Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Social media engagement with organization-generated content: Role of

visuals in enhancing public engagement with organizations on Facebook
and Instagram
Ganga Dhanesh *, Gaelle Duthler , Kang Li
College of Communication and Media Sciences, Zayed University, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The ubiquity of social media platforms that increasingly foreground visuals over text has led to a rise in
Engagement organization-generated visual content. This study addresses an underexamined question about this phenomenon:
Social media which characteristics of organization-generated visual content are associated with higher levels of public
Public relations
engagement in social media? Engagement is conceptualized as indicators of first level engagement such as likes
Organization-generated content
Visual
and comments that represent affiliation with and support for the organization. Employing a visual social semiotic
Visual social semiotics framework, a randomly selected sample of visuals posted on Instagram and Facebook by four leading airport
brands in 2019 (N = 400) was coded for representational, interactive, and compositional meanings. Findings
revealed that across platforms narrativity of images, and interactive features of distance and point of view
enhanced engagement, while the compositional feature of framing increased engagement on Instagram. Impli­
cations of the findings for effective organization-generated visual content on social media are discussed.

1. Introduction
Every second, 1046 photographs are uploaded on Instagram and
87,926 videos are viewed on YouTube (Internet live stats, 2021). The
massive uptake of social media platforms that tend to foreground visual
imagery over text has enhanced the production and consumption of
visuals over social media, leading to the visual acculturation of social
media users (Dhanesh, 2017a, Dhanesh & Rahman, 2021; Edwards,
2018). 91% of consumers now prefer visual over text-based media
(Forbes, 2018) and in an age of rapid information consumption, content
with images generate far more user engagement than content without
images (Li & Xie, 2020; Brubaker & Wilson, 2018).
Subsequently, organizations have been employing visuals in their
social media communication to strengthen engagement with their
publics, because social media engagement metrics signal publics’ affil­
iation and identification with organizations, trigger further online in­
teractions in their peer networks, could lead to positive attitudes
towards and stronger relationships with organizations, and increase
purchase intentions (Argyris, Wang, Kim, & Yin, 2020; Brubaker &
Wilson, 2018; Dhanesh & Rahman, 2021; Lim & Childs, 2020, Valentini,
Romenti, Murtarelli, & Pizzetti, 2018). Despite the surge in the con­
sumption and production of visual content on social media, there has
been limited research on the role of visuals to enhance engagement with
organization-generated social media content. This scarce research has
examined how a few aspects of visual content could drive engagement
such as visual appeals (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy, &
Goodman, 2019; Rietveld, Van Dolen, Mazloom, & Worring, 2020), vi­
sual descriptions (Hwong, Oliver, Van Kranendonk, Sammut, &
Seroussi, 2017), narrativity of visuals (Romney & Johnson, 2020), the
gaze of the subject, and product salience (Valentini et al., 2018). Studies
have also examined genre-specific engagement enhancers with info­
graphics (Amit-Danhi & Shifman, 2020), news articles (Berger & Milk­
man, 2012), and news videos (Ksiazek, Peer, & Lessard, 2016). Research
needs to examine multiple aspects of visuals that could enhance
engagement with the important but under-examined genre of
organization-generated content. As a genre, organization-generated vi­
sual content, defined as organization-initiated visual communication on
the organization’s own social media accounts, is important to study as it
is different from advertisements in that coping mechanisms are not
triggered as in the case of advertisements, and they offer more diversity
in content unlike advertisements that tend to repeat (Rietveld et al.,
2020).
The concept of engagement is particularly pertinent within public
relations practice and research as organizations increasingly employ

* Correspondence to: College of Communication and Media Sciences, Zayed University, PO Box 19282, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail address: ganga.dhanesh@zu.ac.ae (G. Dhanesh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102174
Received 25 June 2021; Received in revised form 9 February 2022; Accepted 27 February 2022
Available online 14 March 2022
0363-8111/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
G. Dhanesh et al.
social media in their communication mix to reach, connect, and build
relationships with publics (Jiang, Luo, & Kulemeka, 2016; Men, O’Neil,
& Ewing, 2020; Smith & Gallicano, 2015). For over a decade, public
relations researchers have examined theoretical conceptualizations of
public/stakeholder engagement (Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor, Vasquez,
& Doorley, 2003), employee engagement (Welch, 2011; Verčič & Ćorić,
2018), and most importantly, public engagement over social media
(Avidar, Ariel, Malka, & Levy, 2015; Bowen, 2013; DiStatso, 2012; Jiang
et al., 2016; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014, 2015; Smith
& Gallicano, 2015; Wang & Yang, 2020; Wigley & Lewis, 2012; Yang &
Kang, 2009). Yet only a handful of studies has examined the use of vi­
suals in engendering public engagement (e.g., Brubaker & Wilson, 2018;
Fraustino, Lee, Lee, & Ahn, 2018; Valentini et al., 2018). According to
Pressgrove, Janoske, and Haught (2018) research on the visual in public
relations “only scratches the surface of what the intersection of public
relations and visual communication entails” and called for more
research on the use of visuals in public relations (pp. 318–319).
Since visual content is different from textual forms, it needs
specialized approaches for analysis (Bock, 2020). Accordingly, similar to
the approach employed by Valentini et al. (2018), this study drew on
Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (1996) visual social semiotic approach that
examines representational, interactive, and compositional meanings of
visuals, to examine the characteristics of visual content generated by
organizations that are associated with higher levels of public engage­
ment on social media. More specifically, we conducted a content anal­
ysis of Facebook and Instagram pages of four international airports to
examine how they employed visuals in their posts to engage publics. We
chose to focus on two prominent engagement metrics – likes and com­
ments – on Facebook and Instagram because in corporate social media
communication, these metrics are considered important measures of
evaluation as users’ communicative behaviors reflect reactions to
corporate message strategies on social media (Linders, 2012; Lovari &
Parisi, 2015). We chose Facebook and Instagram because they are two of
the most widely used platforms in organizational social media
communication (Statista, 2021).
This study enhances the literature on organizational visual commu­
nication and public engagement with organizations over social media by
examining a comprehensive set of characteristics of visuals that could
enhance engagement in the important but under-explored genre of
organization-generated visual content. These are important contribu­
tions as most extant literature has only considered the effects of a limited
number of dimensions of visual content in certain genres (Bock, 2020).
Theoretically, findings add multi-dimensional insights into
organization-generated visual content that enhances public engage­
ment, thus enhancing genre-specific insights into drivers of visual digital
engagement. Practically, findings can help organizational practitioners
to adjust their visual content offerings effectively to connect and engage
with publics on social media.
2. Background
2.1. Public engagement with organizations over social media
The topic of engagement with organizations over social media goes
by various terms across fields such as marketing, advertising, consumer
research, strategic communication, public relations, and information
and communication technology. While terms such as social media
engagement, digital engagement, and dialogic engagement are typically
used to refer to engagement between organizations and their publics in
general, terms such as public engagement, consumer brand engagement,
user engagement, civic engagement, community engagement, and
employee engagement highlight engagement from the perspective of
specific publics and each has its own body of knowledge (Brubaker &
Wilson, 2018; Gómez, Lopez & Molina, 2019; Hollebeek, Glynn, &
Brodie, 2014; Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Jiang et al., 2016; Lovari &
Parisi, 2015; Smith & Gallicano, 2015; Taylor & Kent, 2014; Valentini
2
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
et al., 2018). This study has adopted the term public engagement as it is
one of the most commonly used terms in public relations research to
refer to engagement with various publics over social media, and because
it includes multiple stakeholders who have in common their engagement
with the organization’s social media accounts.
Within public relations scholarship, there are two major strands of
research on public engagement. One strand conceptualizes public
engagement as communicative interaction using first-level engagement
metrics of social media usage such as clicks, likes, views, shares, com­
ments, tweets, reviews, recommendations and other user-generated
content (Agostino, 2013; Brubaker & Wilson, 2018; Jiang et al., 2016;
Kim & Yang, 2017; Men & Tsai, 2013; Men, Tsai, Chen, & Ji, 2018).
According to Smith (2017), a hierarchy of social media metrics ranges
from exposure, engagement, and influence, to impact and advocacy. In
the second strand of research, scholars have stepped beyond equating
engagement with communicative interaction and social media usage
and have considered cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of
public engagement over social media that could foster relationships and
identification with the organization (Dhanesh, 2017b; Smith & Galli­
cano, 2015; Yang & Kang, 2009). Although theoretical explications of
engagement have expanded to include multiple dimensions of engage­
ment, most empirical research on public engagement with organizations
over social media has examined communicative interaction online,
measured by first-level engagement metrics such as likes, comments,
retweets and shares. Accordingly, this study adopted Men and Tsai’s
(2014) definition of public engagement as “a behavioral construct with
hierarchical activity levels, from passive message consumption to active
two-way conversation, participation, and online recommendation” (p.
419).
Empirical research on public engagement, particularly within
corporate public relations, includes work that examines the conceptu­
alization of public engagement on social media (e.g., Jiang et al., 2016;
Men & Tsai, 2013), communication strategies employed in organiza­
tional social media content such as dialogic principles that predict public
engagement (e.g., Men et al., 2018; Watkins, 2017), and the effect of
public engagement on organizational outcomes such as perceptions of
corporate authenticity, organizational transparency, organizational
identification and attachment, positive electronic word-of-mouth
communication, sense of conversational exchange, and
organization-public relationships (Men & Tsai, 2013; Wang, Ki, & Kim,
2017).
However, although social media platforms tend to foreground visual
imagery over text, which has led to the visual acculturation of social
media users (Dhanesh, 2017a; Edwards, 2018) and content with images
generate higher user engagement than content without images (Bru­
baker & Wilson, 2018; Li & Xie, 2020) only limited research has
examined the influence of visuals in engendering public engagement
with organizations over social media, reviewed next.
2.2. Visuals and engagement with organization-generated content
Research that has examined the effect of organization-generated
visuals on engagement over social media has found positive effects of
visual appeals (Dolan et al., 2019; Rietveld et al., 2020), visual de­
scriptions (Hwong et al., 2017), visual complexity (Lee, Hur, & Watkins,
2018), visual point of view (Hur et al., 2020; Zappavigna, 2016), and
narrativity of visuals (Romney & Johnson, 2020) on social media
engagement metrics such as views, likes, retweets, comments, and
shares across Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Although not exactly
organization-generated content, visual content in influencer marketing
has also been found to generate followers’ engagement with influencer’s
and the brand’s posts (Argyris et al., 2020). Examining user-generated
content on brands, Li and Xie (2020) found that mere presence effect
of image content, image characteristics such as high quality profes­
sionally shot photos, and image-text fit enhanced user engagement on
Instagram and Twitter.
G. Dhanesh et al. Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174

Within public relations research, only a handful of studies has background as a context, can lead to higher levels of audience trans­
examined the effect of visuals on public engagement over social media. portation and self-brand connection than exposure to images with no
Kim and Yang (2017) content analyzed Facebook posts of 20 companies narrative elements in Instagram brand communication (Lim & Childs,
and found that visual features of messages led to more likes in an 2020). Multiple narrative elements - actors, plots, and settings - were
affectively driven process, while it led to more shares driven by a employed in Twitter and Facebook images employed by U.S. presiden­
combination of affect and cognition. Brubaker and Wilson (2018) tial candidates to deliver narratives of credibility (Page & Duffy, 2018).
examined 1393 Facebook posts of the top 100 brands and found that a Visual content that employs narratives also triggered sharing behavior
combination of texts and visuals work best in engendering user among users. For instance, Instagram messages from sports networks
engagement. Valentini et al. (2018) conducted an experiment and found (CBS, ESPN, Fox, NBC) that contained narrative images generated
that direct gaze and high product salience of visuals positively affected higher user engagement manifested as likes and comments than those
digital visual engagement. Through data mining and computer-assisted that contained conceptual images (Romney & Johnson, 2020). Simi­
sentiment analysis of 33,379 posts from 106 Standard & Poor 500 larly, tweets that contained visual elements were found to have higher
companies’ Facebook accounts, Ji, Chen, Tao, and Cathy Li (2019) narrativity score, and were liked and shared more than those without
found a positive effect of the functional trait of vividness on public (Boscarino, 2020). Hence, we posited the following hypothesis.
engagement. Finally, Guidry, Jin, Orr, Messner, and Meganck (2017)
H1:. Content with narrative images will generate more public
found that incorporating visual imagery in health organizations’ social
engagement than those without narrative images.
media posts can affect social media engagement. While these studies
have offered valuable insights into the role of visuals in engendering
2.3.2. Interactive meaning
engagement over social media with organization generated content,
Interactive meaning refers to how images can interact with viewers
most of these studies have focused on only one or a few characteristics of
and implies a range of attitudes viewers could adopt towards subjects in
visuals, and have not examined multiple variables that could predict
visuals. It is examined through (a) contact or the usage of direct or in­
public engagement, which has been highlighted as a limitation in visual
direct gaze of the subject; (b) the social distance between subject and
studies research (Bock, 2020). Since visual content is distinct from
viewer; and (c) points of view or angles of shots (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001;
textual and needs to be studied with specific approaches, this study
Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996).
examined a wider set of characteristics of visuals following Kress and
Contact refers to the gaze of the main subject directed at the viewer,
Van Leeuwen’s (1996) approach to visual social semiotics.
or how it establishes contact with the viewer. Subject/s could engage
viewers through direct or indirect gaze. Direct gaze indicates how
2.3. Visual social semiotics
people in the picture can demand something from viewers such as
respect or pity, which can be further strengthened with gestures. An
According to Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), visuals perform three
indirect gaze, on the other hand, does not invite direct engagement with
kinds of semiotic work, referred to as metafunctions – representational,
viewers; instead, it indicates that the subjects are merely offering in­
interactive, and compositional. Explications of each of these meta­
formation to viewers, not necessarily demanding something (Jewitt &
functions and empirical research linking it to public engagement drawn
Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996).
from the fields of marketing, advertising, branding, public relations, and
A substantial body of research on gaze, particularly within the field
strategic communication, and hypotheses and research questions are
of psychology, has revealed that direct gaze can lead to higher social
discussed in the following paragraphs.
perceptions of trustworthiness (Bayliss & Tipper, 2006; Willis, Palermo,
& Burke, 2011) attractiveness (Kampe, Frith, Dolan, & Frith, 2001;
2.3.1. Representational meaning – narrative
Mason, Tatkow, & Macrae, 2005), likability (Mason et al., 2005), and
Representational meaning of an image is conveyed through the
increased perception of approach-oriented emotions such as anger and
participants depicted in visuals. Two kinds of visual syntactic patterns
joy (Adams & Kleck, 2005). Conversely, indirect or averted gazes are
relate participants meaningfully to each other – narrative and concep­
often associated with adverse outcomes such as negative judgments of
tual. While narrative representations refer to how people, places and
trustworthiness (Willis et al., 2011) and perception of
things are related to each other in terms of actions or happenings, or the
avoidance-oriented emotions such as fear and sadness (Adams & Kleck,
unfolding of events as in a story, conceptual representations refer to how
2005). Further, gaze shifts indicate attentional engagement or disen­
images represent participants as being something, belonging to a class or
gagement, with direct gaze generating stronger engagement between
category; not necessarily acting or doing something. In this study, we
subject and viewer, and indirect gaze causing disengagement (Jewitt &
focused on narrative representations because in public relations
Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996; Mason et al., 2005).
research, the value of storytelling as a strategic tool to strengthen or­
Limited research on the effect of gaze in brand communication has
ganizations’ engagement and relationships with publics has been
also revealed positive effects of direct gaze. For instance, the effect of
emphasized (Gill, 2015; Kent, 2015). However, most of the work within
facial expressions of dogs on product packaging on product evaluation is
public relations has focused on storytelling through text and not through
moderated by direct gaze (Park & Kim, 2020), and the direct gaze of
visual content.
celebrities on social networking sites can enhance self-celebrity
Fisher’s (1989) narrative paradigm underscores the importance of
connection and behavioral intentions (Ilicic & Brennan, 2020). More
storytelling to enable meaningful communication and understanding in
relevant to this study, direct gaze in branded Instagram images can lead
human societies through the use of narrative rationality wherein formal
to higher digital visual engagement and purchase intentions (Valentini
features of a story are presented as a sequence of thought or action.
et al., 2018). The above body of work led us to posit the following.
According to visual social semiotics (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van
Leeuwen, 1996), a narrative representation typically has an actor and H2:. Visuals that employ subjects with direct gaze will have higher
the recipient of that action, referred to as a goal. Narrative images will public engagement than visuals that employ subjects with indirect or
include some indication of action that connects the participants. When averted gaze.
an image includes both an actor and a goal the picture is said to be
Another way to establish interaction is through the distance depicted
transactive, representing a transaction or an exchange between two
between subjects and viewers, which is also reflective of norms in social
parties. However, narrative pictures can also be non-transactive wherein
relations that affect the distance maintained by individuals in everyday
the action is not directed at a specific entity. This study considered both
interaction (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). In
transactive and non-transactive narrative representations.
face-to-face interactions, individuals and groups dynamically adjust
Narrativity in visuals, measured by implied motion and the

3
G. Dhanesh et al.
distance between them and others to regulate the quality of the ex­
change on dimensions such as approach-avoidance and intimacy, a field
of study referred to as proxemics (Hall, 1966). Individuals manage space
in somewhat concentric circles – intimate, personal, social, and public –
with reducing intimacy levels as circles widen. While social contact
between acquaintances typically occurs within the social space, the
personal and intimate distances are for close contact with family and
friends. The idea of para-proxemics encapsulates the relationship be­
tween subjects and viewers through mediated body language corre­
sponding to everyday social interaction (Meyrowitz, 1986). The
proximity of a subject to the camera can elicit a response from the
viewer, similar to the distance experienced in face-to-face interactions.
For instance, a close-up shot brings subjects and viewers in close contact
as though reflecting intimate social relations. A medium shot implies a
social relationship, while a long shot implies an impersonal relationship.
Effects of proxemics such as higher viewer engagement and atten­
tional involvement have been observed not only in face-to-face but also
in digital contexts, particularly in virtual 3D environments (Bailenson,
Blascovich, Beall, & Loomis, 2001; Cafaro, Ravenet, Ochs, Vilhjálmsson,
& Pelachaud, 2016; Petras, ten Oever, & Jansma, 2016) and in the
interaction between selfies and viewers (Bruno, Uccelli, Pisu, Belluardo,
& De Stefani, 2020; Holiday, Loof, Cummins, & McCord, 2019). For
instance, Petras et al. (2016) found that in a virtual shooting task,
shooting a subject at close quarters created more moral engagement
than shooting one who was far more distant. Thus, we posited the
following:
H3:. Visuals that employ close up shots of the subject will have higher
public engagement than visuals that employ medium or long shots.
Interaction can also be established through point of view, which
refers to how subjects are depicted from above, below or eye level.
Typically, while a low angle suggests power over the viewer, eye-level
indicates equality, and high angle implies power of the viewer (Jewitt
& Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). Studies that have
examined point of view in visuals tend to be descriptive examining the
depiction of power relations through camera angles (Boulton, 2007;
Bruno et al., 2020; Sedgewick, Flath, & Elias, 2017). For instance, in
print ads for hip-hop clothing depicting child models, the camera angles
tended to be eye level, calling for equal power relations with the
intended audience of affluent parents (Boulton, 2007). Studies on selfies
have also examined camera angle and the power relations it implies.
Sedgewick et al. (2017) content analyzed the use of camera angles in
557 selfies on Tinder, and found that while men used mostly low angles
indicating power over the viewer, women used high angles indicating
less power. Bruno et al. (2020) got similar findings on examining selfies
wherein men tended to use low camera angles while women preferred
eye level or high camera angles. However, these studies are descriptive
and did not examine the relationship between point of view and user
engagement. Hence, we proposed a research question:
RQ 1:. Which point of view – high, low, equal – in visuals will generate
higher public engagement?
2.3.3. Compositional meaning
Compositional meaning refers to how individual aspects of repre­
sentation and interaction are brought together to create the whole that
can be recognized as a specific kind of communicative output such as an
advertisement or a film. This includes conventions of composition such
as (a) framing various visual elements as connected or disconnected
from each other; and (b) the prominence or salience of the subject
(Jewitt & Oyama, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996).
Framing refers to how various elements of a visual image can be
given separate identities or shown as belonging together through the use
of lines, empty spaces, or contrasts of color or form. These elements can
be used harmoniously to create a sense of connection among the various
elements or used to create contrasts, divisions and disconnections.
4
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
Discontinuity or continuity implying belongingness or separateness can
be imbued with more meaning through the context (Jewitt & Oyama,
2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). While a number of studies on visual
framing have analyzed thematic frames used in framing (Bock, 2020),
limited work has been conducted on the effects of framing as a
compositional aspect of visuals. Hence, we posed a research question.
RQ 2:. Which type of framing – connection or disconnection – in vi­
suals will have higher user engagement?
According to Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), salience indicates that
some visual elements in the picture can be made more prominent than
others. This can be achieved through size, color or tonal contrasts.
Salience is an important feature of composition as high product salience
can increase brand awareness and facilitate brand recall (Alba & Chat­
topadhyay, 1986) and affect user engagement (Valentini et al., 2018).
Research in visual attention and decision-making highlight the link
between visual saliency and attention fixation (Itti & Koch, 2000; Par­
khurst, Law, & Niebur, 2002). In brand research on in-store consumer
behavior, brand placement prominence and visual saliency have been
found to affect brand memory, brand attitude, and consumer choices
(Alba & Chattopadhyay, 1986; Milosavljevic, Navalpakkam, Koch, &
Rangel, 2012; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). On webpages too, visual sa­
liency, created particularly through the use of color and contrast, can
affect user emotions (Silvennoinen & Jokinen, 2016) and visual primes
on webpages can affect changes in choice for experts and novices
(Mandel & Johnson, 2002). Hence, we proposed the following:
H4:. Visuals that employ high salience will have higher user engage­
ment than visuals with low salience.
3. Method
The research was conducted using a quantitative content analysis to
quantify the presence and frequency of occurrence of the variables in
Instagram and Facebook visual content. The main method employed
was a visual semiotic approach-based content analysis (Bell, 2001) of
Facebook and Instagram images posted by four airport brands.
We chose airport brands because corporate social media communi­
cation of airport brands offers a productive test case for examining user
engagement with brand generated visual content. Airports provide im­
ages of a destination to visitors, exhibit the salient characteristics of the
destination, become the ambassador of the destination, affect visitors’
first and last impressions of the host city, and provide spaces of spec­
tatorship of aircraft (Adey, 2007; Nghieˆm-Phu & Suter, 2018; Watta­
nacharoensil, Schuckert, Graham, & Dean, 2017). Given that travelers
have a greater choice of airports and air services, airports need to focus
on sharpening their marketing strategies. However, most studies on
brand management for airports have focused on customer perspectives,
such as examining how passengers co-create identity through
user-generated Instagram images (Blackwood, 2019), and online re­
views of passengers to ascertain the airport experience and perceptions
of attributes of airports (Nghieˆm-Phú & Suter, 2018; Wattanacharoensil
et al., 2017). Despite the importance of airport branding strategies and
the importance of social media in the brand communication mix, scarce
research has focused on the characteristics of visuals posted by airport
brands that could enhance user engagement. This study sought to fill
that gap by identifying the characteristics of engaging social media vi­
sual content of airport brands.
3.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 50 photos on Instagram and 50 photos on
Facebook for four airports: DXB (Dubai International), AMS (Amsterdam
Schiphol), LHR (London Heathrow), and SIN (Singapore Changi) for a
total of 400 photos. These airports were chosen as they are some of the
busiest airports in Europe and Asia (2019 Airport Traffic Report), as well
G. Dhanesh et al. Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174

as serve as transit hubs connecting various parts of the world. The Based on the discussions, the coding instrument was revised and
sample of social media posts was selected by randomly choosing 50 improved.
dates from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The sample size is Pilot Study 2 aimed to test the revised coding instrument as well as
above 25% of the whole population of 1892 image posts. The sampling train the coders. The sample of this pilot study consisted of 50 random
error at 95% level of confidence is 4.38%. We used simple random image posts of the selected brands, which represented 10% of the final
sampling because probability samples are more appropriate in content sample size. These 50 posts did not duplicate with the images in the final
analysis to enable statistical inference, and simple random sampling is sample. The same three coders from Pilot Study 1 participated in this
one of the recommended probability sampling methods (Riffe, Lacy, training and worked independently while coding. After coding, the
Watson, & Fico, 2019). We used random sampling also because as part of coding of each image was reviewed and discussed. Each pair of coders
the larger study we needed to check how frequently airports used images reached above 90% satisfactory agreement on all variables.
with these characteristics. The coding of the final sample started after Pilot Study 2. The three
Once the dates were chosen, the links to the Instagram post and the trained coders coded the final sample independently. Each post was
Facebook post were entered into an Excel sheet to make sure that re­ coded by two coders. Scott’s Pi was used for testing the reliability of the
searchers would be coding the same post. In case there were no photos variables with this final sample. Scott’s Pi intercoder reliability co­
posted for the selected date, the researcher selected the photo from the efficients of all the variables ranged from .79 to 1.00, exceeding the
day after. If that photo was already selected to be in the sample, the accepted threshold of .70. Coders discussed the inconsistent codes and
researchers selected the next available photo that was not included in revised coding after reaching agreement. The agreed dataset was used
the sample. for the data analysis.
The unit of analysis was the post for the selected date. The photo was
analyzed as well as the source, the brand, the number of views, likes, 4. Results
hashtags, mentions, and comments. In case there were two photos
posted the same day, the first one was chosen. Comments were noted but Since the values of user engagement (i.e., numbers of likes and
not analyzed. Thus, a total of 400 posts consisting of the photo and the comments) were highly skewed, those values were log-transformed to
engagement data were analyzed. normalize the distributions for the analysis (Larose & Larose, 2014). The
descriptive raw values (untransformed) of user engagement are sum­
3.2. Procedures marized in Table 2. As seen in Table 2, likes and comments are higher on
Instagram when compared to Facebook for all brands, although the
A coding sheet (see Table 1) was developed for the researchers to number of followers is higher on Facebook than Instagram.
measure the independent and dependent variables based on categories
suggested by Bell (2001) for gaze and social distance, and Jewitt and 4.1. Representational enhancers of public engagement
Oyama (2001) for narrative structures, point of view, framing, and
salience. Before the main study, two pilot studies were conducted for the H1 predicted that visual content with narrative images will generate
purpose of improving the coding instrument and training coders. more user engagement than those without narrative images. The results
Pilot Study 1 tested the coding instrument in order to clarify any of T-tests showed that on Instagram, the narrative images (M = 3.33, SD
disagreement. In this pilot study, we used 20 DXB Instagram posts as our = 0.31) generated significantly higher numbers of likes than the non-
sample that were not included in our final sample. Three coders, the narrative images (M = 3.22, SD = 0.27), t (198) = 2.03, p < .05.
researchers, were trained on how to code posts by using the coding in­ However, there was no significant difference between the comments
strument and coded the 20 posts independently. To improve the level of generated by narrative images (M = 1.34, SD = 0.38) and by non-
agreement among the coders, each post was then discussed by the three narrative images (M = 1.30, SD = 0.38), t (198) = 0.59, p = .56.
coders until over 80–90% agreement was achieved across the variables. On Facebook, the results showed that narrative images (M = 2.26, SD
= 0.73) generated significantly higher numbers of likes than the non-
Table 1 narrative images (M = 1.90, SD = 0.53), t (198) = 2.23, p < .05.
Coding and Measurement of Independent and Dependent Variables. Narrative images (M = 1.23, SD = 0.72) also led to more comments than
Variable Operationalization non-narrative images (M = 0.87, SD = 0.77), t (198) = 2.20, p < .05.
Therefore, H1 was partially supported by Instagram data, and fully
Social Media Number of likes
Engagement Number of comments supported by Facebook data.
Narrative 1 = Narrative: Main action and goal present/Main action
present Table 2
2 = Non-narrative: Main action absent
Social Media Posts by Brand.
Contact (gaze) 1 = Indirect gaze: Main character looks away from the viewer
2 = Direct gaze: Main character looks at the viewer directly Likes Comments
3 = NA (visual does not include people)
Brand N No. of followers (as of M SD M SD
Social Distance 1 = Close up shot: intimate and close personal distance
03/2020)
2 = Medium shot: far personal distance
3 = Long shot: close social distance, far social distance, public Dubai 100 965 1612 12 16
distance International
Point of View 1 = Low angle Instagram 50 316K 1736 1957 13 13
2 = Eye-level Facebook 50 2.35M 194 456 11 19
3 = High angle Singapore Changi 100 2625 2475 48 60
Framing 1 = Connection through similarities and rhymes of color and Instagram 50 345K 4603 1897 52 51
form; through vectors that connect elements; absence of Facebook 50 4.6M 647 894 44 67
empty space between elements London 100 1263 1663 34 46
2 = Disconnection through contrasts of color or form; Heathrow
through framelines, and empty space between elements Instagram 50 289K 2257 1858 38 50
Salience 1 = High salience (main product/character is prominent Facebook 50 445K 268 337 30 40
through use of size, color, or tonal contrasts) Amsterdam 100 1272 877 81 160
2 = Low salience (no main product/character is prominent Schiphol
through use of size, color, or tonal contrasts; or when it is a Instagram 50 72K 1898 714 25 22
group with no main subject) Facebook 50 525K 645 494 137 211

5
G. Dhanesh et al. Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174

4.2. Interactive enhancers of public engagement numbers of likes generated by high angle and eye-level points of view.
As for comments, low angle only generated significantly more comments
H2 predicted that visuals that employed subjects with direct gaze than high angle points of view. No significant differences were found
would have higher levels of user engagement than visuals that employed between the numbers of comments generated by low angle and eye-level
subjects with indirect/averted gaze. The results of T-tests showed that points of view, as well as between the comments generated by high angle
on Instagram, visuals that employed subjects with direct gazes (M = and eye-level points of view.
3.29, SD = 0.27) did not generate significantly more numbers of likes
than the visuals with indirect gazes (M = 3.18, SD = 0.18), t (65) = 1.53, 4.3. Compositional enhancers of public engagement
p = .13. The visuals with direct gazes (M = 1.36, SD = 0.39) also did not
generate significantly more comments than visuals with indirect gazes RQ2 had asked which type of framing (connection vs. disconnection)
(M = 1.22, SD = 0.31), t (65) = 1.34, p = .19. would have higher user engagement. The results of T-tests showed that,
Similarly, on Facebook, gazes (direct vs. indirect gazes) did not show on Instagram, framing of connection (M = 3.36, SD = 0.32) generated
any significant effects on user engagement in terms of likes (direct gaze: significantly more numbers of likes than the framing of disconnection
M = 2.13, SD = 0.72; indirect gaze: M = 2.31, SD = 0.76, t (76) = − 0.92, (M = 3.26, SD = 0.28), t (198) = 2.29, p < .05. The framing of
p = .36) and comments (direct gaze: M = 1.22, SD = 0.83; indirect gaze: connection (M = 1.40, SD = 0.41) also significantly generated more
M = 1.23, SD = 0.65, t (76) = − 0.07, p = .94). Therefore, the data were comments than disconnection (M = 1.27, SD = 0.34), t (198) = 2.59, p <
not consistent with H2. .05.
H3 had predicted that visuals that employed close up/personal shots However, on Facebook, no significant results were found. The images
of the subject would have higher user engagement than visuals that employed framing of connection (M = 2.14, SD = 0.74) did not generate
employed medium/social or long/public shots. The results of One-Way more likes than images framed with disconnection (M = 2.31, SD =
ANOVA with Post Hoc tests showed that on Instagram, the three types 0.69), t (198) = − 1.71, p = .09. The framing of connection (M = 1.11, SD
of shots generated different likes, F (2, 197) = 4.01, p < .05. Among the = 0.74) also did not lead to more comments than the framing of
three types, long/public shots (M = 3.34, SD = 0.31) led to more likes disconnection (M = 1.26, SD = 0.72), t (198) = − 1.46, p = .15.
than medium/social shots (M = 3.17, SD = 0.27), while there were no H4 predicted that visuals that employed high salience would have
significant results found between the other types of shots. The shot types higher user engagement than those with low salience. No significant
also did not generate different numbers of comments: close-up/personal results were found regarding this hypothesis. On Instagram, high
shots (M = 1.33, SD = 0.37), medium/social shots (M = 1.20, SD = salience (M = 3.30, SD = 0.31) did not lead to more likes than low (M =
0.38), long/public shots (M = 1.36, SD = 0.38), F (2, 197) = 2.10, p = 3.37, SD = 0.27), t (198) = − 1.25, p = .21; and there were also no
.13. significant differences between the effects of high (M = 1.32, SD = 0.38)
The data from Facebook showed significant results about the effects and low salience (M = 1.43, SD = 0.35) on comments, t (198) = − 1.67, p
of three shot types on both likes (close-up shots: M = 1.93, SD = 0.63; = .10. On Facebook, salience (high vs. low) did not show any significant
medium shots: M = 2.19, SD = 0.64, long shots: M = 2.30, SD = 0.76, F effects on user engagement in terms of likes (high salience: M = 2.21, SD
(2, 197) = 3.68, p < .05) and comments (close-up shots: M = 0.90, SD = = 0.71; low salience: M = 2.22, SD = 0.79, t (198) = − 0.07, p = .94) and
0.51; medium shots: M = 1.24, SD = 0.79, long shots: M = 1.25, SD = comments (high salience: M = 1.18, SD = 0.74; low salience: M = 1.21,
0.76, F (2, 197) = 3.18, p < .05). The results of Post Hoc tests showed SD = 0.75, t (198) = − 0.26, p = .80). Therefore, H4 was rejected by both
that long/public shots led both more likes and more comments than Instagram and Facebook data. Please see Table 3 for a summary of each
close-up/personal shots, while there were no significant differences variable’s effect size (η2) on user engagement.
between the user engagement generated by medium/social and long/
public shots, as well as by close-up/personal and medium/social shots. 5. Discussion
Therefore, H3 was rejected by the data. However, significant results
were found for long shots. Social media with its heavy reliance on visual imagery have provided
RQ1 had asked which point of view would generate higher user a platform for organizations to strengthen engagement with their pub­
engagement. The results of One-Way ANOVA with Post Hoc tests lics through the use of organization-generated visual content. This study
showed that on Instagram, the three types of points of views generated examined which representational, interactive, and compositional char­
significantly different likes: low angle (M = 3.43, SD = 0.30), eye-level acteristics of visual content generated by organizations are associated
(M = 3.33, SD = 0.28), high angle (M = 3.21, SD = 0.32), F (2, 197) = with higher levels of public engagement on Facebook and Instagram,
6.63, p < .01, and significantly different comments (low angle (M = thus augmenting the scarce literature on the role of visuals in engen­
1.51, SD = 0.41), eye-level (M = 1.33, SD = 0.37), high angle (M = 1.25, dering public engagement with organization-generated visual content
SD = 0.36)), F (2, 197) = 5.46, p < .01. The Post Hoc tests showed that over social media.
on Instagram low angle generated significantly more likes than high One major finding was that narrativity of visuals enhanced public
angle. No significant differences were found between the numbers of engagement, particularly likes on Instagram and likes and comments on
likes generated by low angle and eye-level points of view, as well as
between the likes generated by high angle and eye-level points of view.
Table 3
As for the comments, low angle generated significantly more comments
Results Summary of Each Variable’s Effect Size (η2) on User Engagement.
than both high and eye-level points of view, while no significant dif­
Instagram Facebook
ference between the numbers of comments generated by high angle and
eye-level points of view. Likes Comments Likes Comments
The results of Facebook data also showed the three points of view led Representational Meaning
to significantly different user engagement on Facebook in terms of likes Narrative .02* .00 .03* .02*
(low angle: M = 2.61, SD = 0.57; eye-level: M = 2.20, SD = 0.74, high Interactive Meaning
Gaze .02 .01 .01 .01
angle: M = 2.08, SD = 0.68, F (2, 197) = 4.02, p < .05) and comments
Distance .04* .01 .04* .03*
(low angle: M = 1.54, SD = 0.70; eye-level: M = 1.18, SD = 0.75, high Point of view .06** .05** .04* .03*
angle: M = 1.04, SD = 0.66, F (2, 197) = 3.41, p < .05). Slightly different Compositional Meaning
from the results of Instagram data, the Post Hoc tests showed that low Framing .03* .03* .01 .01
angle generated significantly more likes than high angle and eye-level Salience .01 .01 .00 .00

points of view, while no significant difference was found between the Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

6
G. Dhanesh et al.
Facebook. This finding augments emergent research that narrativity in
visuals can generate higher user engagement over Twitter (Boscarino,
2020) and Instagram (Romney & Johnson, 2020). When visuals
communicate narrativity, users are more engaged, supporting narrative
theorists’ argument that storytelling is a universal language that can
connect with audiences not only through text but also visuals. This
finding has also offered empirical evidence to support the storytelling
perspective within public relations, particularly through the use of vi­
suals in organization-generated content, adding to existence evidence
for textual forms of narration (Gill, 2015; Kent, 2015). Consciously
choosing visual content that conveys a sense of action will help to garner
public engagement. The power of visual narrativity to grab public
engagement could be explained by the ability of narrative visuals to
generate higher levels of affect, audience transportation and influence
self-brand connection (Dhanesh & Rahman, 2021; Kim & Yang, 2017;
Lim & Childs, 2020).
Another significant aspect of visuals that predicted public engage­
ment was the interactivity of visuals, particularly point of view and
distance. This finding is particularly relevant for public relations given
that practice and research in public relations tends to foreground two-
way interactive communication in verbal contexts. Findings from this
study extend the focus on interaction to visuals contexts as well. Inter­
active meaning of visuals indicates how visuals can interact with viewers
and grab their attention, prompting them to adopt a certain attitude
towards the subjects in the visuals. Findings from this study confirmed
that point of view, i.e., the angles through which subjects are depicted,
strongly generated likes and comments across Instagram and Facebook,
specifically low point of view, indicating power over the viewer. Camera
angles can establish power relations between the viewers and the sub­
jects in the visuals and studies have found that the use of camera angles
to imply power relations depends on the purpose of communication,
whether it is to establish equal power relations to connect child models
with affluent parent customers (Boulton, 2007) or to reinforce stereo­
typical power relations in mating contexts (Bruno et al., 2020; Sedge­
wick et al., 2017). Similarly, one probable explanation for our finding
could be that organization-generated visual communication of airports
employed mostly low camera angles to symbolically suggest power over
the viewer, perhaps acknowledging that one of the purposes of
organization-generated visual communication of airports is to establish
airports as spaces of spectatorship where travelers are enthralled by the
viewing of aircraft (Adey, 2007). This finding could also be explained by
the nature of the main subjects in the images – planes on runways and in
flight, indicating that organizations’ use of camera angles in their visuals
could be context dependent.
Yet another interactive feature that significantly predicted likes on
Instagram and likes and comments on Facebook was social distance,
which can regulate feelings of intimacy between the viewer and the
subject in the visual. Although closer para-proxemic distances between
subjects and viewers has been found to generate higher user engagement
in the case of virtual 3D environments (Bailenson et al., 2001; Cafaro
et al., 2016; Petras et al., 2016), and selfies (Bruno et al., 2020; Holiday
et al., 2019), this finding did not hold up in the case of
organization-generated visual communication. Instead, long shots
enhanced user engagement. This could be because most of the subjects
in the sample were planes, airport buildings, and runways. Panoramic,
long shots might have been employed to cater to publics’ expectation of
spectatorial experience of airports than medium or close up shots of
minutiae, such as a product in a store or food served in an airport café or
restaurant. As for the third element of interactive meaning – gaze –
although limited research in brand communication has found that direct
gaze in branded images can positively affect digital visual engagement
and purchase intentions on Instagram (Valentini et al., 2018), this study
revealed that direct gaze did not enhance public engagement. This could
be because the majority of our sample did not include people, but scenes
and objects, and gaze was coded only when the subject was a person.
Finally, given the visual information overload on social media,
7
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
although one would expect organizations to focus on visual composition
to stand out in a cluttered sea of images, vying for the scarce attention of
publics (Li & Xie, 2020), we found that the compositional aspects of
visuals did not generate public engagement, except that framing
harmonious connections among various elements in the visuals gener­
ated likes and comments on Instagram. This could be explained by the
affordances of Instagram, which foregrounds visual content over textual
(Waterloo, Baumgartner, Peter, & Valkenburg, 2018).
This comprehensive comparison of various representational, inter­
active and compositional meanings of organization-generated visual
content on Instagram and Facebook suggests that among the three
meaning making aspects of visuals, narrativity and interactivity,
particularly social distance and point of view were most prominent,
followed by the compositional aspect of framing harmonious connec­
tions among the elements within the visual. Therefore, we can conclude
that organization-generated visual content can significantly engender
public engagement over social media. These findings are critical because
public engagement can strengthen user-brand affiliation, strengthen
social informational environments of peer networks and influence out­
comes such as purchase intentions (Brubaker & Wilson, 2018; Dhanesh
& Rahman, 2021; Lim & Childs, 2020; Valentini et al., 2018).
As for contribution to building theory, this study suggests that visual
social semiotics is a useful framework for examining organization-
generated visual content and its influence on public engagement.
Literature on visual studies has been limited to examining only a few
aspects of visuals (Bock, 2020). By employing the theoretical framework
of visual social semiotics and examining representational, interactive,
and compositional meanings of visuals, this study enhances the body of
work in digital visual engagement. The study also augments the emer­
gent body of work in public relations on visual communication (Press­
grove et al., 2018) and offers multiple avenues for future research on
visual communication in public relations. This study contributes to
expanding understanding of visuals that can generate public engage­
ment with organization-generated content. Finally, this study may also
help to advance the growing body of literature on visual communication
in the underexamined genre of organization-generated content.
The study also has implications for practice, particularly for public
relations practitioners and anyone who manages organizations’ public
engagement through social media. Findings can encourage practitioners
to continue with or start to use visuals in organization-generated con­
tent. Further, insights on the narrativity, interactivity and compositional
aspects of visuals in organization-generated content can help practi­
tioners to choose the most effective visuals to generate public engage­
ment as they build relationships with various publics through social
media. Visual storytelling creates a connection between the organization
and the public on a more personal level by stimulating feelings and
emotions. These visuals can help public relations manage the brand’s
identity on social media by drawing the public into the narrative
through affective, interactive routes.
5.1. Limitations
This study is not without its limitations. First, only organizations
from one sector was included in the sample. As a result, the findings of
this study might not be generalizable to organizations in other in­
dustries. This is particularly true for the findings on interactivity that
contrary to existing research found that different types of social distance
and points of view engaged publics of airports. Second, the study only
considered the role of visuals in influencing public engagement. How­
ever, organization-generated communication is multimodal and the role
of visuals, text, and perhaps audio in influencing public engagement
simultaneously needs to be examined. This is particularly important as
we had noticed in our study that sometimes, a post could have generated
high engagement metrics not necessarily because of the picture but
because of the accompanying text or caption. Third, the study used
content analysis to measure public engagement and could not determine
G. Dhanesh et al.
the public’s interest in traveling, airports, or airplanes. Using interviews,
focus groups, or surveys could gauge people’s experience and provide a
clearer understanding of the underlying reasons for their engagement.
Finally, the study investigated interactive meaning by analyzing pictures
of people as well as planes and airports. The findings need to be
contextualized as the pictures of planes and people would require
different elements of visual design, such as gaze, angle, and distance. See
for instance, work by Durrani (2020) that extended Van Leeuwen’s
(2008) work on visual othering and conducted a semiotic examination of
how the interactive cues of gaze, camera angle and social distance
accorded more power to Iranian male dissidents and female trailblazers
in photojournalism in the Time magazine.
5.2. Future research
Future research could address some of these limitations and employ a
visual social semiotic approach to examine how organizations in other
industries employ visuals to generate public engagement. This could
contribute to strengthening the body of literature on the genre of
organization-generated content and the characteristics of visuals that
could influence public engagement across a wider set of industries.
Research could also employ experiments to examine the effects of
representational, interactive and compositional aspects of organization-
generated visual content on public engagement. From the perspective of
publics, research could examine the motivations of publics to engage
with organization-generated visuals. Further, future research could
employ yet another significant semiotic system for analyzing composi­
tional meanings, devised by Caple (2013). Finally, research could
combine the comprehensive visual social semiotic approach with tex­
tual/linguistic analysis and examine how the influence of multiple
modalities of communication could affect public engagement with
organization-generated content over social media.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ganga Dhanesh: Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Data
Analysis, Writing. Gaelle Duthler: Data curation, Methodology, Data
Analysis, Project administration. Kang Li: Data curation, Methodology,
Data Analysis.
Funding details
This work was supported by Dubai Airports under PO number
41907170. The funding source had no involvement in study design; in
the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the
report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Declaration of interest
There is no potential conflict of interest as the data was collected
from publicly available sources and the funding organization did not
have any role to play in the research process across study design,
conceptualization, data collection, analysis, and writing.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon request.
References
Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception
of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5(1), 3–11.
Adey, P. (2007). ‘May I have your attention’: airport geographies of spectatorship,
position, and (im) mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3),
515–536.
8
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
Agostino, D. (2013). Using social media to engage citizens: a study of Italian
municipalities. Public Relations Review, 39, 232–234.
Alba, J. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1986). Salience effects in brand recall. Journal of
Marketing Research, 23(4), 363–369.
Amit-Danhi, E. R., & Shifman, L. (2020). Off the charts: user engagement enhancers in
election infographics. Information, Communication & Society, 33, 123–130. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1761858
Argyris, Y. A., Wang, Z., Kim, Y., & Yin, Z. (2020). The effects of visual congruence on
increasing consumers’ brand engagement: an empirical investigation of influencer
marketing on Instagram using deep-learning algorithms for automatic image
classification. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, Article 106443. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2020.106443
Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. C. (2015). Smartphones, publics and OPR: do
publics want to engage? Public Relations Review, 41, 214–221.
Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2001). Equilibrium theory
revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence:
Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(6), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1162/
105474601753272844
Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Predictive gaze cues and personality judgements:
should eye trust you? Psychological Science, 17(6), 514–520.
Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. In T. van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.),
Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 10–34). Sage Publications.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353
Blackwood, R. (2019). Language, images, and Paris Orly airport on Instagram:
multilingual approaches to identity and self-representation on social media.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14790718.2018.1500257
Bock, M. A. (2020). Theorising visual framing: contingency, materiality and ideology.
Visual Studies, 35(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586x.2020.1715244
Boscarino, J. E. (2020). Constructing visual policy narratives in new media: the case of
the Dakota access pipeline. Information, Communication & Society, 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1787483
Boulton, C. (2007). Don’t smile for the camera: black power, para-proxemics and
prolepsis in print ads for hip-hop clothing. International Journal of Communication, 1,
758–788.
Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using classic social media cases to distill ethical guidelines for
digital engagement. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28(2), 119–133.
Brubaker, P. J., & Wilson, C. (2018). Let’s give them something to talk about: Global
brands’ use of visual content to drive engagement and build relationships. Public
Relations Review, 44(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.010
Bruno, N., Uccelli, S., Pisu, V., Belluardo, M., & De Stefani, E. (2020). Selfies as duplex
non-verbal communication: human-media interaction, human-human interaction,
case study, and research manifesto. Frontiers in Computer Science, 2(12). https://doi.
org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00012
Cafaro, A., Ravenet, B., Ochs, M., Vilhjálmsson, H., & Pelachaud, C. (2016). The effects of
interpersonal attitude of a group of agents on user’s presence and proxemics
behavior. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 6(2), 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2914796
Caple, H. (2013). Photojournalism: A Social Semiotic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Dhanesh, G. S. (2017a). Social media and the rise of visual rhetoric: Implications for public
relations theory and practice. In E. Bridgen, & D. Vercic (Eds.). Routledge:
Experiencing Public Relations: International Voices.
Dhanesh, G. S. (2017b). Putting engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field,
definition and model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review, 43
(5), 925–933.
Dhanesh, G. S., & Rahman, N. (2021). Visual communication and public relations: Visual
frame building strategies in war and conflict stories. Public Relations Review, 47(1),
102003.
DiStatso, M. W. (2012). Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: how bright is
the rule? Public Relations Journal, 6(2), 1–24.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Frethey-Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019). Social
media engagement behavior: a framework for engaging customers through social
media content. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2213–2243. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182
Durrani, S. (2020). Disagree and you shall be valued: a semiotic examination of how
photojournalism constructs “valuable” Iranian bodies across time. Social Semiotics,
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1779461
Edwards, H. H. (2018). Conceptualizing audience in the communication process. In
O. Ihlen, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and
Communication (pp. 373–382). Malden, MA: Wi.
Fisher, W. R. (1989). Clarifying the narrative paradigm. Communication Monographs, 56
(1), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390249
Forbes (2018). Visual content: the future of storytelling. Retrieved from https://www.fo
rbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/02/visual-content-the-future-of-sto
rytelling/?sh=5bdd9ad03a46.
Fraustino, J. D., Lee, J. Y., Lee, S. Y., & Ahn, H. (2018). Effects of 360◦ video on attitudes
toward disaster communication: mediating and moderating roles of spatial presence
and prior disaster media involvement. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 331–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.003
Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and
adds value to CSR: an integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41(5),
662–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.012
G. Dhanesh et al.
Gómez, M., Lopez, C., & Molina, A. (2019). An integrated model of social media brand
engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2019.01.026
Guidry, J. P. D., Jin, Y., Orr, C. A., Messner, M., & Meganck, S. (2017). Ebola on
Instagram and twitter: how health organizations address the health crisis in their
social media engagement. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 477–486. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.009
Hall, T. E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Holiday, S., Loof, T., Cummins, R. G., & McCord, A. (2019). Consumer response to selfies
in advertisements: visual rhetoric for the me me me generation. Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, 40(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10641734.2018.1503107
Hollebeek, L. D., & Macky, K. (2019). Digital content marketing’s role in fostering
consumer engagement, trust, and value: framework, fundamental propositions, and
implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2018.07.003
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in
social media: conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2013.12.002
Hur, S., Lim, H., & Lyu, J. (2020). “I” or “she/he”? the effects of visual perspective on
consumers’ evaluation of brands’ social media marketing: from imagery fluency
perspective. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1080/20932685.2019.1675526
Hwong, Y., Oliver, C., Van Kranendonk, M., Sammut, C., & Seroussi, Y. (2017). What
makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space science
communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 480–492. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.068
Ilicic, J., & Brennan, S. M. (2020). Looking at you: celebrity direct eye gaze influences
social media post effectiveness (ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print)) European Journal of
Marketing, 54, 3051–3076. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0171.
Internet live stats (2021) Retrieved from https://www.internetlivestats.com/.
Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts
of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10–12), 1489–1506.
Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. In T. van
Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 134–156). London:
Sage Publications.
Ji, Y. G., Chen, Z. F., Tao, W., & Cathy Li, Z. (2019). Functional and emotional traits of
corporate social media message strategies: behavioral insights from S&P 500
Facebook data. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2018.12.001
Jiang, H., Luo, Y., & Kulemeka, O. (2016). Social media engagement as an evaluation
barometer: insights from communication executives. Public Relations Review, 42(4),
679–691.
Kampe, K. K. W., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, U. (2001). Psychology reward value of
attractiveness and gaze, 589-589 Nature, 413(6856). https://doi.org/10.1038/
35098149.
Kent, M. L. (2015). The power of storytelling in public relations: introducing the 20
master plots. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2015.05.011
Kim, C., & Yang, S. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: how each behavior
differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441–449. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006
Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ksiazek, T. B., Peer, L., & Lessard, K. (2016). User engagement with online news:
conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news
videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18(3), 502–520. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444814545073
Larose, D. T., & Larose, C. D. (2014). Discovering Knowledge in Data: An Introduction to
Data Mining. Wiley.
Lee, J. E., Hur, S., & Watkins, B. (2018). Visual communication of luxury fashion brands
on social media: effects of visual complexity and brand familiarity. The Journal of
Brand Management, 25(5), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0092-6
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Li, Y., & Xie, Y. (2020). Is a picture worth a thousand words? An empirical study of image
content and social media engagement. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719881113
Lim, H., & Childs, M. (2020). Visual storytelling on Instagram: branded photo narrative
and the role of telepresence. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 14(1),
33–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-09-2018-0115
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: defying a typology for
citizens coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly,
29(4), 446–454.
Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics: investigating citizens’ voices
and engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook Pages. Public Relations
Review, 41, 205–213.
Mandel, N., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). When web pages influence choice: effects of visual
primes on experts and novices. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 235–245.
Mason, M. F., Tatkow, E. P., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The look of love: gaze shifts and
person perception. Psychological Science, 16(3), 236–239.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2013). Beyond liking or following: understanding public
engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39, 13–22.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of
organization-public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435.
9
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: corporate
character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41
(3), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.005
Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). Examining the effects of internal social media
usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46(2), Article 101880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101880
Men, L. R., Tsai, W. S., Chen, Z. F., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Social presence and digital dialogic
communication: engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 30(3), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498341
Meyrowitz, J. (1986). Television and interpersonal behavior: codes of perception and
response. In G. Gumpert, & R. S. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/Media: Interpersonal
Communication in a Media World (p. 253). New York: Oxford University Press.
Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). Relative visual
saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22(1), 67–74.
Nghieˆm-Phu, B., & Suter, J. R. (2018). Airport image: an exploratory study of McCarran
International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 67, 72–84.
Page, J. T., & Duffy, M. E. (2018). What does credibility look like? Tweets and walls in U.
S. presidential candidates’ visual storytelling. Journal of Political Marketing, 17(1),
3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1171819
Park, J., & Kim, A. (2020). A dog doesn’t smile: effects of a dog’s facial expressions and
gaze on pet product evaluation. The Journal of Product & Brand Management. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2019-2335
Parkhurst, D., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the
allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42(1), 107–123.
Petras, K., ten Oever, S., & Jansma, B. M. (2016). The effect of distance on moral
engagement: event related potentials and alpha power are sensitive to perspective in
a virtual shooting task. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.02008
Pressgrove, G., Janoske, M., & Haught, M. J. (2018). Editors’ letter: new research and
opportunities in public relations and visual communication. Public Relations Review,
44(3), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.006
Rietveld, R., van Dolen, W., Mazloom, M., & Worring, M. (2020). What you feel, is what
you like: influence of message appeals on customer engagement on Instagram.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 20–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2019.06.003
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., & Fico, F. (2019). Analyzing Media Messages: Using
Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (fourth ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780429464287
Romney, M., & Johnson, R. G. (2020). Show me a story: narrative, image, and audience
engagement on sports network Instagram accounts. Information, Communication &
Society, 23(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486868
Sedgewick, J. R., Flath, M. E., & Elias, L. J. (2017). Presenting your best self(ie): the
influence of gender on vertical orientation of selfies on tinder. Frontiers of Psychology,
8, 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00604
Silvennoinen, J. M., & Jokinen, J. P. P. (2016). Appraisals of salient visual elements in
web page design. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 229, 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2016/3676704
Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015). Terms of engagement: analyzing public
engagement with organizations through social media. Computers in Human Behavior,
53, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.060
Smith, R. D. (2017). Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Routledge.
Statista (2021). https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-r
anked-by-number-of-users/ (Accessed 11 June 2021).
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.
Taylor, M., Vasquez, G. M., & Doorley, J. (2003). Merck and AIDS activists: engagement
as a framework for extending issues management. Public Relations Review, 29,
257–270.
Valentini, C., Romenti, S., Murtarelli, G., & Pizzetti, M. (2018). Digital visual
engagement: influencing purchase intentions on Instagram. Journal of
Communication Management, 22(4), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-
2018-0005
Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand placement prominence: good for memory! bad for
attitude? Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151–153.
Verčič, A. T., & Ćorić, D. S. (2018). The relationship between reputation, employer
branding and corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 44(4),
444–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.06.005
Wang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2020). Dialogic communication on social media: how
organizations use twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Computers
in Human Behavior, 104, Article 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2019.106183
Wang, Y., Ki, E., & Kim, Y. (2017). Exploring the perceptual and behavioral outcomes of
public engagement on mobile phones and social media. International Journal of
Strategic Communication, 11(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1553118X.2017.1280497
Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of
online expressions of emotion: comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and
WhatsApp. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1813–1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444817707349
Watkins, B. A. (2017). Experimenting with dialogue on twitter: an examination of the
influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public
Relations Review, 43(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.002
Wattanacharoensil, W., Schuckert, M., Graham, A., & Dean, A. (2017). An analysis of the
airport experience from an air traveler perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 32, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.06.003
G. Dhanesh et al.
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication
implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346.
Wigley, S., & Lewis, B. K. (2012). Rules of engagement: practice what you tweet. Public
Relations Review, 38(1), 165–167.
Willis, M. L., Palermo, R., & Burke, D. (2011). Social judgments are influenced by both
facial expression and direction of eye gaze. Social Cognition, 29(4), 415–429.
10
Public Relations Review 48 (2022) 102174
Yang, S., & Kang, M. (2009). Measuring blog engagement: testing a four-dimensional
scale. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 323–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pubrev.2009.05.004
Zappavigna, M. (2016). Social media photography: construing subjectivity in Instagram
images. Visual Communication, 15(3), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1470357216643220