3: Useful—Useless .86
Normative Beliefs (NB) 4.70 1.29
NB1: Successful people think I should use social media advertising. .80
NB2: People I work with think I should use social media advertising. .84
NB3: My peers think I should use social media advertising. .83
NB4: My friends think I should use social media advertising. .85
NB5: People who find good deals think I should use social media advertising. .83
Attitude toward Following Brands on Facebook (ATT FB) 5.08 1.63
“Following brands on Facebook is. . .”
ATT 2: Useful—Useless .84
ATT 4: Valuable—Worthless .90
ATT 5: Good—Bad .88
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on Facebook (PU FB) 4.93 1.41
PU 1: Following brands on Facebook would help me find solutions more quickly. .91
PU 2: Following brands on Facebook would increase my productivity. .84
PU 3: Following brands on Facebook would enhance my effectiveness. .89
PU 4: I would find following brands on Facebook useful. .91
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on Facebook (PEOU FB) 5.28 1.46
PEOU1: Learning to follow brands on Facebook would be easy for me. .92
PEOU2: I would find it easy to follow brands on Facebook. .92
PEOU3: It would be easy for me to become skillful at following brands on Facebook. .90
Intention to Follow Brands on Facebook (BI FB) 5.02 1.49
BI1: My general intention to follow brands on Facebook is very high. .89
BI2: I will think about following brands on Facebook. .90
BI3: I will follow brands on Facebook in the future. .91
(Continued on next page)
72 K. LOGAN

TABLE A1
Indicator Factor Loadings and Construct Descriptive Statistics (Continued)
Indicators Loading M SD
Attitude toward Following Brands on Twitter (ATT TW)
“Following brands on Twitter is. . .” 4.90 1.64
ATT2: Useful—Useless .87
ATT4: Valuable—Worthless .91
ATT5: Good—Bad .88
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on Twitter (PU TW) 4.81 1.41
PU1: Following brands on Twitter would help me find solutions more quickly. .89
PU2: Following brands on Twitter would increase my productivity .86
PU3: Following brands on Twitter would enhance my effectiveness. .90
PU4: I would find following brands on Twitter useful. .90
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on Twitter (PEOU TW) 5.06 1.45
PEOU1: Learning to follow brands on Twitter would be easy for me. .92
PEOU2: I would find it easy to follow brands on Twitter. .91
PEOU3: It would be easy for me to become skillful at following brands on Twitter. .92
Intention to Follow Brands on Twitter (BI TW) 4.90 1.46
BI1: My general intention to follow brands on Twitter is very high. .89
BI2: I will think about following brands on Twitter. .91
BI3: I will follow brands on Twitter in the future. .88

TABLE A2
Pearson Correlations for Facebook Scales
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Information Seeking 1.00
Online Advertising Skepticism −.67∗∗ 1.00
Brand Consciousness .62∗∗ −.70∗∗ 1.00
Normative Beliefs .67∗∗ −.71∗∗ .63∗∗ 1.00
Subjective Norms .24∗∗ −.28∗∗ .21∗∗ .37∗∗ 1.00
Attitude Toward Following Brands on FB .28∗∗ −.25∗∗ .21∗∗ .28∗∗ .54∗∗ 1.00
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on FB .60∗∗ −.53∗∗ .49∗∗ .71∗∗ .40∗∗ .36∗∗ 1.00
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on FB .53∗∗ −.37∗∗ .35∗∗ .56∗∗ .33∗∗ .32∗∗ .70∗∗ 1.00
Intent to Follow Brands on FB .57∗∗ −.49∗∗ .45∗∗ .66∗∗ .43∗∗ .37∗∗ .80∗∗ .79∗∗ 1.00
Note. FB = Facebook.
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

TABLE A3
Pearson Correlations for Twitter Scales
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Information Seeking 1.00
Online Advertising Skepticism −.67∗∗ 1.00
Brand Consciousness .62∗∗ −.70∗∗ 1.00
Normative Beliefs .67∗∗ −.71∗∗ .63∗∗ 1.00
Subjective Norms .24∗∗ −.28∗∗ .21∗∗ .37∗∗ 1.00
Attitude Toward Following Brands on TW .28∗∗ −.24∗∗ .21∗∗ .28∗∗ .53∗∗ 1.00
Perceived Usefulness of Following Brands on TW .63∗∗ −.59∗∗ .55∗∗ .72∗∗ .35∗∗ .36∗∗ 1.00
Perceived Ease of Following Brands on TW .55∗∗ −.44∗∗ .43∗∗ .59∗∗ .31∗∗ .30∗∗ .71∗∗ 1.00
Intent to Follow Brands on TW .61∗∗ −.56∗∗ .47∗∗ .66∗∗ .36∗∗ .30∗∗ .82∗∗ .74∗∗ 1.00
Note. TW = Twitter.
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.