This item has the following downloads:
1 THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN PUBLICS PARTICIPATORY BEHAVIORS : EXPLORING EFFECTS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGIES ON SOCIAL CAPITAL By JUNE YUNG KIM A DISSERTATION PRESENTED THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 June Yung Kim
3 To my family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe my sincere gratitude to many people who support and led me in my life. I thank my advisor, Dr. Spi r o Kiousis, who I could always count on to provide feedback that was both insightful and timely. I have been very fortunate to have him as my advisor during my doctoral study. He was very supportive, and his insightful guidance led me throughout the entire process. I could not have completed my dissertation without his belief and patience. I am also grateful to my dissertation committee members for all their support. Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson has provided me with invaluable perspectives, particularly in the initial stage of my dissertation. Her passion and knowledge about public relations has always inspired me. I would also like to thank Dr. Sora Kim. She gave me cr itical suggestions and advice on a model for my dissertation and statistical analysis. I was lucky to have Dr. Beth Rosenson as an outside member on my committee. She provided knowledge about key concepts for my dissertation and always supported me. My th anks go to my colleagues and peers at the University of Florida for their support and encouragement. Seul Lee, Kang Hoon Sung, Jung A Kim, Doori Song, Todd Holmes, and Weiting Tao helped me with data collection. I also thank all of my friends in Korea and the U.S. I would like to express my greatest appreciation to the most important people in my life: my family. I deeply thank my parents for their constant support and love. Their love keeps me grounded in who I am while also supporting me to seek my best interests and potential. I also want to thank my best friend, my younger brother, for his prayers. He has always encouraged me and supported. Without love and trust from my family, I could not have met this very special moment of my life. I love you all.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................... 17 Definition of Social Media and Social Networking Sites .......................................... 17 Relationship Maintenance Strategies (Antecedents) .............................................. 19 Defining Relationships ...................................................................................... 19 Indi cators of Relationships ............................................................................... 20 Relationship Maintenance Strategies ............................................................... 22 Type of Relationship Maintenance Strategies .................................................. 23 The Effects of Openness and Networking Strategies on Social Capital ........... 25 Relationship Strategies in Online media/Social media ..................................... 29 Relationship Building through Social Media ..................................................... 30 Direction of Communication: Twoway Communication and Oneway Communication ............................................................................................. 32 Social Capital Theory (Process) ............................................................................. 34 Defining Social Capital ..................................................................................... 34 Prev ious Perspectives of Social Capital ........................................................... 37 Differences in Social Capital and Relationship ................................................. 38 Dissertations Definition of Social Capital ......................................................... 39 Types of Social Capital: Bonding Social Capital vs. Bridging Social Capital .... 39 Bonding social capital ................................................................................ 40 Bridging social capital ................................................................................ 40 Social Capital and Social Media ....................................................................... 43 Behavioral Intentions (Consequences) ................................................................... 46 Social Capital and Engagement ....................................................................... 46 Online and Offline Engagement ....................................................................... 48 Proposed Model in this Dissertation ....................................................................... 50 METHODS .................................................................................................................... 52 Experimental Design ............................................................................................... 52 Participants ............................................................................................................. 52 Procedures ............................................................................................................. 53 Operational Definitions of Independent Variables ................................................... 53 Questionnaire Construction .................................................................................... 54
6 Measurements ........................................................................................................ 58 Bonding and Bridging Social Capital ................................................................ 58 Participation Intention ....................................................................................... 60 Issu e Involvement ............................................................................................ 61 Political Ideology .............................................................................................. 61 Demographics .................................................................................................. 61 Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................. 62 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 65 Pretests ................................................................................................................... 65 Pretest 1 ........................................................................................................... 65 Pretest 2 ........................................................................................................... 66 Pretest 3 ........................................................................................................... 67 Profiles of Partic ipants ............................................................................................ 67 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... 68 Validity and Reliability Tests ................................................................................... 69 Manipulation Check ................................................................................................ 72 Hypotheses and Research Questions Testing ........................................................ 75 Effects of the Types of Relation Maintenance Strategies and the Direction of Communication ......................................................................................... 75 Effects of Social Capital on Participation Intention ........................................... 76 DISCUSSION A ND CONCLUSION............................................................................... 87 Summary of Results ................................................................................................ 87 Implications for Public Relations Research and Practice ........................................ 92 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .................................................. 96 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 99 EXPERIMENT STIMULI AND QUESTIONS ............................................................... 101 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 129
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Relationship maintenance strategies .................................................................. 51 3 1 Experiment design .............................................................................................. 63 3 2 Measures ............................................................................................................ 63 4 1 Experiment participants ...................................................................................... 80 4 2 Descriptions of samples ..................................................................................... 81 4 3 Mean and standard deviation scores for measures ............................................ 82 4 4 Correlation matrix for bonding social capital and bridging social capital ............. 83 4 5 Measurement model for bonding social capital and bridging social capital ........ 84 4 6 Convergent validity and discriminant validity ...................................................... 84 4 7 Model fit indices for bonding social capital and bridging social capital ............... 85 4 8 Mean and standard deviations of bonding social capital .................................... 85 4 9 Hierarchical multiple regressions on online participation intention ...................... 85 4 10 Hierarchical multiple regressions on offline participation intention ...................... 86
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 A proposed model in the study ........................................................................... 51 4 1 Bonding social capital ......................................................................................... 86
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN PUBLICS PARTICIPATORY BEHAVIORS : EXPLORING EFFECTS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGIES ON SOCIAL CAPITAL By June Yung Kim August 2013 Chair: Sprio Kiousis Major: Mass Communication The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the effects of public relations strategies that influence social capital in publics and to explore how social capital is associated with the publics participation intention for democratic engagement. To demonstrate this, a measure of social capital that was applied to a public relations context was developed and validated. Modern social media sites have created popular and effective communication channels for organizations. Social media can provide numerous benefits for organizations that try to establish relationships with key publics. Also, social capital has great potential for diverse organizations in that this leads to behavioral participation by individuals. Results of an experiment in this study showed that the creation of bonding social capital in publics can be promoted when an organization employs an openness relationship maintenance strategy or a twoway communication strategy through its social media. In addition, it was found that bonding social capital affects the intention of
10 publics to participate not only in online participation but also to participate offline to support the organization, when demographic factors, political ideology, and level of issue involvement were controlled. This study provides academic implications in that it investigates how public relationship strategies can lead to behavioral outcomes via developing the model of social capital. Furthermore, by developing the social capital measurement in a public relations context, the study grants opportunities for public relations scholarship to expand to various areas. This study also has practical implications in that it helps organizations and public relations practitioners establish effective communication strategies to build c ommunities with publics and to increase their participation. Finally, the underlying connection that this study examined, between perceptual outcomes of communication and actual intention for participatory behaviors, could provide a better understanding of citizens engagement for a vibrant democratic society.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The use of social media has mushroomed during the last decade. The rate of adult social media users in the United States has jumped from 8% in 2005 to 65% in 2011 (Brenner, 2012). According to a report from the International Telecommunication Union (2012), over 1 billion people use social media all over the world. Two thirds of users responded that connections with family members or friends was a primary reason for engagi ng in social media while half of the users said that motivation to connect with old friends theyve lost touch with spurred them (Smith, 2011). Additionally, other reasons to connect to social media included similar interests or hobbies (14% of users polle d), to make new friends (9% of users polled), and to read public figures comments (3%) were also indicated as reasons of social media by 14%, 9%, and 3% of users respectively (Smith, 2011). Social media provide benefits for individual users as well as organizations. Online media, in general, offer channels to reach out to publics with relatively low costs compared to traditional media ( Coombs, 1998). Because they are also relatively free from mass media gatekeepers influences, organizations that use so cial media as a communication tool can create more direct messages (Esrock & Leichty, 1998). Moreover, the ubiquity of the Internet allows for delivery of messages to publics at any time without a time lag for distribution of information (Ki & Hon, 2006). More importantly, social media can help organizations to make connections with publics. The purpose of social networking sites is to build and facilitate online communities and social ties (Woolley, Limperos, & Oliver, 2010, p.634). Similarly, Pasek More, and Romer (2008) suggested that social networking sites encourage
12 interactions among parties and broaden social ties by providing specific functions such as messaging or friending. Major reasons for the use of social media found in Smiths repo rt (2011) also reveal that building connections and networks among individuals or parties is a primary advantage provided by social media. In fact, public relations researchers have suggested various relationship maintenance strategies that help organizations build and maintain mutual relationships with their publics. Hon and Grunig (1999) adapted Canary and Stafford (1992)s relationship mai ntenance strategies in interpersonal relationships and proposed six relationship maintenance strategies that apply to organizations publics relationships: positivity, openness, access, sharing of tasks, networking, and assurance. These strategies have been proposed to produce relationship outcomes, such as commitment, satisfaction, or trust. They are defined and discussed in more detail later. Furthermore, public relations research has revealed that twoway communication plays an important role in relationship building between an organization and its key publics (Grunig, 1992; Grunig, Grunig, Sriramesh, Huang, Lyra, 1995). When both parties given equal platforms upon which to express themselves a relationship can be established and which may produce positiv e relational outcomes such as commitment or trust (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Anderson & Weitz, 1992). However, it should be noted that it is important for organizations not only to nurture perceptual relationships, but also to lead observable outcomes from publics. Strong positive relationships may propel publics to become involved or participate in supportive actions for an organization. For example, the publics of an organization, who have built positive relationships with the organization, could participate in wordof mouth
13 behaviors to spread information to rectify a false rumor about an organization in a crisis situation. Particularly, behavioral support can play an essential role for political organizations or nonprofit organizations because these organiz ations often achieve their goals and missions through collective actions with their publics, such as through petitions or donations to campaign fund. Social capital has great potential to political organizations in that it provides implications about bui lding a community between individuals as well as understanding increases or decreases in democratic participation. Although there are various definitions of social capital upon perspectives, social capital commonly refers to connectedness of citizens to ot hers in their community (Carpini, 2004). According to Putnam (1995a, 2000), the presence of social capital can benefit individuals and a community such as better education performance and health, less crime, higher economic prosperity, and more participatory democracy. He argues that the decline of social capital in American society was seemed as a cause of the drop in U.S. citizens political turnout over a few decades. According to his arguments, diminished social leisure activity among citizens has isolated individuals and made them indifferent to social participation. With considering that social capital is related to connectedness of community members, social media can be a very useful media channel to strengthen or expand users social ties. Users ca n more actively communicate or interact with acquaintances not only through offline channels but also online by using social media (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). It enables users to reinforce relationships with others in ones existing social network, bonding soc ial capital. Moreover, features of social media allow users to create
14 new social connections with people who do not share any offline networks (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006). For instance, users can randomly browse others profiles on Facebook and request strangers to accept their request to be social media friends. By connecting with people outside of ones social ties, users can widen ones bridging social capital. Several researchers have tried to investigate associations of social capital and in tentions of democratic engagement (Zhang & Seltzer, 2010) or organizationpublics relationships (Jin, 2008) by using indicators of social capital. However, little research has examined whether these indicators validly reflected individuals social capital. Jin (2008) studied the effects of organizational social capital on communal relationships between organizations and their publics through social capital indicators, such as communication adequacy, communication accuracy, networks, inclusion, and trust in employees. Zhang and Sheltzer (2010) also examined how interpersonal trust, media use for political information, communication behaviors, and relationships with political organizations are related with publics democratic engagement. Although these social capital indicators can be considered to represent some dimensions of social capital, they have not been fully validated by research. The direct outcomes of social capital measurement can increase the internal validity of this study. Moreover, communication behaviors of publics can be indicators of social capital as well as outcomes. Publics who perceive social capital of political organizations can be more willing to become involved in interpersonal discussion of political issues. In addition, not much research has tried to examine the direct associations between indicators and specifically two types of social capital, bonding and bridging
15 social capital (Williams, 2006; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Different types of social capital have different functions to serve (Conrad, 2007). Bonding social capital enables an individual to live better in the network where he or she already is in whereas bridging social capital let one change the network to live in (Conrad, 2007). Because bonding and bridging s ocial capital play different roles in an individuals life, they should be separately investigated by using separated measurements. The purpose of this study is to explore whether social capital between a political organization and its publics can be enhanced by relationship maintenance strategies and direction of communication, whether it is oneway communication or twoway communication, between an organization and publics on organizations social media. In particular, this study aims to investigate how the relationship strategies and direction of communication influence two different types of social capital, bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Moreover, it looks at relationships among social capital and publics online/offline political p articipation intentions. In other words, the model in this study proposes antecedents, a process, and consequences of participatory behaviors for political organizations. Relationship strategies and communication style employed by an organization may function as antecedents. Participants social capital is defined as the process to produce their behavioral intentions to support the organization. In order to measure participants levels of bonding social capital and bridging social capital as outcomes of organizations relationship strategies, a scale of social capital developed by Williams (2006) will be adapted and revised.
16 Through investigating associations among relationship maintenance strategies, direction of communication between an organization and publics, social capital, and behavioral intentions for democratic engagement, this study makes an academic contribution to an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of how perceptual relationships can lead to actual behaviors. This provides practical implications for not only organizations in political sectors or nonprofit organizations, but also ones, such as healthrelated organization or profit seeking organizations, in that they can establish public relation strategies to encourage publics behav ioral engagements with a better understanding of the roles of social capital and trust in participatory behaviors. As mentioned earlier, organizations could be in need of publics participation or supportive behaviors in a given situation, such as seeking supplementary help or resources in order to realize a successful campaign. If specific relationship maintenance strategies are closely related to a certain type of social capital that is essential to behavior intentions, organizations could develop more ef fective public relations strategies based on them. Furthermore, an understanding of the factors affecting individuals political participation can be valuable from the democratic perspective. An increase of political participatory behaviors among publics of political organizations could expand to more vibrant social participation among general citizens. It also could boost voters turnout and contribute to the development of a democratic society.
17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter, the antecedents, process, and consequences of the proposed model will be examined through a review of relevant literature. To be specific, key aspects of relationship maintenance strategies and social capital will be explored to show how conceptually they are associated to each other. Also, it will present how social capital can also lead to them engaging in political participatory behaviors. Definition of Social Media and Social Networking Sites Before examining literature of key concepts, it should be clar ified how social media and social networking sites are defined in this study. Because most social media integrate forms of computer mediated communication, social media share many qualities of online media such as interactivity, hypertextuality, and multim ediality (Newhagen & Rafaeil, 1996). However, social media have been distinguished from other online media in terms of the social affordances (Hogan & QuanHaase, 2010). Affordances indicate perceptual cues in the environment that facilitate interaction (Hogan & QuanHaase, 2010, p.310). Features of social media that help perceive affordances of interaction with others encourage users to engage in social interaction. For example, on social network sites, seeing a list my friends or confirming who reads ones message or likes can allow users to easily become involved in social interaction. Ahlqvist, B ck, Heinonen and Halonen (2010) identified three key aspects of social media. First, the content of social media is generated by users. It can be in any for m including photos, videos, or play lists. Second, communities and social interaction among users play a key role in social media. By creating links among users, social
18 media provide users with a platform for interaction with ease. The last one is that soc ial media are based on web technologies. Furthermore, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) classified social media based upon the degrees of social presence/media richness and self presentation/self disclosure. According to their research, blogs fall under the are a of social media with low social presence and high self presentation because they are often text based and allow more disclosure than collative projects (e.g. Wikipedia) that mainly focus on specific content domains. In contrast, social networking sites and content communities (e.g. YouTube) are considered to be medium level in social presence/media richness because they enable not only text based communication but also the exchange of multimedia content such as photos or videos. But content communities ar e different from social networking sites in that they allow for less self presentation than social networking sites. With respect to social presence/media richness, both virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life) and virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcra ft) score the highest. In terms of self presentation/self disclosure, virtual social worlds are considered to be higher than virtual game worlds. In accordance with Ahlqvist and his collegues (2011) perspective, social media are defined as online communication platforms where users generate their own communication content and socially interact with others in virtual communities in this study. In particular, this study focuses on social networking sites that possess medium level of social presence/media richness and a high level of self presentation/self disclosure.
19 Relationship Maintenance Strategies (Antecedents) Defining Relationships Formulating a definition of relationships has been not simple due to the broadness of the concept. A concept of relationships has been widely used in a number of fields, such as interpersonal relations, organizational studies, and counselor client psychotherapy relations. Researchers and public relations practitioners define relationships based on their interests or functions that they consider public relations effort should serve. In interpersonal communication, Surra and Ridley (1991) defined degree o f relationship as including observable moment to moment interaction events and intersubjectivity (p.37). They insisted that relationships are objective realities and subject realities. It indicates that individuals in the relationship know how to behave toward the other and to understand, predict, and interpret the others behavior (p.38). Likewise, Huston and Robins (1982) also demonstrated that a term, relationships, in their study represents not only overt interpersonal activity but also cognitions and emotions that result from or contribute to such activity (p.905). Milla and Rogers (1976) suggested that relationships should be considered as a symbolic interaction in that people become aware of themselves within the context of their social relat ionships (p. 87). In public relations contexts, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) conducted extensive research on definitions of relationships in public relations academia. Their conclusions argued that relationships are formed when there are interdependent needs, such as for resources, alliances, or voluntary necessity to associate. Relationships consist of patterns of linkages through which the parties in the relationships pursue and service their interdependent needs (p. p. 95). Also, relationships ar e dynamic results of
20 the exchanges among parties and can be maintained when both parties show adaptation and contingent responses that are required for interactions. Furthermore, Ledingham and Brunig (1998) defined relationships as below: t he state which exist between an organization an d its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact on the economic, social, political, and/or cultural well being of the other entity (p.62). In addition, Hallahan (2004) refers relationships as routinized, sus tained patterns of behavior by individual s related to their involvement with an organization. . Many o nline relationships operate in tandem with offline relationships and thus are part of a total organizational public relationship (p. 775). Indicators of Relationships Despite debates regarding how to define relationships, there have been several important indicators of relationships identified by research on interpersonal relationships and organizationpublic relationships. They are commitment, satisf action, trust, control mutuality, and liking, which play key roles in organizationpublic relationship assessment and are called OPRA (Huang, 2001). Through a meta analysis of public relations research during the past ten years, Huang and Zhang (2013) found that satisfaction, relational commitment, trust, and control mutuality were ranked as top variables that have been studied in the mainstream of organizationpublics relations research. Commitment refers to the extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy (Huang, 2001, p.67). In organizationpublic relationship context, commitment indicated organizations/publics commitment to achieve common goals within and maintain the welfare of the community (Jin, 2008). Hon and Grunig (1999) argued that commitment has two dimensions, continuance
21 commitment and affective commitment. Continuance commitment occurs when economic rationale provides parties with reasons of engaging in committed actions while affective commit ment is performed by emotional orientation. Ledingham, Bruning, and Wilson (1999) stress that a long term commitment plays an essential role in building relationships. Satisfaction has been defined as the extent to which each party feels favorably towar d the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p.3). A satisfying relationship allows individuals to perceive that the benefits of the relationship outweigh the costs and leads to collaborate with an o rganization (Jin, 2008). Also, satisfaction was identified as an incredibly important factor to nurture positive attitudes toward parties in the relationships (Ki & Hon, 2007; Hon and Grunig (1999) defined trust in organizationpublic relations as one p artys level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party (p.3). According to them, there are three dimensions to trust. Publics should have the belief that an organization is fair and just ( integrity) one that an organization will do what it says it will do ( dependability) and one that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do ( competence) Research found that trust plays an essential role in collaborative behaviors between organizations and publics (Morgan & H unt, 1994). Moreover, a great deal of research on political behaviors and social capital also reveals that trust in individual leads to engagement in political collaborative actions (Putnam 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 2000; Kanervo & Zhang, 2005). Research that hi ghlights the importance of trust in political participatory behaviors is discussed in detail later.
22 Control mutuality refers to the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p.3). Organizat ions often exert more control over their publics because they have more resources than publics; however, healthy relationships should not be controlled by only one party or the other (Seltzer, 2007). In order to maintain stable relationships, all parties s hould agree on who is authorized to exercise rightful control over each other (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Without balance of power, an organization and its publics will be less likely to collaborate for common goals. Researchers suggest that these relationship indicators can be enhanced by relationship management strategies (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Relationship Maintenance Strategies Research has examined strategies individuals use to maintain relationships with others, spouses or partners in romantic relationships. Stafford and Canary (1991) reviewed existing research on interpersonal relationships and relational management strategies to provide a framework for their own research regarding relationships in couples. Relations among individuals can be understood in the perspective of social exchange theory. They can be strengthened as individuals involvement or investment increases. Inc reased interdependence among them leads persons to maintain the relationships. Furthermore, all relationships require effort for maintenance. For instance, once a romantic relationship is established, effort to show affection and to demonstrate faithfulne ss for each other is essential to keep the relationship. Without maintenance, relationships will deteriorate. In addition, each stage of relationship requires different relational strategies that serve for different goals. For example, individuals in a dec lining relationship were most likely to use a balanced strategy rather
23 than to have discussions while those in an escalating relationship were least likely to use it. Also, maintenance strategies aim to maintain vital characteristics of a relationship to i ndividuals who are in it, such as commitment or satisfaction. Last but not least, individuals assessment of partners behavior is more important than partners self reports to evaluate their interaction. Canary and Stafford (1992) identified key relational management strategies in marital relationships: positivity, openness, assurances, sharing tasks, and social networks. According to them, these strategies produce interpersonal relational outcomes such as commitment, liking, and control mutuality. The s trategies have been adopted and applied to organizationpublic relationships. Hon and Grunig (1999) added access as another relationship maintenance strategy. Type of Relationship Maintenance Strategies Table 21 presents six relationship maintenance str ategies that have been identified by public relations researchers. Positivity refers to any attempts to make interactions with a partner/partners enjoyable in interpersonal relationships (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Public relations researchers define positivity as anything the organization or publics do to make the relationship more enjoyable for the parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p.14). It has been revealed that positivity is strongly related to control mutuality, trust, or liki ng (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Openness encompasses direct discussions about the nature of the relationship and setting aside times for talks about the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1994, p.12). In a public relations context, openness means disclosure of thoughts and feelings among parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999, p.14). When an organization provides
24 information that publics want to know and try to involve in open communication with its publics, transparency between publ ics and the organization can be increased (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; Canary & Stafford, 1992; Kelleher and Miller, 2006). Through openly communicating with each other, trust can be achieved between them (Bok, 1989). Additionally, it helps parties hav e equally distributed power in the relationship and eventually build a twoway symmetrical relationship (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Bortree, 2005). Access is the extent to which an organization allows access to its publics for communication (Ki & Hon, 2009). Providing communication channels can show the organizations willingness to communicate with and care about its publics. They can deliver their concerns and opinions to an organization via the channels and have an impact on organizational decisionmaking processes (Waters & Lord, 2009). Hon and Grunig (1999) pointed that either party, an organization or publics, will take each others reactions in a more constructive way than having them from third party sources. Researchers in interpersonal relations defi ne sharing of tasks as how parties share household duties and responsibilities (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Public relations researchers define sharing of tasks as the following: organizations and publics sharing in solvi ng joint or separate problems. Examples of such tasks are managing community issues, providing employment, making a profit, and staying in business, which are in the interest of either the organization, the public, or both (Hon and Grunig, 1999, p.15). In a nuts hell, sharing of tasks refers to either an organizations or publics effort to share in solving problems they are facing in public relations. When an organization shows what it is doing to resolve the problems, publics can perceive that the organization s hares the responsibility and takes care of them in order to achieve
25 common goals. It has been found that sharing of tasks is a consistent and strong predictor of control mutuality, liking, commitment, and satisfaction in a relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1994; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Hutson, McHale, & Crouter, 1986). Assurance is referred to as attempts to assure the other that it and its concerns are legitimate and to demonstrate that it is committed to maintaining the relationship (Grunig et al., 2002, p.551). As stressing commitment for the future and showing love can make a relationship stronger with a romantic partner, assurance strategies let publics know that their opinions are being considered by an organization (Ki & Hon, 2009). Assurance has been identified as a strong factor to achieve commitment and to build trust in organizationpublic relations (Hon & Grunig, 1999; Stafford & Canary, 1991). Organizations interact with not only their stakeholders or consumers, but also other organizations such as government or ones in partnerships. Even though relationships with them exert lesser direct influence on organizationpublic relationships, the networks with them also affect the relationship building process (Hung, 2000). The networks of an organi zation can benefit its publics by providing easier access to other organizations that also have useful resources and are competent to help them (Waters & Lord, 2009). Ki and Hon (2009) adopted Hon and Grunigs (1999) definition of networking. Networking in organizationpublic relationships refers to the degree of an organizations effort to build networks or coalitions with the same groups that their publics do, such as environmentalists, unions, or community groups (p.9). The Effects of Openness and Net working Strategies on Social Capital Among relationship maintenance strategies, openness and networking strategies can be closely associated with publics individual level of social capital.
26 Openness has been identified as a strong predictor of trust in interpersonal relationships and in organizationpublics relationships (Bok, 1989; Butler, 1991; Mukherjee & Nath, 2003; Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). Grunig and Hunt (1984) demonstrated that corporations should be open to share information about their business practices and accept responsibility to correct problems if they are found. In government communication, Fairbanks, Plowman, and Rawlins (2007) also highlight the importance of open communication to achieve the trust of publics. Goodman (2002) also sugg ested that the act of clear and honest communication is essential to building, maintaining, or restoring relationships based on trust (p.205). It was revealed that interpersonal trust provides a soil to nurture collaborative actions that leads to solve societal problems (Kanervo & Zhang, 2005; Kwak, Shah & Holbert, 2004; Putnam 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 2000). With considering that interpersonal trust is one of key dimensions of social capital, it can be expected that openness strategy of an organization can in fluence the level of social capital in publics. Interpersonal trust as one of dimensions of social capital is discussed in the later section on social capital. Moreover, Bortree (2010) claimed that openness can be an important factor to build intimacy among organizations and publics, as Erikson (1963) suggested in child development. Adolescents can maintain a close relationship such as friendship with high school best friends through self disclosure communication after moving to a college or university (Os wald & Clark, 2003). Self disclosure behavior is particularly associated with perceptions of the emotional cohesiveness of the party and the quality of communication they are involved in (Papini, Farmer, Clark, Micka, & De Barnett, 2003).
27 Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, and Gridley (2003) also identified self disclosure as one of the components of intimacy. To be specific, revealing parts of themselves encourages trust, understanding, caring, and love among individuals in a relationship (Hook et al., 2003). T hey categorized two types of disclosed information as related to the level of intimacy a relationship attains. Descriptive self disclosure can often occur at the beginning of a relationship when parties discuss facts of their lives whereas evaluative self disclosure contains sharing of deeper feelings of individuals. Revealing ones deepest feelings occurs when they know each other well. Both types of self closure enable the establishment of intimacy among parties. The level of intimacy within relationshi ps or social ties plays a key role in social capital as well. The strength of ties is associated to the amount of time parties have spent in it, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services a tie provides for individuals in it (Granovetter, 1985) For instance, individuals interact more often with close friends or family, members in strong social ties, and provide emotional support for them. Moreover, relationships with close friends or family members are more intimate than weak social ties such as ones with acquaintances or business partners (Harper & Kelly, 2003; Williams, 2006). From the social capital perspective, strong social ties can be considered to be high in bonding social capital while weak social ties can be high in bridging social capi tal. Therefore, based on previous literature about the effects of openness or self disclosure in communication on trust and intimacy in relationships, it can be logically anticipated that an organizations openness strategy might affect bonding social ca pital of publics.
28 Networking strategy allows an organization to show publics its connections with other organizations in a coalition or partnership. It provides publics with a convenient way to reach other organizations that also have information or resou rces to address publics concerns (Waters & Lord, 2009). Through more extensive networks, publics can have opportunities to access more resources provided by not only themselves directly but also with other organizations that interact with the organization. Furthermore, publics can achieve rich information through either the direct network or indirect network, which can be increased by this engagement with an organization (Granovetter, 1973). The extensiveness or a size of a network can extend the expertise of individual discussants (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). In addition to the informative advantage, the extensiveness of a network affects political tolerance of individual in a social network (Cigler & Joslyn, 2002). A larger network can be more likely to have diverse arguments regarding an issue. It exposes individuals in the network to varied perspectives and allows them work together (Newton, 2001). It sensitizes one to different views and values of others as well as gives them empathy for their positions (Cigler & Joslyn, 2002). Consequently, it can increase individuals political tolerance and foster a sense of reciprocity (Newton, 2001). Furthermore, the extended network of an organization also promotes discussions among parties in a network (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). In a network, an individual is surrounded by other people or organizations who (that) are also interested in a given issue and it increases the possibility to exchange each others opinions about it (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998).
29 The e xtensiveness of a network of an organization can be increased by associating with other organizations. Organizations often form a coalition in order to expand their influence or acquire support or resource from other organizations. An organization that is connected with other organizations can be more likely to possess varied views than an isolated and homogenous organization. Logically, it can be expected that networking strategies of an organization might impact the production of bridging social capital among its publics. Based on relevant literature, one research question and two hypotheses in terms of relationship maintenance strategies of an organization were developed. RQ1. How do different the types of relationship maintenance strategy of an organization (openness vs. networking) and the direction of communication (oneway communication vs. twoway communication) affect social capital in participants in terms of bonding soc ial capital and bridging social capital? H1a Participants who are exposed to an openness strategy on the social networking sites of an organization will show more bo nding social capital than will participants who are exposed to a networking strategy. H1b Participants who are exposed to the network ing strategy on organizations social networking sites will show more bridging social capital than will participants who are exposed to an openness strategy. Relationship Strategies in Online media/Social media In research exploring organizations relationship maintenance strategies in online media, a definition of each strategy was revised in accordance with technological formats of media. User friendly navigation tools and multimedia features of online media, such as video or images that make interactions more entertaining, have been considered as positivity strategies (Ki & Hon, 2006; Cho & Huh, 2010). In one study, disclosure of information about an organization such as stock prices or annual reports may be c onsidered as a strategy of openness and providing contact information to
31 connect by creating personal information profile and inviting others to have access to the information. Moreover, dialogic features of social media allow organizations to build mutual relationships with publics by fostering dialogic twoway communication (Kent & Taylor, 1998). Any relationship, both interpersonal and organizationpublic, has five basic co mponents (Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001). They are based on (1) interest or attraction, (2) interaction, (3) trust, yet these elements do involve some risk, (4) periodic maintenance, and (5) cycles of rewarding and unsatisfactory interaction. Dialogic featur es of social media promote these relationship development components. For instance, information provided by an organization or publics as feedback can meet the interests of each other. Also, the easy interface of social media to find information encourages publics to interact with organizations. Empirically, Bortree and Seltzer (2009) found that advocacy organizations can build mutually beneficial relationships with publics when they use dialogic strategies in social networking sites. For instance, includin g links to organization homepages or join now option on a Facebook page was positively associated with increasing the number of stakeholders. As Kent and Taylor (1998) emphasized, social media can be beneficial for building relationships between organiz ations and their key publics in that they enable dialogic communication. Other researchers have also demonstrated that an important role of communications is for both parties to be actively involved in producing positive relationships, since it may lead to potential outcomes such as commitment or trust (Anderson & Weitz, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
32 Direction of Communication: Twoway Communication and One way Communication Public relations researchers have examined the direction of communication in organizations publics communications. Grunig and Hunt (1984) suggested four models of public relations: press agentry, public information, twoway asymmetrical communication, and twoway symmetrical communication. Press agentry and public information models rep resent oneway communication approaches to public relations. It includes the dissemination of information from an organization to publics through mass media. In contrast, twoway asymmetrical communication and twoway symmetrical communication indicate that the public relations efforts that occurs in twoways, not only from an organization to publics, but also from its key publics to the organization. Organizations seek information from and provide information to publics. In other words, oneway communicat ion is a monologue while twoway communication is a dialogue in that two way communication exchanges information among organizations and publics (Grunig & Grunig, 1992, p.289). Twoway communication creates a continuum of professional public relations w hich ranges from persuasion to conflict management while oneway communication makes up that of craft public relations on the range of propaganda to journalism (Grunig, Grunig, Sriramesh, Huang, & Lyra, 1995; Grunig, Gurnig, & Dozier, 2002). Research has found that twoway communication is imperative to nurture relationships between an organization and its publics, because as Broom et al. (1997) argued, relationships cannot be formed without constant adaption of changes and responses from both parties. Organizations that practice oneway communication that do not receive feedbacks from publics are more likely to have authoritarian cultures
33 rather than participative cultures (Grunig et al., 1995). Grunig (1992) states that creating communication channels before controversy begins and maintaining them help publics trust an organization. Dozier, Grunig, and Grunig (1995) found that excellent public relations departments use twoway communication practices rather than oneway communication practices. They concluded that a mixedmotive model involves the short term use of asymmetrical practices within the context of a broad symmetrical philosophy and it provides basis for ethical public relations and communication practices (p.51). What is more important is that the direction of communication between an organization and its publics can influence publics social capital. Sullivan and Transue (1999) posited that the structure of an organization can affect the creation and development of social capital. Ac cording to them, horizontally organized associations can build social capital because all members are basically empowered and consequently, more likely to reinforce norms of reciprocity. Members in the organizations cooperate with each other to achieve shared goals. Repeated interactions and a history of successful collaboration allow members to form strong norms of reciprocity. On the other hand, vertically organized ones may not be able to establish social capital or undermine it. In vertically structured organizations, power exists only within a few members and the majority of members are not empowered. Decisions are often made by a few people and the rest of organization is forced to follow the decisions. Thus, obedience is more like to be emphasized rat her than reciprocity or cooperation is. Two way communication can provide an organization and publics with opportunities to listen to each others opinions and help understand them. Publics who
34 have channels to communicate and express their thoughts might be more likely to perceive influence they can exert onto an organization than those who have no channels to communicate or express themselves through. They can build a clearer picture of a shared goal with the organization and enforce norms of reciprocit y. Publics with no communication channels to deliver their thoughts and values to an organization might consider the relationship between them and an organization to be more hierarchical. Oneway communication only from an organization to publics cannot help publics perceive norms of cooperation. Consequently, the effects of direction of communication of an organization on social capital in publics can be examined through following research hypotheses. H2a Participants who are exposed to two way communication on an organizations social networking sites will show more bonding social capital than will participants who are exposed to the oneway communication. H2b Participants who are exposed to twoway c ommunication on organizations so cial networking sites will show more bridging social capital than will participants who are exposed to the oneway communication. RQ2 Is there any interaction between different types of relationship maintenance strategies and communication direction of an organization on bonding social capital and bridging social capital in participants? Moreover, to examine possible interaction between the types of relationship maintenance strategy and the direction of communication on social capital in publics in terms of bonding social capital and bridging social capital, RQ 2 was established. Social Capital Theory (Process) Defining Social Capital Since Hanifan (1916) proposed the term social capital in his research, social capital has meant many things to many pe ople (Narayan & Pritchett, 1999, p.871). Researchers agree that definitions of social capital are still emerging and the concept is
35 rather an umbrella concept (Adler & Kwon, 2002). As the term capital indicates, social capital has been considered to be productive like other forms of capital such as human capital or physical capital in that its existence and maturation may help one or an organization achieve goals (Coleman, 1988). The crucial distinction of social capital from other forms of capital is that it is inherently in the structure of social relationships among individuals (Coleman, 1988). An individual alone can possess human capital, but not social capital (Robison, Schmid, & Siles, 2002) because social capital only can be established within s ocial connections with others. Coleman (1988) also highlighted two characteristics of social capital: some aspect of social structures and ability to promote certain actions of individuals within the structure. Putnam (1995a) defined social capital as th e features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (p.66). They enable individuals to work together more effectively and achieve shared goals (Putnam, 1995b). Nahapi et and Ghoshal (1998) made a definition of social capital as the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit (p.243). They argue that social capital indicates not only the assets of a network, but also a network itself. Moreover, Putnam (1995a, 2000) identifies social capital in terms of three key dimensions: social structure, shared norms of reciprocity, and interpersonal trust. Acco rding to him, social networks promote frequent interactions among individuals and foster sturdy norms of reciprocity. It nurtures trust among individuals that creates more efficient cooperation among people. In other words, interaction that is expedited by
36 social networks enables diffusion of norm of reciprocity among individuals that furthers building of interpersonal trust and then, it enhances individuals cooperative actions. Putnam argues that strong social ties are essential to build trust in a complex society. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) also demonstrated social capital to have the structural, relational, and cognitive facets. The first facet of social capital concerns the overall pattern of connections between parties in a network, who is reached and in what manner they are reached by reach them. More specifically, it includes the existence or absence of direct networks, and the pattern and number of indirect ties between a focal actor and others. In contrast, the relational facet refers to the natur e of a personal relationship with regard to the strength of relationship ties, the amount of time the relation has taken to be built, and emotional intensity or intimacy. The cognitive dimension of social capital indicates resources providing shared representation, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties (p. 244). Those resources develop the exchange of information and knowledge creation among actors (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006). It is revealed that social capital affects the functioning of community life in various circumstances such as the prevention of juvenile delinquency and crime (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Differently, social capital has been shown to improve economic development (Fukuyama, 1995). Hanifan (1916) also suggested educational effects of social capital in rural school community center. To be specific, Adler and Kwon (2002) suggest benefits of social capital as assets for communities and organizations. First of all, social capital offers informative advantages to individuals. Through everyday interactions with others in a network,
37 individuals can gain access to broader information, and eventually the entire network can benefit from the diffusion of information. Second, control or power can be another benefit from social capital. Coleman (1988) declares that a legislator who has extra resources, such as the speaker of the house representatives in the United States, can be more influential because he/she can build obligations from other legislators. Furthermore, solidarity among actors in a network can also provide a community with benefits. Strong norms shared by actors can promote compliance with social rules and require less formal control. Adler and Kwon (2002) articulate that sometimes these advantages of soc ial capital can turn into risks to a community. According to them, it requires a lot of investment to build and maintain relationships. The cost for maintenance of strong relationships might exceed the informational benefits the relationships can provide. Moreover, in some cases, the control benefits cannot be compatible with the informational benefits. For instance, if one can gain access to a great deal of information by connecting with people who have many social ties, a direct relationship between them might be less dependent than if one has few other contacts. Also, the solidarity advantage from strong relationships can prevent the flow of innovative ideas and cause inertia in the community. Previous Perspectives of Social Capital There has been debat e about whether social capital is a cause or an effect. Putnam (1995b) also demonstrated that social capital can encompass both social connections and norms of reciprocity among individuals. Some researchers insist that social capital is more likely to be social network itself that creates social benefits for individuals. Newton (1997) suggested that social capital is a cyclical process that
38 includes norms, networks, and consequences of it, rather than a single outcome. On the other hand, others argue that social capital is a tangible outcome resulting from individuals interactions within ones social groups. Coleman (1988) posited that social capital is produced by changes in an individuals relations with others. It leads to changes in ones knowledge, capacity and promotes certain actions. Moreover, Williams (2006) pointed out methodological issues driven from the approach viewing social capital as a process. He argued that it is methodologically difficult to capture effects of a cyclic process because it blurs boundaries of a cause and an effect. Differences in Social Capital and Relationship The distinction between social capital and relationships may seem vague. Concepts of social capital and relationships seem to be confusing in that their key constr ucts are similar. Both emerge from interaction among parties. However, social capital can be differentiated in that it works as capital or assets as itself for the welfare of individuals and the community (Coleman, 1988). This unique characteristic is arti culated in Hanifans definition of social capital in his early work. Hanifan (1916) referred to social capital as those tangible substances that count for most in the daily lives of people: namely good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse am ong the individuals and families who make up a social unit (p. 130). Social capital inherently includes the parties good will for the community. It contains the individuals interests toward the welfare of the community in which they are involved. Compared to social capital, a relationship does not necessarily need to be good or beneficial to parties. It does not have to be geared toward the welfare of a certain party or of both parties. In other words, the underlying motivation of parties varies depending on what they expect to receive in order to maintain their relationship.
39 In a communal relationship, both parties are concerned for the welfare of the other, even though there is nothing to get in return (Hon & Grunig, 1999). However, in an exchange relationship, one party provides benefits to the other only when it expects to get something in return or the other party has already provided benefits (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Hence, it is possible that an exchange relationship might not lead directly to coo peration among parties with good will. Dissertations Definition of Social Capital In sum, social network sites have resources that encourage individuals interactions with norms of reciprocity. Increased norms of reciprocity lower barriers of cooperati on because individuals do not need to balance every exchange instantly. The network also provides one with benefits in terms of accumulated information or power by connecting with others. As a result, it leads to individuals engagements to achieve the goal. In this dissertation, social capital is defined as relational, structural, or cognitive resources within or derived from relationships in a social network that promote cooperative actions for a shared goal. In addition, it is considered a tangible resul t of interactions among parties. Democratic participation intentions are considered outcomes of social capital rather than facets of social capital. Types of Social Capital: Bonding Social Capital vs. Bridging Social Capital Putnam (1995) identified two types of social capital, bonding and bridging. They are not mutually exclusive. It indicates that an individual or organization can have both a high level of bridging social capital and a high level of bonding social capital at the same time.
40 Bondi ng social c apital According to him, bonding social capital is exclusive in that there is little diversity among individuals, but indepth. Strong tie networks such as family and close friends contain a high level of bonding social capital. Even though it does not offer connections with different types of people for diverse information or resources as much as bridging social capital does, bonding social capital makes personal connections among parties stronger and more supportive in nature (Williams, 2006) A disadvantage of bonding social capital is that it leads to outgroup antagonism (Williams, 2006). Strong relational attachment among people in a network can serve to exclude others from other groups (Harper & Kelly, 2003). Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi or the IRA in Belfest can be negative outcomes of bonding social capital, as these groups are highly selective in who is allowed membership in their organizations (Norris, 2002). Williams (2006) suggested specific dimensions of bonding social capital based on Putnams definition (2000). According to him, effects of strong ties involve emotional support, access to limited resources, ability to mobilize solidarity, and out group antagonism. Emotional support includes trust and social support that alleviates i ndividuals loneliness or helps to solve ones problem. Access to limited resources refers to willingness to provide valuable but scarce resource for the person such as money or reputation. Willingness of behavioral support to help the person can be also considered as bonding social capital because it costs time and effort. Bridging social c apital On the other hand, bridging social capital is inclusive in that it occurs when individuals make broad social connections. It bridges with other people outside o f ones social group. It provides individuals broad networks with people, who may come from
41 very different backgrounds or socioeconomic statuses. By enabling individuals to be exposed to people with diverse backgrounds who are outside of the network, bridg ing social capital broadens ones view and provides more opportunities to assess new information or resources (Yuan & Gay, 2006). Putnam (2000) also posits that bridging social capital works better for linkage to external assets and for information diffus ion (p.22). Granovetter (1973) found that job seekers who possessed more bridging social capital from widespread and weaker relationships were more successful in securing employment than those with strong relationships. But, bridging social capital is o nly tentative because connections are weak between them. Connections with business partners, colleagues, or acquaintances are relatively weaker than those with family members or friends (Harper & Kelly, 2003). Because there is less interdependence and fewer commonalities in weak ties, they provide less emotional support (Williams, 2006). Dimensions of bridging social capital identified by Putnam (2000) and Williams (2006) are outward looking, contact with a broad range of people, a sense of oneself as a part of a broader group, and diffuse reciprocity with a broader community. Outward look ing can be behaviors to experience something new and different from ones narrow horizon such as being curious about what happens outside of ones daily existence and trying to know what other people unlike oneself are thinking. Willingness to contact with people who come from very different background can also be considered as bridging social capital because it helps expand ones horizon. Also, recognizing oneself connected to other people in the large network and sense of reciprocity without expecting imm ediate reward are dimensions of bridging social capital.
42 Two types of social capital should be investigated separately because bonding and bridging social capital serve different functions. Conrad (2007) explained how two dimensions of social capital work differently by reviewing articles of Putnam (1995, 2000) and De Souza Brigg (1997). Bonding social capital, designated as social support in Briggs article, is beneficial for getting by meaning that bonding social capital helps an individual live better in everyday lives within circumstances one is in. For example, strong ties with friends would be more important in situations of getting a ride or loaning a small amount of money in an emergency. On the other hand, bridging social capital, defined as socia l leverage in Briggs work, is beneficial for getting ahead. It means that bridging social capital allows one to advantageously change the circumstances for himself or herself. For instance, ones (e.g. student) network with someone whose background is ver y different (e.g. professor) can change ones living environment by providing recommendations for a job. Bonding and bridging social capital might have different effects on democratic participation. The extended network not only can allow individuals to be exposed to diverse values and arguments (Cigler & Joslyn, 2002), but also can provide informational resources from others who come from diverse backgrounds. Increasing ones bridging social capital can potentially increase an individuals political tol erance and knowledge which may eventually lead to political involvement. In addition, McClurg (2006) pays attentions to potential influences of bonding social capital in the elaboration of how the organization membership promotes democratic participation. According to him, mutual support and agreement from other members who share similar values or stand on the same position in the given issue also
43 encourage individual to have confidence in ones position and maintain political involvement. For instance, one will be more likely to participate when he/she obtains support from close friends or family members than when one does not share the political preference with them. In other words, bonding social capital might be also important within an individuals poli tical behaviors in a network. In sum, the social capital of an individual should be examined through separate measures of bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Social Capital and Social Media Putnam (1995a, 2000) argues that a television has absorbed individuals leisure time to spend on civic activities for a community. As a result, it erodes social capital among U.S. citizens. Are online media also detrimental to social capital? Researchers proposed that the Internet prevents individual s from social activities by increasing time spent online and, consequently, it may cause individuals to lose touch with their social environment (Nie & Erbring, 2000). The famous Home.net study also showed that using a personal computer or the Internet m ay lead to physical inactivity and limited faceto face social interaction (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998, p.1019). Moreover, the Internet privatizes individuals life and immersiveness of the Internet can turn indiv iduals off the community (Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001; Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). However, this perspective has been criticized in that it does not consider motivations of use of online media (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Bargh, 2000). Some resear chers insist that the effects on online activities or the Internet depend on goals or needs of the communicators (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Bargh, 2000). The uses and gratifications perspective also argues that different people can use the same media and
44 thei r messages for very different purposes (Katz, 1959). Individuals may have different gratifications they want to fulfill through using the media and choose media based on the potential and expected gratifications (Blumler & Katz, 1974). Research on uses and gratification theory showed that media effects can be mediated depending on the purposes and motivations behind uses of the media by individuals (Blumler & Katz, 1974). For instance, an individual may watch television news programs to gather political kno wledge or soap operas to be entertained. Entertainment television viewing can displace individuals time for social interactions with others in a community and erode social capital among community members (Putnam, 1995b). Similarly, recreational motivati on (e.g. playing games or watching online movies) behind Internet use can diminish individuals social capital (Shah, Schmierbach, Hawkins, Espino, & Donavan, 2002; Wellman et al., 2001). In addition to recreational motivation, motivation for social recr eation may also diminish individuals social capital. Spending time in a chat room or playing virtual video games can provide a sense of social interaction, but interactions in a chat room or in virtual games are generally asocial and anonymous (Shah, et al., 2001). It may not create real connections with others and the world (Shah et al 2001). Therefore, the illusionary sense of interactions with others may even protect individuals from engaging in real social interactions with friends, family, and others (Shah et al 2001). On the other hand, individuals who use the Internet to explore interests and gather data are more likely to be socially and politically engaged (Shah et al., 2002). Motivation to learn or exchange information, to keep connec tions with other people, and to build virtual communities also can promote social capital among online users (Shah
45 et.al., 2001). Empirically, Shah et al. (2001) found informational motives of uses of new media such as to explore interests, collect educati onal information, or send emails, had a positive relationship with production of social capital. Furthermore, the use of the Internet driven by a motive for community building, such as communicating or coordinating with friends, family or organizations, is also positively related to an individuals level of social capital (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). For example, online communication can enhance social interactions among users by making them more aware of friends needs and interests or provide an easy way to make arrangements to meet in person at a low cost (Wellman et al 2001). In this sense, social media can be a great technological tool to maximize users social capital in that social media allows users to maintain or form social connections. Use rs communicate with people on social media who usually have offline relationships. Connecting to close friends or family members through Facebook is an easy and efficient way to keep in touch with (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011). Interactions with tho se people make their relationships visible and stronger in the network. Consequently, bonding social capital of users can be reinforced. Boyd and Ellison (2008) argued that individuals typically use social network sites to reflect their offline relationships. Mayer and Puller (2008) also empirically found that most Facebook friends of college students represent their acquaintances in campus life. In addition to fostering ties with people in the existing social network, social media also help create new connections to others with no previous offline connections. Like a community where people are gathering toward, social network sites provide a platform to meet and interact with each other (Dwyer, Hiltz, & Passerini, 2007).
46 Furthermore, users can read other users profiles if access is permitted and poke or try to send a friend request to them (Ellison, et al., 2011). Fan pages or social games publicly show those who are interested in these sites and distribution lists or search capabilities of social media also help users connect to new people with ease (Resnick, 2001; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Ellison et. el., 2011). In this sense, bridging social capital can be augmented by social media that expand users networks for information or resources (Ellison et al., 2007; Donath & Boyd, 2011). In addition to creating connections with a complete stranger, users can expand ones social network by converting latent ties into weak social ties. Latent ties are defined as technically possible but not act ivated yet socially ( Haythornthwaite, 2005, p.137). Users may have connections with people whom could have met offline or may have even met briefly. Users can initiate relationships with people who share a class or the same hometown by looking up their pr ofile. By creating online friendships with these users, it is possible to develop relationships to be weak bridging social networks they draw resources (Ellison et al., 2011). Behavioral Intentions (Consequences) Social Capital and Engagement Putnam ( 1995a, 2000) demonstrated that social capital leads to civic/political engagement among individuals. To be specific, interactions in social networks disseminate norms of reciprocity and nurture trust in individuals. Building of trust among individuals can motivate them to involve in activities to achieve shared goals, because there is less risk to take to prevent each other from untruthful actions, if high level of trust has been built among them (Misztal, 2001; Fukuyama, 1995). Thus, Putnam
47 (1995a, 2000) argues that social capital contributes to an efficient functioning of democracy in that it helps individuals work together more effectively to resolve problems. Zhang, Johnson, Seltzer, and Bichard (2009) also expected that behavioral consequences of high trust of an individual can occur between individual and social/political organizations. Furthermore, Condon (2009) provided a summary of current literature about how social capital, or some aspect of it, may produce democratic participation. First two approaches focus on normative or informative influence of social networks on the promotion of democratic participation. Some researchers posit that social capital may reinforce the norms of participation and further democratic engagement within a network (Cam pbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954; Gerber, Green, & Larimer, 2008). Conversations or interactions with members in the network can create social pressure to engage in civic duty and lead to democratic involvement such as voting (Klofstad, 2007; Gerber et al., 2 008). Others claim that social capital may enhance transfer of political information among individuals in a network that plays an important role in democratic participation (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). Through social interactions, an individual can collect more information with lower costs and be exposed to diverse political information (McClurg, 2003). What is more interesting is that other two approaches emphasize a role of trust in order to increase democratic engagement. Putnam (1993) claims that thick interpersonal trust can be translated into thin social capital. Thick trust is produced by strong, d irect, and frequent interactions with others while thin trust is generated in an individuals wider and looser network in which one implicitly shares expectations of reciprocity with others through secondary interactions (Putnam, 1993, 2000; Newton,
48 1997). In research on effects of membership in voluntary organizations on social capital, researchers assumed that interpersonal trust that consists of social capital enhanced by the associational membership can transform into general social trust, thin trust (B rehm & Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 2000). According to Rahn and Transue (1998), this general social trust can be viewed as a standing decision to give most people even those whom does not know from direct experiencethe benefit of the doubt (p.545). To be specific, faceto face interaction with other trustful members in an association and positive experiences of cooperation with them can generate collaboration with people existing beyond immediate circles of acquaintances (deUlzurrun, 2002). It increases general social trust, and then engenders higher involvement in democratic participation because it lowers the cost of collective action (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 1993). In other words, interactions with another party in a social network create trust in the party, and it gradually develops into trust towards the more generalized parties in the broader social networks. Online and Offline Engagement Several interpretations have been suggested by researchers regarding what democratic engagement exactly means. Some researchers focus on electoral activities (Conway, 1985) whereas others have a broader definition that includes participation activities as working for the community or attending a political protest (Verba, et al., 1995). Normal ly, democratic engagement includes both political participation and civic participation (ONeill, 2007). Verba and colleagues (1995) defined political participation as activities to attempt to affect government action. It includes not only conventional political activities such as voting, working for political campaigns, displaying bumper
49 stickers or backyard signs, or donating money for political parties or candidates, but also less traditional ones such as attending protests, boycotting, purchasing a product for ethical/political reason, or signing a petition. Civic participation, on the other hand, refers to involvement in individual or collective activities that aim to bring about social good to a community (ONeill, 2007; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Fundraising for nongovernmental organizations, joining an environmental organization, or volunteering to provide services for a community can be examples of civic participation. Some people may be politically engaged, bu t not civically engaged while others maybe more interested in civic participation, but less motivated for political activities. Either case should be considered as an example of democratic engagement. Therefore, this dissertations approach focuses on the broader concept of democratic engagement rather than on specific participations such as either political participation or civic participation. An individuals intent for engagement for the political organizations may be varied depending on the environment in which one interacts with the organizations. Because this dissertation focuses on communication strategies on organizations online media and social networking sites, it should examine political participation intentions not only for offline participati on but also for online participation. Online democratic activities, such as forwarding political emails or reading the news, or have a positive influence on levels of offline participation (Quintelier & Vissers, 2008; Weber, Loumakis, & Bergman, 2003). Furthermore, participating in online political groups strongly predicts political participation in offline forums (Feezell, Conroy, & Guererro, 2009). Consequently,
50 following research question and hypotheses are established to examine the effects of social c apital on an individuals intention for democratic participation. RQ3. How does social capital predict the intent by participants to support the organization in terms of (a) online participation and (b) offline participation, when controlling for demographics, political ideology, and issue involvement? H3a. Bonding social ca pital in participants will have a positive influence on participants online participation intention to support the organization, when controlling for demographics, political ideology, and issue involvement. H3b Bridging social capital in participants wil l have a positive influence on participants online participation intention to support the organization, when controlling for demographics, political ideology, and issue involvement. H4a. Bonding social capital of participants will have a positive influenc e on participants offline participation intention to support the organization, when controlling for demographics, political ideology, and issue involvement. H4b Bridging social capital of participants will have a positive influence on participants offline participation intention to support the organization, when controlling for demographics, political ideology, and issue involvement. Proposed Model in this Dissertation Figure 21 shows the overall relationships hypothesized among the variables in this d issertation. The type of relationship maintenance strategy and direction of communication between an organization and publics will influence bonding and bridging social capital in publics. The social capital will affect publics intention to participate in supportive behaviors for an organization. To be specific, bonding and bridging social capital will affect publics intention for online participation and offline participation when controlling age, personal income, education level, political ideology, and issue involvement.
51 Table 2 1. Relationship maintenance strategies Relationship Maintenance Strategies Positivity Attempts to make the relationship more enjoyable for the parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999) Openness Disclosure of thoughts and feelings among parties involved (Hon & Grunig, 1999) Access Providing access to its publics for communication (Ki & Hon, 2009) Sharing of tasks Organizations/Publics effort to share in solving joint or separate problems (Hon & Grunig, 1999) Assurance Attempts to assure that the other and its concerns are legitimate (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) Networking Effort to build networks or coalitions with other groups (Ki & Hon, 2009) Figure 21. A proposed model in the study
52 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter explains the experimental design, participants, stimuli material, measures, procedures, and statistical methods that are used to examine the research questions and hypotheses outlined in the previous chapter. The protocol and initial questionnaire were reviewed by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approved in April 2012 (Protocol #2013U 0423). Experimental Design The experimental design is a 2 (type of relationship maintenance strategy: openness vs. networking) x 2 (direction of communication: oneway communication vs. two way communication) betweensubject factorial design. Participants were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions (Table 31) Participants The participants in this study consisted of 220 people in a public sample. Consumer panel samples were recruited through a Web application Amazon Mechanical Turk On Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) requesters post jobs and workers choose those jobs to get paid. AMT has benefits for researchers in social science in that it provides an instant access to a diverse participant pool with a low cost for any type of research such as surveys, experiments, or usability tests (Mason & Suri, 2011). Although it was found that AMT participants are more diverse than traditional Internet samples or U.S. college samples, studies on the reliability of data have found that data collected v ia AMT are indistinguishable from those via traditional data collection methods such as laboratory experiments or standard consumer panels (Sprouse, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).
53 Procedures An online experiment was performed to examine the effects of relationship maintenance strategies and the direction of communication of an organizations social media. Each participant was randomly assigned to each condition. They read an introduction page about the purpose of the study and a consent form. With the following instructions, they were asked to read a fictitious organizations Facebook page developed for the experiment. Content of posts and features of the Facebook page varied depending on the condition openness/oneway communication, opennes s/two way communication, networking/oneway communication, and networking/twoway communication condition. Participants were asked to carefully examine the page and read posts on the page, and then move to the next page that had a set of questions to evaluate social capital, participation intention to support the organization, level of involvement, political ideology, and other demographic characteristics. Operational Definitions of Independent Variables The proposed model in this dissertation has two independent variables, types of relationship maintenance strategy and the direction of communication. Openness strategy is operationally defined as the disclosure of information about what happened/is happening/would happen inside and outside of an organization. It includes information not only about relevant issues or activities, but also about the governance or finances of the organization such as information about a board of directors, the number of paid staff/volunteer staff, audit reports, t ax status, or budget plan. N etworking strategy is defined as an attempt to make relationships with other associations that have a common interest or goal. It involves links to other associations provided by the organization and posts that i ndicate direct or indirect networks with other organizations.
54 Direction of communication is defined as depending on the degree of control publics can have in the communication process with an organization on the Facebook page. Twoway communication is operationally defined as high control in communication, while oneway communication refers to no control. In a twoway communication situation, publics have ways to convey their feelings and opinions to the organization or other members in the network. For i nstance, if an organization allows the public to leave comments and posts on the page, this is considered twoway communication. On the other hand, if an organization provides no control to publics to be involved in communication, and the publics can only read what an organization posts, then the direction of communication is considered to be oneway. Questionnaire Construction Four Facebook pages of an organization were created with different combinations of relationship maintenance strategies and direc tions of communication. The reason Facebook was chosen is that 66% of adult online users use Facebook, and it is currently the most frequently used social networking site in the United States (Brenner, 2012). In order to avoid the effects of existing attit udes or opinions, a fictitious environmental organization was developed. In order to eliminate influences from extraneous variables, each of the created Facebook pages were be developed identically but feature independent variables that are operationally defined; disclosure of governance or finance information of the organization, the presence of direct or indirect networks to other organizations, and control/no control given to publics for communication. Posts on the page included eight treatment posts w hich indicated either openness or networking strategy, and one neutral post which discussed an
55 environmental issue without indicating any relationship maintenance strategies. Openness strategy was presented as detailed information about the organizations Board of Directors, the President, and a staff member, the process of selection of middle level staff, the process of local public meetings of t he organization, governance of volunteer groups, the financial reports of the organizations annual events, and performance evaluation results from watchdog organizations. Networking strategy was indicated by posts on the organizations partnership with U.S. local governments, profit organizations (e.g., a beverage company and a clothing company), or educational ins titutions (e.g., U.S. elementary schools and universities) and news about a $5 million grant offered by a for profit organization to the fictitious organization for conducting research. A neutral post showed the organizations recent activities (e.g., a campaign to promote use of less bottled water). The direction of communication of an organization was manipulated to be either two way communication or oneway communication. In the twoway communication conditions, Facebook pages showed that publics were allowed to post on the pages and to comment, Share, and Like the organizations posts. Participants could see how many comments and Likes were available for each post, but content of the comments were hidden in order to control their effect on results. Also, three posts by the public, not the organization, were presented on the first page under Recent posts by others, but detailed content in each post was controlled to be neutral to prevent unexpected effects to results (e.g., URL). Thus, participants could recognize that the organizations Facebook page allows twoway communication but were not able to read comments or posts by others.
56 In oneway communication conditions, the organizations Facebook page did not allow the public to post, comment, shar e, and Like. At the very top of the first page, there was an announcement that Posting is NOT allowed on this page. Also, each post had an announcement that read, No Like/Comment/Share Allowed at the bottom. Facebook pages do not traditionally show an announcement when the ability to post, comment, share, or Like is not allowed. These announcements were purposefully made for manipulation for the experiment. The following Facebook pages were created for review by the research participants. Each of the four pages was designed to reflect a specific degree of independent variables. Facebook Page A was designed to be a combination of implementation of openness strategy and oneway communication style. Posts contained biographies of top level and middleleve l staff, financial reports, results of performance evaluation conducted by a third party organization, the process of the public meeting, governance of the organization as well as neutral posts showing the organizations stances on various issues. No contr ol for posting, commenting, sharing, or Like was allowed to publics. This oneway communication feature was highlighted by the announcement Posting is not allowed on this page, and No Like/Comment/Share Allowed. As a result, participants could only read or see posts provided by the organization. Facebook Page B was a combination of openness strategy and twoway communication. Posts contained biographies of staffs, financial reports of annual events such as fundraising events, results of performance ev aluations conducted by charity watchdog organizations, the process of public meetings, governance of volunteer
57 groups of the organization as well as neutral posts showing the organizations environmental issue stance. Participants could see that publics ar e allowed to leave comments, to share, to Like or to post on this Facebook page. The number of Like, Comment, and Share by others were shown, but detailed content of them was not revealed or was neutral. Facebook Page C included features of networking rel ationship strategy and oneway communication. In addition to posts about the organizations own activities for environmental issues, the page had posts including activities of other associations that existed directly in partnership or indirectly shared com mon interests and goals. Other associations included U.S. local governments, profit organizations or educational institutions. One post contained news about a $5 million grant given by a profit organization to the organization for research on environmental issues. In terms of the direction of communication, posting, commenting, sharing, and the ability to Like were not allowed to publics. This feature was highlighted by the announcements Posting is not allowed on this page, and No Like/Comment/Share Allowed. Facebook Page D showed implementation of networking strategy and twoway communication. Posts would show not only the organizations activities and stances on various issues, but also other organizations relevant activities in their partnership or alliance. For instance, such research included information on freshwater resources conducted by the organization and a profit organization, or a campaign for saving electricity with local communities. On this page, participants could see that publics have control in communication with the organization via twoway communication such as posting, commenting, sharing, or the Like option.
58 Measurements Bonding and Bridging Social Capital A social capital scale by Williams (2006) was adapted to measure bonding a nd bridging social capital in participants. The original scale consisted of items on a 7point Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree), as well as 10 items for each bonding and bridging social capital. In order to capture social capital in t he organizationpublics relationship, a social capital scale of Williams (2006) that was originally developed to measure social capital in interpersonal relationships was revised for this study to apply to the public relations context. Original items adapted from Williams (2006) scale as measures of bonding social capital are: (a) There are several people I trust to help solve my problems; (b) There is someone I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions; (c) There is no one that I can feel comfortable talking about intimate personal problems (a reverse item); (d) When I feel lonely, there are several people I can talk to; (e) If I need an emergency loan of $500, I know someone I can turn to for it; (f) The people I can interact with would put their reputation on the line for me; (g) The people I can interact with could provide good job references for me; (h) The people I can interact with would share their last dollar with me; (i) I do not know people well enough to get them to do anything important (a reversed item); and (j) The people I can interact with would help me fight injustice. Among these items, six items were selected and revised. These items were: (a) The organization has trustworthy people who help to solve the organizations problems; (b) There is someone the organization can turn to for advice about making very important decisions; (c) There are people who can help to protect the organization in an
59 emergency; (d) The people the organization interacts with would put their reputation on the line for the organization; (e) The people the organization interacts with would share t heir resources when the organization is in need; and (h) The people the organization interacts with would help the organization fight injustice. The ten items for bridging social capital in the original scale of Williams (2006) study are (a) Interacting with people makes me interested in things that happen outside of my town; (b) Interacting with people makes me want to try new things; (c) Interacting with people makes me interested in what people unlike me are thinking; (d) Talking with people makes me c urious about other places in the world; (e) Interacting with people makes me feel like part of a larger community; (f) Interacting with people makes me feel connected to the bigger picture; (g) Interacting with people reminds me that everyone in the world is connected in some way; (h) I am willing to spend time to support general community activities; (i) Interacting with people potentially allows me to talk to new people; and (j) I come into contact with new people all the time. Six items were also chosen to measure bridging social capital in publics: (a) Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in things that happen outside of the organization; (b) Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization want to try new things; (c) Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in what others unlike them are thinking; (d) Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel l ike a part of a larger community; (e) Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel connected to the bigger picture; and (h) Interacting with people and other organizations would remind the organization
60 that everyone in t he world is connected in some way. See Table 32 for the items used in the study. Participation Intention Participants intentions to support an organization were examined through two methods, online participation and offline participation. Eight items wi th a 7point Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree) to measure intention for online participation were developed. They were (a) I have an intention to return to this organizations Facebook page; (b) I have an intention to Like this organizations Facebook page, if it is possible; (c) I would communicate with my Facebook friends about this organization; (d) I have an intention to recommend my Facebook friends to visit this organizations Facebook page; (e) It is worth it to share a post(s) of this organizations Facebook page with my Facebook page; (f) It is worth it to add this organization to my interest lists on Facebook in order to see its news updates on my news feed; (g) I would visit the official website of this organization; (h) I have an intention to look for more information about this organization and issues online. In addition, eight items with a 7point Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree) were also developed for measuring intent for offline participation. They were (a) I have an intention to talk about this organization with my family, friends, or acquaintances; (b) I would recommend this organization to my family, friends, or acquaintances; (c) I have an intention to contact the organization to receive more i nformation; (d) I have an intention to attend the organizations activities and events; (e) I have an intention to donate to this organization; (f) I would work for this organization as a volunteer; (g) I have an intention to sign a petition to support thi s organization and its activities; and (h) I would join this organization as a member (Table 3 2).
61 Issue Involvement Participants levels of involvement about given issues that the organization discusses were measured. Perloff (2008) defines involvement as the degree to which they are perceived to be personally relevant to individuals (p. 184). When an individual thinks that a given issue is important to their personal life, then one would be more willing to participate in activities such as communicati ng about it with others or searching for more information about the issue than a person who does not believe an issue is relevant to him or herself. Accordingly, the individuals issue involvement level should also be controlled. Issue involvement was meas ured by 7 items of a7point semantic differential scale (Environmental or conservation issues are __________ to me, 1= of no concern, unimportant, insignificant, mean nothing, irrelevant, not needed, and worthless, 7= of concern, important, significant, m ean a lot, relevant, needed, and valuable). This scale was adapted from Zaichkowsky (1985). Political Ideology Political ideology has been found to be one factor to predict environmental attitudes and behaviors (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Those who ident ify as politically liberal are most likely to be environmentally involved (Scott & Willits, 1994). Therefore, participants political ideology was also measured to control its effects on political participation intention. An ideology item was a 7point Lik ert scale (1= Extremely Conservative, 7= Extremely Liberal). Demographics Basic demographic information such as age, education level, and annual income level were also accessed. These variables were also controlled because they could affect an individual s political or civic participation (McLeod, Daily, Guo, Eveland, Bayer,
62 Yang, & Wang, 1996; Nowak, Rickson, Ramsey, & Goudy, 1982, Erbe, 1964). Statistical Analyses In order to examine the four research questions and three hypotheses suggested in the proposed model, four statistical analyses were conducted, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), analyses of variances (ANOVA), and hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses. To be specific, in order to refine the measures of bonding and bridging social capital, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to check validity and reliability of the scale. Because previous literature provides a theoretical basis of social capital that consists of two factors, bonding social capital and bridging social capital, CFA is considered to be more appropriate to use than explanatory factor analysis (EFA) which is helpful in finding new factors in a variable. CFA was performed using AMOS 21.0. In addition, two way ANOVA was pe rformed to examine differences in social capital depending on relationship maintenance strategies and the direction of communication. Because independent variables that are manipulated in this study were not measured in continuous variables, analyses of variances and multiple regression analyses were employed instead of structural equation modeling (SEM). To be specific, twoway ANOVA was conducted to test H ypothesis 1 and 2, and R esearch Q uestion 1 and 2. Moreover, multiple regression analysis was conducted, after controlling for involvement, political ideology, age, annual income level and education level, for H ypothesis 3, 4, and R esearch Q uestion 3 to explore the effects of social capital on publics participation intention. All statistical analyses for testing hypotheses and research quest ions were performed using SPSS 21.0.
63 Table 31. Experiment design Networking strategy /Two way communication Openness strategy /Two way communication Networking strategy /One way communication Openness strategy /One way communication Table 32. Measures Measures Bonding Social Capital BNSC 1 The organization has trustworthy people who help to solve the organizations problems. BNSC 2 There is someone the organization can turn to for advice about making very important decisions. BNSC 3 There are people who can help to protect the organization in an emergency. BNSC 4 The people the organization interacts with would put their reputation on the line for the organization. BNSC 5 The people the organization interacts with would share their resources that the organization is in need. BNSC 6 The people the organization interacts with would help the organization fight injustice. Bridging Social Capital BRSC 1 Interacting with people and other org anizations would make the organization interested in things that happen outside of the organization. BRSC 2 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization want to try new things. BRSC 3 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in what others unlike them are thinking. BRSC 4 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel like a part of a larger community. BRSC 5 Interacting with people and ot her organizations would make the organization feel connected to the bigger picture. BRSC 6 Interacting with people and other organizations would remind the organization that everyone in the world is connected in some way. Intent for Online Participation ONIN 1 I have an intention to return to this organizations Facebook page. ONIN 2 I have an intention to Like this organizations Facebook page, if it is possible. ONIN 3 I would communicate with my Facebook friends about this organization. ONIN 4 I have an intention to recommend my Facebook friends to visit this organizations Facebook page.
64 Table 32. Continued Measures ONIN 5 It is worth it to share a post(s) of this organizations Facebook page with my Facebook page. ONIN 6 I have an intention to return to this organizations Facebook page. ONIN 7 I have an intention to Like this organizations Facebook page, if it is possible. ONIN 8 I would communicate with my Facebook friends about this organization. Intent for Offline Participation OFFIN 1 I have an intention to talk about this organization with my family, friends, or acquaintances. OFFIN 2 I would recommend this organization to my family, friends, or acquaintances. OFFIN 3 I have an intention to contact the organization to receive more information. OFFIN 4 I have an intention to attend the organizations activities and events. OFFIN 5 I have an intention to donate to this organization. OFFIN 6 I would work for this organization as a volunteer. OFFIN 7 I have an intention to sign a petition to support this organization and its activities. OFFIN 8 I would join this organization as a member.
65 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this chapter, results of hypotheses tests are presented as well as measurements of validity and reliability. First, the pretest results are discussed. Then, it reviews results of validity and reliability tests by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), followed by description of participants profiles. The effectiveness of manipulation of independe nt variables is also discussed. Last but not least, descriptive statistics and results of two way ANOVA, t test for independent samples, and multiple regression analyses are reviewed. Pretests Pretests were performed to check whether stimuli and questions were developed as intended. The participants for Pretest 1 were drawn from a pool of undergraduate students in the communication college of a large southeastern university in the United States. Even though a student sample is often considered less generalizable than a public sample due to the uniqueness of characteristics, such as educational level or age (James & Sonner, 2001), student participants were used for the pretests because the primary purpose of pretests were to conduct manipulation checks rather than to generalize findings. Pretest 2 and 3 used a public sample using AMT (Table 41). Pretest 1 Pretest 1 was conducted to assess the manipulation of independent variables, relationship maintenance strategy and the direction of communication, and the reliability of measurements of dependent variables. A total of 125 students participated in the first pretest. Openness strategy was effectively manipulated, but networking strategy was not. Co nsequently, posts presenting the networking strategy were revised. A post of the
66 announcement of the organizations partnership with Hollands, a clothing brand, was revised to provide detailed information about what specific goals they agreed to implement to resolve hazardous chemical issues on clothing. Also, another post mentioned that one elementary school in California joined the Green School campaign. This was revised to show that the organization has been working with U.S. elementary schools, and to illustrate how many elementary schools have joined so far. The Pretest also showed that the direction of communication, oneway communication or twoway communication, was not manipulated as intended either. It revealed that participants perceived that pr ovided Facebook pages allowed twoway communication regardless of conditions. Thus, the Facebook pages in oneway communication conditions were revised to have announcements such as Posting is NOT allowed on this page, on the first page, and No Like/Com ment/Share Allowed on the bottom of each post. Also, a question asking whether or not the Facebook page that participants saw allowed posting, commenting, sharing, or Like was added on the questionnaire to validate participants responses. Pretest 2 The second pretest was conducted to check manipulation of the networking strategy and the direction of communication of the organizations Facebook pages. A total of 138 online consumer panels participated in Pretest 2 via Amazon Mechanical Turk The direction of communication, either oneway or two way communication, was successfully manipulated. Networking strategy manipulation check results did not show significant differences in conditions. Therefore, posts of networking with other organizations were revis ed again. For example, a post on Earth Hour, the energy saving campaign that was directed at local communities and schools, was revised to contain
67 the number of cities that have joined to the organizations campaign. The wording of a question for the manip ulation check was also revised due to confusion in its meaning. For instance, one of the questions originally read, The organization has been building a relationship with other organizations that share a similar vision. However, some participants underst ood the meaning of the word relationship to be a relationship that has been established for a long period of time. Therefore, the question was changed to The organization has been building a partnership with other organizations that share a similar vision. Pretest 3 The purpose of the third pretest was to check whether the networking strategy was successfully manipulated to test the proposed model for the main test. A total of 73 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk were divided into two groups, networking strategy condition and openness strategy condition. They were exposed to either an organizations Facebook page employing networking strategy or one presenting openness strategy and they then responded to the questions for manipulati on check. Results from Pretest 3 revealed that the networking strategy was successfully manipulated. As a result, it was confirmed that experimental stimuli and the questionnaire were valid to be used for a main test. Profiles of Participants Table 42 presents demographic profiles of the participants in this study. The number of participants was 220. Of the 220 responses, 23 responses were excluded due to the failure to provide correct answers to a screening question that was developed to exam ine whether participants carefully read the stimulus material. Finally, a total of 197 people participated in the study. Location of participants was restricted to the
68 United States. A sample consisted of 114 males (57.9%) and 83 females (42.1%). The range of age of participants was 18 to 66. The mean score of age for all participants was 30 (SD = 10.03). In terms of ethnicity, 155 participants were Caucasian/White (78.7%), 20 were Asian/Pacific Islander (10.2%), 12 were Black/African American (6.1%), 7 were Hispanic/Latino (3.6%), and 3 were Other (1.5%). Regarding education, the majority of respondents attended some college (39.1%) or held a bachelors degree (33.5%). An additional 13.7% of participants held high school diplomas or equivalent degrees and 10% held masters degrees. A total of 2.5% held a doctoral degree and 0.5% attended less than high school. Of the participants, 32% had an annual personal income of below $14,999, while 22.8% reported income between $15,000 to $29,999. An income level for 18.3% of the participants was either in the range of $30,000 to $49,999 or $50,000 to $74,999 while 8.1% of participants responded as having a $75,000 annual income. With regard to political partisanship, over 40% of participants were Democrat while 14.7% were Republican. Another 33.5% identified their political affiliation as Independent. Descriptive Statistics As a first stage of data analyses, descriptive statistics were made mean and standard deviation scores. Table 43 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of the major constructs The mean scores of these constructs ranged from 2.59 to 5.60 on a 7point sc ale. To be specific, the mean score of bonding social capital was 5.05. For bridging social capital, it was 5.35. In addition, 3.3 1 and 3.01 were for online participation intention and for offline participation intention respectively. The mean score of issue involvement was 5.53. M ean scores and standard deviation scores for each item of the major constructs are presented in Table 43
69 Validity and Reliability Tests Before testing research questions and hypotheses, validity and reliability of the measurement of social capital were examined. A social capital measure was revised to apply to the public relations contexts in this study. Accordingly, validating the measurement o f social capital was very important to produce accurate results for the hypotheses and the research questions test. Internal validity concerns the extent to which a measurement is made of a phenomenon that the research intends to measure. There are several criteria to examine validity of measurement, including face validity, content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and construct validity (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). Among these, construct validity, which is based on the logical relationshi ps among variables, can be achieved when similar concepts show positive correlations, while dissimilar concepts reveal very low correlations (Campbell &Fiske, 1959). In order to check the construct validity of the measurement, convergent validity and disc riminant validity were examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 21.0. This enables the researcher to verify whether two factors, bonding social capital and bridging social capital, identified by existing literature, fit the dataset of the study. The latent variables include bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Observed variables of each latent variable contain six items respectively. Table 44 shows results of bivariate correlation analysis to explore relationships among the 12 observed variables of the two latent variables. All relationships were significant at the value .01 level, and their coefficients ranged from .18 to .68. Table 45 presents the results of CFA of bonding social capital and bridging
70 social capital. Fac tor loadings above 0.6 were considered high and those below 0.4 were considered low (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). For bonding social capital, the fourth item (BNSC Other items of bonding social capital had significant loadings at the value .001 level. Their loading ranged from .70 to .84. For bridging social capital, the third item showed a loading lower than the threshold ( social c apital were significantly loaded on the designated factor at the value .001 level, and the range of the loadings were from .68 to .82. The composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) were used to examine the convergent validity of the social capital measure. If the CR was above .6 and the AVE above .5, convergent validity exists (Fomell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006). Furthermore, the correlations among items were checked to multicollinearity. If the correlation that exist s between items of dissimilar constructs is higher than .09, multicollinearity may exist between them (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, it was confirmed that multicollinearity did not exist among items. Also, the maximum shared variance (MSV) and the average shared variance (ASV) were estimated for discriminant validity check. To achieve discriminant validity, the AVE of a factor should be greater than the MSV and the ASV (Fomell & Larcker, 1981). Results of CFA revealed that the social capital measure obtains convergent validity and discriminant validity (Table 46). Accordingly, it was shown that the social capital measure in this study achieved construct validity. Several model fit indices were examined to evaluate a model for CFA. Although 2 goodness of fit statistics are often used, this has limitations because it is sensitive to
71 sample size. To be specific, a null hypothesis of Chi square test, that a model fits exactly in the population, can be easily reject ed (Browne & Cudeck, 1992) Also, it is very sens itive to sample size. For example, if the sample size is large, the model that approximates the covariance matrix closely will usually be rejected (Browne & Cudeck, 1992) Thus, other fit indices have been recommended for consideration. The desired threshold of 2/ df (ratio of 2 to the degree of freedom) is 3.0 or less (Ullman, 2001). The desired threshold of CFI (Comparative Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index), and TLI (Tucker Lewis Index) is above 0.9 (Byrne, 1994). For RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), the traditional desired threshold is less than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Kline, 2005; Byrne, 1998) and ideally less than .05 (Stieger, 1990). The results of CFA indicate that the initial model of the social capital measure failed to meet all 2 = 112.155, 2/df = 2.116; CFI = .948; NFI = .906; TLI = .935; RMSEA =. 075) (Table 47). Hence, the model needed to be modified. The modification index (MI) scores suggested correlating error terms between BNSC 2 (There is someone the WEC can turn to for advice about mak ing very important decisions) and BNSC 3 (There are people who can help to protect the WEC in an emergency). The covariance score between them was 23.469. Some researchers suggest that item errors should never be correlated because it should be assumed that all items of factors are independent of each other. However, Newsrom (2012) insists that including a correlation between measurement errors could be accepted if they are data driven or theoretically driven. Common cases of occurring correlated errors could be due to similar wording or items that are positively or negatively occurring items (Newsom, 2012). In this manner, item errors in BNSC 2 and
72 BNSC 3 could be expected to be caused by wording such as, very important decisions, and in an emergency . After correlating them, the model fit was increased, as model fit indices showing in Table 42 = 84.714, 2/df = 1.629; CFI = .971; NFI = .929; TLI = .963; RMSEA =. 057). Further analyses to detect better model fit indices were performed, including examining standardized residual scores, factor loadings, and squared multiple correlations, but it did not do much to improve the model fit since the model was correlated with errors between BNSC 2 and BNSC 3 Thus, correlating errors of BNSC 2 and BNSC 3 was performed and it increased model fit to the acceptable level. Other techniques for model fit modification were not used. Reliability can be obtained when a measurement procedure yields consistent scores when the phenomenon being measured is not changing. Among several techniques to assess the reliability of measurement, Cronbachs alpha coefficient method was used in this study in order to see internal consistency among measured items. The alpha for the full bonding social capital was .86 and for bridging social capital, .87. Manipulation Check A manipulation check was conducted by descriptive statistics and analyses of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether independent variables were effectively manipulated before testing hypotheses and research questions. In order to confirm that participants carefully read the organizations Facebook pages, they were asked to answer a question about whether the Facebook page that they just saw allows users, not the organization, to post, comment, share, or Like. Participants who failed to respond correctly to the question were ruled out in a data set. This question was asked
73 after responding to questions for a manipulation check to prevent its effects on results of the manipulation check. Four it ems of a sevenpoint Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 7=Strongly Agree) were developed by the researcher for each independent variable. First of all, participants responded to items such as, I think this organization discloses enough information about i ts finances and governance to publics, and I think this organization is willing to provide information about what happens inside the organization, to check for manipulation of openness strategy. Results showed that there was a significant difference in participants responses regarding openness strategy ( t (195) = 9.130, < .001, Cohens D = 1.30), with participants in an openness group (M = 5.35, SD = 1.00) responding with a higher score than those in a networking group (M = 3.91, SD = 1.20). In addition, results of two way ANOVA revealed only a significant main effect of the relationship strategy ( F (1,193) = 83.318, < 05, 2 = 02 ). Thus it was confirmed that the manipulation of the openness strategy was effective. Participants also discussed the following items for the networking manipulation check: I think this organization has been building a partnership with other organizations that share a similar vision, and I think this organization has been working in a large network with other associati ons to achieve its goals. T test for independent samples revealed that participants in a networking group perceived significantly higher networking strategy (M = 5.81, SD = .885) than those in an openness group (M = 4.96, SD = 1.15) ( t (195) = 5.794, < .001, Coh ens D = .82). Furthermore, only a main effect of relationship strategy was found in twoway ANOVA results ( F (1,193) = 34.564, < 05, 2 = .006 ). Regarding the direction of communication of an organizations Facebook page,
74 questions asking part icipants perceived direction of communication on the Facebook page were also developed by the researcher for the manipulation check. Specific items for the oneway communication manipulation were, I think this organization provides publics with no channe ls for communicating to WEC, and I think this organization is not willing to listen what publics are saying. For the twoway communication manipulation check, items included, I think this organization allows publics to deliver their opinions and thoug hts to WEC, and I think this organization provides twoway communication channels for publics, were used. As a result, it was found that there was significant difference in responses to these questions. Participants who are exposed to the oneway communication Facebook page evaluated it to be more oneway communication (M = 4.47, SD = 1.63) than those who saw the twoway communication page (M = 2.28, SD = 1.16) ( t (169.144) = 10.731, < .001, Cohens D = 1.65). ANOVA results also confirmed that there was a main effect of the direction of communication ( F (1,193) = 115.925, < 001, 2 = 08). Neither a main effect of the relationship strategy nor an interaction effect were found. Similarly, it was shown that participants in a twoway communication group (M =5.31, SD = 1.05) responded higher than those in a oneway communication group (M =2.74, SD = 1.61) on twoway communication manipulation check questions ( t (160.625) = 1 3.125 < .001, Cohens D = 2.07). In ANOVA results, the main effect of the relationship strategy and the interaction effect of the strategy and the direction of communication were not found, while the main effect of the direction of communication was sig nificant ( F (1,193) = 175.246, < 001, 2 = 08). Therefore it was concluded that the direction of communication, one way or
75 two way communication, of an organizations Facebook pages was successfully manipulated. Hypotheses and Research Questions Testin g For testing hypotheses and research questions two way ANOVA and hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Effects of the Types of Relation Maintenance Strategies and the Direction of Communication H1 and H2 were investigated using twoway ANOVA. H1a assumed that participants who are exposed to the openness strategy on an organizations social networking site will show more bonding social capital than those who are exposed to the networking strategy. In order to see the effects of the different types of relationships, maintenance strategy on bonding social capital in participants, twoway Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) was conducted (Figure 4 1). There was a significant main effect of relationship strategies on bonding social capital in participants ( F (1,193) = 9.504, < 01, 2 = 001) indicating that the mean change score was significantly higher in the openness group (M =5.24, SD = .75) than in the networking group (M =4.85, SD = .94) (Table 48). T hus, H1a was supported. Main effects of the direction of communication was also found ( F (1,193) = 9.38, < 01, 2 = .001). Participants who read the Facebook page with twoway communication features revealed a higher level of bonding social capital (M = 5.24, SD = .73) than those who saw the oneway communication pag e (M =4.85, S D = .96) (Table 48 ). Therefore, H2a was supported. The interaction between the types of relationship strategies and the direction of communication was not found. H1b predicted that participants who are exposed to the networking strategy on
76 the page will exhibit more bridging social capital than those who saw the openness strategy. However, participants bridging social capital was not significantly higher than that for participants in the openness group ( F (1,193) = 1.04, =3.11) Hence, H1b was not supported. Significant differences in the level of participants bridging social capital depending on the direction of communication were not found ( F ( 1,193) = 2.785, = 097). As a result, H2b was not supported. Research question 1 examined how the types of relationship maintenance strategies of an organization and the direction of communication affect social capital in participants. Results revealed that only openness strategy inf luenced bonding social capital, while networking did not have a significant effect on bridging social capital. Also, the two way communication effect on bonding social capital was found, whereas that on bridging social capital was not. Research question 2 investigated whether or not there was an interaction effect between the types of strategy and the direction of communication. A data analysis result of two way ANOVA did not show any interaction between the strategy and the direction of communication on either bonding social capital or bridging social capital. Effects of Social Capital on Participation Intention H3a assumed that bonding social capital would have a positive effect on participants level of online participation intention. In addition, H3b predicted that bridging social capital would have a positive influence on intention for online participation. In order to see the effects of variables on participants online and offline participation intention, multiple regression analyses were conducte d. Before that,
77 underlying assumptions of multiple regression analysis were checked. Agresti and Finlay (2009) identified three assumptions of the multiple regression analysis, multicollinearity, the normal distribution, and random selection of the sample. In terms of multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) for independent variables, bonding social capital and bridging social capital were examined. The VIFs of the variables did not exceed a value of 10, which is commonly considered as the existence of multicollinearity (Kline, 2005). Furthermore, criteria for skewness and kurtosis can be used to check the normality of independent variables. Even though some researchers say the range from +1 to 1 or from +2 to 2 can be conservatively used to det ermine the normality of variables, others argue that it is extremely hard to achieve in practice (Agresti & Finlay, 2009). Based on that, in this study, the accepted levels of 3 for skewness and 10 for kurtosis were used, as recommended by Kline (2005). Fi nally, randomization of a sample was satisfied. Unique effects of social capital on participants participation intention were investigated after controlling for demographic variables, political ideology, and issue involvement. In multiple regression anal ysis, demographic variables including education level, income, and age were entered in the first model. Then, political ideology and issue involvement level were entered into the second model. The third model included bonding social capital and bridging social capital. For online participation intention, results showed that none of the demographic variables in the first model significantly affected participants online participation intention ( F (3,193) = .789, p > .05). Political ideology and issue involvement in the -
78 variables explained 18.3% of online participation ( R2 = .183, F (5,19 1) = 9.764, < 001). This means that people who have a higher involvement level in environmental issues are more likely to participate in online behaviors to support the environmental organization. Interestingly, participants political ideology negatively influenced their online participation intention. The results indicated that participants who are politically liberal are less likely to engage in online participation for the organization. Bonding social capital and bridging social capital were added t o the third model. It was found that bonding social capital also has a significant influence on online participation intention ( R2 was increased to .259 ( F change (2,189) = 10.837, < 001). Effects of political ideology and issue involvement were still significant ( These results indicate that higher bonding social capital produces higher intention for online participation, when demographic variables, political ideology, and issue involvement were controlled. Thus, H3a was supported whereas H3b was not sup ported. Table 49 presents the results of multiple regression analysis of online participation. To examine the influences of social capital on offline participation intention after controlling demographic variables, political ideology, and issue involvement, multiple linear regression analysis was performed using identical models. Demographic variabl es of age, income, and education level were added to the first model. Political ideology and issue involvement were entered in the second model. Bonding and bridging social capital were included in the third model. Demographic variables in the first model did not show significant effects on participants offline participation intention
79 ( F (3,193) = .326, p > .05). In the second model, the level of issue involvement significantly influenced offline participation intention ( the higher involvement participants have on a given issue, the higher their intention to participate in offline behaviors is. It was found that political ideology of participation also has a significant effect on offline participation intention ( .181 p < .05). However, research revealed that it was negatively associated to the intention for offline participation. In other words, liberal participants scored at a lower participation intention rate than conservative participants. 15% of offline particip ation intention was explained by political ideology and involvement ( R2 = .156, F (5,191) = 8.219, < 001). The third model of regression analysis results showed that bonding social capital significantly affected participants level of offline participat while H4b was not. Also, involvement and political ideology had significant effects on intention in the third model ( .180, p < .001 respectively). R2 was changed from .156 of the second model to .223 of the third model ( F change (2,189) = 9.302, < 001). Table 4 10 presents the results of regression analysis for offline participation intention. Research q uestion 3 examined how social capital predicts participants intention for participatory behaviors when participants political ideology, issue involvement, and demographics are controlled. Multiple regression analyses results revealed that bonding social capital was positively associated with both online and offline participation intention. Effects of bridging social capital were not found in results of either online or offline participation intention.
80 Table 41. Experiment participants Participants Number of Participants Pretests Pretest 1 Undergraduate students 125 Pretest 2 Online consumer panel via AMT 138 Pretest 3 Online consumer panel via AMT 73 Main test Main test Online consumer panel via AMT 197
81 Table 42. Descriptions of samples Variable N Frequency Percentage Sex 197 Male 114 57.9% Female 83 42.1% Age 197 24 and younger 67 34.0% 25 34 75 38.1% 35 44 37 18.8% 45 54 10 5.1% 55 64 7 3.6% 65 and older 1 0.5% Ethnicity 197 Asian/Pacific Islander 20 10.2% Black/African American 12 6.1% Caucasian/White 155 78.7% Hispanic/Latino 7 3.6% Other 3 1.5% Education 197 Less than high school diploma 1 0.5% High school diploma/equiv. 27 13.7% Some college 77 39.1% Bachelor's degree 66 33.5% Masters degree 21 10.7% Ph.D. degree 5 2.5% Income 197 $14,999 or Less 64 32.5% $15,000 $29,999 45 22.8% $30,000 $49,999 36 18.3% $50,000 $74,9991 36 18.3% $75,000 $99,999 12 6.1% $100,000 or More 4 2.0% Political Ideology 197 Extremely conservative 6 3.0% Conservative 13 6.6% Slightly conservative 20 10.2% Moderate 44 22.3% Slightly liberal 34 17.3% Liberal 52 26.4% Extremely liberal 28 14.2% Political Partisanship 197 Republican 29 14.7% Democrat 83 42.1% Independent 66 33.5% None 19 9.6%
82 Table 43. Mean and standard deviation scores for measures Variable M SD Bonding Social Capital (M=5.05, SD=.87, =.86) BNSC 1. The organization has trustworthy people who help to solve the organizations problems. 5.21 1.06 BNSC 2. There is someone the organization can turn to for advice about making very important decisions. 5.03 1.09 BNSC 3. There are people who can help to protect the organization in an emergency. 4.88 1.16 BNSC 4. The people the organization interacts with wou ld put their reputation on the line for the organization. 4.84 1.32 BNSC 5. The people the organization interacts with would share their resources that the organization is in need. 5.20 1.01 BNSC 6. The people the organization interacts with would help t he organization fight injustice. 5.16 1.12 Bridging Social Capital (M=5.35, SD=.82, =.87) BRSC 1. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in things that happen outside of the organization. 5.30 .99 BRSC 2. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization want to try new things. 5.20 .99 BRSC 3. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in what others unlike them are thinking. 4.92 1.24 BRSC 4. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel like a part of a larger community. 5.60 .92 BRSC 5. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel connected to the bigger picture 5.54 1.12 BRSC 6. Interacting with people and other organizations would remind the organization that everyone in the world is connected in some way. 5.55 1.12 Online Participation Intention (M=3.31, SD=1.60, =.96) ONIN 1. I have an intention to return to this organizations Facebook page. 3.11 1.70 ONIN 2. I have an intention to Like this organizations Facebook page, if it is possible. 3.22 1.82 ONIN 3. I would communicate with my Facebook friends about this organization. 3.05 1.66 ONIN 4. I have an intention to recommend my Facebook friends to visit this organizations Facebook page. 2.94 1.68 ONIN 5. It is worth it to share a post(s) of this organizations Facebook page with my Facebook page. 3.57 1.90
83 Table 43. Continued Variable M SD ONIN 6. It is worth it to add this organization to my interest lists on Facebook in order to see its news updates on my news feed. 3.36 1.84 ONIN 7. I would visit the official website of this organization. 3.76 1.86 ONIN 8. I have an intention to look for more information about this organization and issues in online. 3.56 1.85 Offline Participation Intention (M=3.01, SD=1.40, =.94) OFFIN 1. I have an intention to talk about this organization with my family, friends, or acquaintances. 3.02 1.64 OFFIN 2. I would recommend this organization to my family, friends, or acquaintances. 3.35 1.67 OFFIN 3. I have an intention to contact the organization to receive more information. 2.84 1.66 OFFIN 4. I have an intention to attend the organizations activities and events. 2.67 1.48 OFFIN 5. I have an intention to donate to this organization. 2.59 1.47 OFFIN 6. I would work for this organization as a volunteer. 3.21 1.75 OFFIN 7. I have an intention to sign a petition to support this organization an d its activities. 3.31 1.79 OFFIN 8. I would join this organization as a member. 3.11 1.62 Issue Involvement (M=5.53, SD=1.30, =.96) Table 44. Correlation matrix for bonding social capital and bridging social capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.BNSC 1 --2.BNSC 2 .58 a --3.BNSC 3 .56 a .67 a --4.BNSC 4 .39 a .38 a .39 a --5.BNSC 5 .56 a .56 a .51 a .50 a --6.BNSC 6 .55 a .55 a .49 a .40 a .70 a --7.BRSC 1 .40 a .37 a .29 a .26 a .45 a .45 a --8.BRSC 2 .36 a .37 a .24 a .25 a .39 a .35 a .61 a --9.BRSC 3 .21 a .25 a .24 a .18 a .34 a .33 a .43 a .43 a --10.BRSC 4 .34 a .37 a .27 a .27 a .44 a .45 a .53 a .51 a .48 a --11.BRSC 5 .22 a .30 a .19 a .23 .35 a .34 a .51 a .52 a .36 a .68 a --12.BRSC 6 .34 a .35 a .24 a .27 a .43 a .39 a .54 a .49 a .42 a .65 a .68 a --Note: a: < .01 (two tailed)
84 Table 45. Measurement model for bonding social capital and bridging social capital Latent variables B S.E. Bonding social capital ( = .869) BNSC 1. The organiz ation has trustful people who help to solve the organizatio ns problems. .71 .83 .08*** BNSC 2. There is someone the organization turn to for advise about making very important decisions. .70 .85 .08*** BNSC 3. There are people who can help to protect the organization in an emergency. .64 .82 .09*** BNSC 4. The people the organization interacts with would put their reputation on the line for the organization. .56 .82 .10*** BNSC 5. The people the organization interacts with would share their resources that the organization is in need. .84 .94 .07*** BNSC 6. The people the organization interacts with would help the organization fight injustice. .80 1.00 Bridging social capital ( = .870) BRSC 1. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in things that happen outside of the organization. .71 .79 .07*** BRSC 2. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization want to try new things. .68 .75 .07*** BRSC 3. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization interested in what others unlike them are thinking. .56 .77 .09*** BRSC 4. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel like a part of a larger community. .82 .84 .06*** BRSC 5. Interacting with people and other organizations would make the organization feel connected to the bigger picture. .79 .98 .08*** BRSC 6. Interacting with people and othe r organizations would remind the organization that everyone in the world is connected in some way. .80 1.00 Note: *** < .001 (two tailed) Table 46. Convergent validity and discriminant validity CR AVE MSV ASV Correlation BNSC .87 .53 .38 .38 --BRSC .84 .52 .38 .38 .530** --Note: ** < .01 (two tailed)
85 Table 47. Model fit indices for bonding social capital and bridging social capital Fit Indices Criteria Initial Fit Statistics (Proposed Model) Final Fit Statistics 2 112.155 84.714 2 /df 2.116 1.629 CFI .948 971 NFI .906 929 TLI .935 963 RMSEA .075 .057 Table 48 Mean and standard deviations of bonding social capital (Relationship maintenance strategy) (Direction of communication) One way N Two way N Openness 5.11 ( .79) 45 5.35 ( .71) 56 Networking 4.61 (1.05) 50 5.10 ( .74) 46 Table 49 Hierarchical multiple regressions on online participation intention Online Participation Intention R 2 Block 1 Education .013 (.126) Income .028 (.088) Age .111 (.110) .003 Block 2 Education .005 (.115) Income .033 (.080) Age .085 (.099) Involvement .464 (.085)** Political ideology .224 (.071)** .183*** Block 3 Education .009 (.111) Income .029 (.077) Age .077 (.095) Involvement .390 (.084) Political ideology .225 (.068) Bonding social capital .236 (.136)** Bridging social capital .093 (.145) .259*** Note: ** < .05, *** < .01
86 Table 410. Hierarchical multiple regressions on offline participation intention Offline Participation Intention R 2 Block 1 Education .021 (.077) Income .063 (.096) Age .016 .010 Block 2 Education .011 (.102) Income .064 (.071) Age .007 (.088) Involvement .443 (.076)** Political ideology .181 (.063)** .156*** Block 3 Education .003 (.099) Income .060 (.068) Age .012 (.085) Involvement .374 (.075) Political ideology .180 (.061) Bonding social capital .245 (.122)** Bridging social capital .059 (.129) .222*** Note: ** < .05, *** < .01 Figure 41. Bonding social capital
87 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this chapter, summary of the research findings and implications for public relations are provided. Limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are also discussed. Summary of Results Although social capital can provide valuable implications for public relations research and practice, little research has examined its influence on the publics intention to participate in supportive behaviors for organizations. In particular, despite the potential for social media to build a community and relationships, th ere has been less investigation about how the creation of social capital in publics could be expedited by communication strategies on social media. Furthermore, a measure of social capital has not been applied much to the public relations context. Thus, i n addition to validating a social capital measure for the public relations context, this study tried to provide a process model including antecedents and consequences of social capital. To be specific, effects of the relationship maintenance strategy and t he direction of communication as antecedents on publics social capital were examined. Then, exploration was also made into how social capital influences the publics participation intention to support a political/civic organization, the consequence of soc ial capital. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 21.0 showed that the social capital measures developed for this study achieved construct validity and reliability. Even though bonding and bridging social capital are related rather than completely exclusive (Putnam, 2000), it was found that items in each factor measured
88 two separate dimensions, bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital includes intimacy, emotional support, and strong inclusive social ties in an individuals network, while bridging social capital involves expanding an individuals horizon, perceiving oneself as part of a broader community, and diffusion of reciprocity with a large group. The CFA results provided empirical evidence that there are conceptual differences between bonding and bridging social capital. Also, results of a model fit allowed the measure of social capital for hypotheses testing to be used without major modification for this study. An online experiment was conducted to investigate how these antecedents and outcomes are associated with publics social capital. A 2 (types of relationship maintenance strategy: openness or networking) x 2 (the direction of communication: oneway communication or twoway communication) factorial design w as developed for the experiment. A total of 220 participants were recruited and 197 responses were used for data analyses. After being randomly assigned to a group, participants were asked to read a Facebook page of a fictitious environmental organization. The content and feature of the page varied depending on the experiment condition. Then they provided their level of bonding and bridging social capital, online and offline participation intention, issue involvement, political ideology, and demographic inf ormation. The results revealed that participants who read the organizations Facebook page employing the openness strategy showed more bonding social capital than those who saw one implementing the networking strategy. According to the interpersonal process model of intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988), open communication or self disclosure is strongly associated with a degree of intimacy experienced in the
89 interaction among individuals. Providing information about oneself or feelings/thoughts to a partner can nurture trust and reputation in their interaction (Laurenceau, Barrett, Ptetromonaco, 1989). In a public relations context, disclosure of information, not only what an organization wants publics to know, but also what publics want the organization to tell, could be very important in building transparency and emotional connection between them. Financial reports, independent auditors reports, or information about the process to select upper level managers of the or ganization is not necessarily what the organi zation always wants to open to its key publics. But providing this useful and important information regarding organizations to consumers, investors, or existing shareholders can increase the positive perception or trust toward the organization (Murphy, 1991; Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). Without open communication, emotional support or intimacy cannot be built between an organization and its publics. Furthermore, it was revealed that bonding social capital can be influenced by the direction of communication of an organizations social media. The level of bonding social capital in participants who were exposed to the organizations page having twoway communication features was higher than those of people who read the organizati ons oneway communication page. The model of intimacy also provides a theoretical basis to understand the effects of twoway communication on the creation of bonding social capital. For the development of intimacy between individuals, the listener must re spond to the speaker by also expressing how they feel about what they heard, delivering emotion, and disclosing personal information. Oneway communication that does not provide channels for the listener cannot allow the growth of intimacy in the
90 interacti on with the speaker. Hence, the oneway communication strategy of an organization hinders the creation of bonding social capital by blocking opportunities for delivering responses from publics. The effect of networking relationship maintenance strategies on bridging social capital was not found in this study. It might be understood by interpreting goals of networking strategy that an organization expects to achieve. Even though networking aims to reach to a variety of organizations possessing diverse backg round information or resources, in many cases, an organization builds a connection with other organizations sharing similar goals or values. Accordingly, resource or information from them might be much less diverse than the organization or publics expected. Therefore, developing the network with other associations that also have similar interests may not be influential to expanding ones horizon. With regards to the effects of social capital on behavioral intention, it was found that bonding social capital in participants significantly affects their engagement intention to support the organization regardless of their level of issue involvement and political ideology. By possessing bonding social capital, participants were willing to participate in online ac tivities to support the organization, such as recommending the organizations Facebook page to friends, communicating about it with their friends, adding it to interest lists on their Facebook pages for receiving the organizations news updates, or looki ng for more information about the organization and issues it deals with through the Internet. Moreover, the effects of bonding social capital were also shown in participants intention to engage in offline activities. Bonding social capital influences part icipants behaviors such as donating, working as a volunteer, attending the organizations
91 events, or joining the organization as a member. The level of bridging social capital of participants did not have a significant impact on their participation intent ion, for either online or offline activities, when their level of issue involvement and political ideology were controlled. Considering these results, it could be expected that emotional support or intimacy from others has a positive impact on an individuals decision to engage in a given activity. As a theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and a theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) argued, perceived support from others can be influential to behavioral intention. An individual might not be willing to be involved in collective actions such as attending activities of an organization or signing a petition if they think that there are few people to work together or that no one will appreciate their participation in the organization. What is more, environmental organizations, target organizations for the experiments in this study, deal with valueladen issues economic growth or protection of the environment. When issues are controversial or contain a value judgment, perceived social support could be more influential to ones participation while factual judgment requires accurate information or useful resources. Although results of this study did not have a significant effect on bridging social capital, the effect of bridging social capital on an individuals intention to exhibit participatory behaviors should not be underestimated. Some conditions could be expected where bridging social capital also exerts an influence on the publics willingness for engagement. If solving issues c all for expertise beyond what an organization already knows requires, cooperation with a broad range of organizations at
92 very different levels, then perceived connectedness or diffusion of reciprocity would be more important. For instance, members of an or ganization that aim at constitutional reform of environmental issues in a given region can be affected by the support they exchange for each other in the organization. But they must also connect to the broader community, including resident groups in local communities, lawyers, or governmental organizations. Interestingly, the results of multiple regression analyses showed that liberal political ideology had a negative impact on parti cipants behavioral intention. Even though it was assumed that politically liberal individuals are more likely to participate in supportive actions, it was revealed that c onservative participants were more willing to be involve d in online and offline participation to support organizations. One of factors affecting thi s result might the quality of the Facebook page of an organization or arguments on the page. Participants whose political stance is liberal are possibly more likely to have been previously exposed to information about environmental issues or organizations than those who take conservative political stance. To them, it might be possible that the quality of the arguments of the experiment stimuli was not strong enough to prompt participat ing in supportive behaviors. Conversely, to conservative participants who are less likely to be exposed to environmental organizations communication channels or issues, the quality of argu ments or the Facebook page might reach the expectation level to be persuasive and influence participants intent to engage. Implications fo r Public Relations Research and Practice This study provides fruitful academic implications for the public relations researcher. First and foremost, this study situates the investigation of social capital
93 within a public relations context. Even though social capital is strongly associated with core values of public relations individuals trust, intention for cooperation, building communities, or maintaining relationships very little research has applied social capital to a public relations context. On e of the major reasons for the lack of study could be driven by the absence of measurement of social capital that is validated and tested in a public relations context. Although some researchers have tried to explore the influences of social capital on pub lic relations, they have used indicators of social capital, such as communication behaviors, media uses, or interpersonal trust, rather than a measure of social capital (Zhang & Seltzer, 2012; Jin, 2009). Not only have these indicators not been validated, they also could not thoroughly capture all dimensions of social capital that might work simultaneously in the construct. Thus, in order to investigate the effects of social capital on public relations concepts, the development of a measure of social capital validated in public relations context is required. This study provides the measurement that achieved the acceptable level of construct validity and reliability and it can be a useful tool for public relations researchers who try to explore effects of soc ial capital. Furthermore, it explores the underlying process of how public relationship strategies can lead to behavioral outcomes via developing the model of social capital. As the model predicted, relationship maintenance strategies and the communicati on direction of the organization worked as antecedents to produce social capital. Bonding social capital plays a pivotal role in the connection between organizations communication strategies and participation intention. Moreover, bonding social capital pr edicted publics participation intention to support nonprofit organizations.
94 On the other hand, bridging social capital seems to remain unaffected regardless of how an organization communicates with them. Moreover, it has little impact on how much public s would engage in participatory behaviors for the organization. These findings can provide public relations researchers with a deeper understanding of a mechanism for organizational communication strategies, which can be linked to publics actual participa tion intention to support organizations. It was revealed that social capital has significant effects on the creation of behavioral intention for various publics. Even though this study did not explore what specific effects of social capital are related to the mobilization of publics, Hazleton and Kennan (2000) demonstrated the absence of social capital can be connected to anti organizational behaviors among publics such as employee theft. This will lead to costs for employee monitoring devices, which also can cause the decrease of social capital in publics. It also allows further investigation about specific conditions under which the effects of social capital can be maximized or attenuated on publics behaviors or intentions for behaviors. Findings of this study can be used to apply to various arenas of public relations and eventually expand the understanding of public relations scholarship. For example, it can be examined for what effects bonding and bridging social capital could have on publics percept ion or attitudes in an organizational crisis situation. Can high social capital prevent negative behaviors by publics such as undesirable word of mouth (WOM) or boycotts? How can the effects of bonding and bridging social capital be different depending on the type of publics such as internal publics, external publics, customer, shareholders, suppliers, employees, or media? Does high or low social capital encourage publics to involve in a certain type of behaviors? Therefore application of
95 social capital t o diverse contexts of organizational settings can broaden the horizon of public relations scholars and provide new insights. This study also offers some practical implications for public relations professionals to enhance organizational communication practices. First, it was shown that openness relationship maintenance strategies affect bonding social capital in publics. Openness strategy can be more important for the creation of bonding social capital to certain organizations. For nonprofit organizations that are operated by fundraising or donation, transparency is very important to publics (Waters, 2008). Disclosure of financial information or annual reports can be effective to establish accountability and support from key publics, donors and members, and eventually encourage their participation. Also, when issues are complicated or abstract, providing issue briefings can help publics understand what an organization is doing. Thus, they can prioritize what relationship strategy should be implemented in their communication to publics based on who their key publics are or what issues they are handling. Also, the value of twoway communication between an organization and publics should be emphasized. When an organization employs oneway communication without listening to the publics thoughts and feelings, it cannot create social capital among publics. In a oneway communication setting, publics find no channels to communicate with the organization. To establish intimacy and trust in bonding social capital publics should be able to express and deliver what they think about the organization and its performance. Consequently, the practice of twoway communication is essential for organizations if they want to nurture bonding social capital in their publics. In this sense, the implementation of twoway communication practices through social media can be
96 very efficient and effective in that they provide convenient features for dialogic communication among parties to build bonding social capital in publics. Fur thermore, findings of this study regarding behavioral intention for participation help organizations establish strategies to mobilize publics. When taking into account the effect of bonding social capital, cultivation of bonding social capital in publics s hould precede to promote their participation. When an individual recognizes that there are more people working together and one can rely on them for shares goals, they will be more likely to engage in the actions. For instance, this provides useful implications for organizations striving for health related behaviors that often require social support to be engaged, such as participation in an alcoholics anonymous self help group (AA) or a drug addicted group counseling. It was found that hav ing social suppor t from others th in AA leads to reduced alcohol consumption of members in the group (Kastutas, Bond, & Humphreys, 2002). Therefore, developing bonding social capital in individuals can be very important to healthrelated organizations in particular. Last but not least, this study enables researchers to understand what could be done to promote citizens democratic engagement. Even though Putnam (1995a) insists that social capital in United States has declined during the past decades, findings in this study s how that specific communication strategies can increase individuals social capital and this leads to individuals civic/political participation. Political organizations can utilize the communication strategies to encourage political participation among ci tizens. This study can provide implications to foster democratic involvement in citizens by investigating effects of communication strategies on social capital. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research There are some limitations in this study that could be improved in the future
97 study. First, this study examined two types of relationship maintenance strategies, openness and networking. Even though openness strategy produced effects on bonding social capital while networking strategy did not, the org anization type used in this study might influence these results. To be specific, openness strategy plays a more important role in social capital in publics for nonprofit organizations. As discussed above, publics could have higher expectations that organi zations would disclose financial information if they rely on donations from the public or fundraising for their financial resources than for corporate or profit seeking organizations. On the other hand, networking strategy could exert a strong influence on social capital in organizations publics if these strategic issues require involvement of a broad range of organizations and their cooperation. Future studies could investigate conditions in which effects of different relationship maintenance strategies on publics social capital vary depending on the type of organizations or issues. Furthermore, the effects of networking strategy could be found when an organization has been building a large network by associating with other organizations that differ in values or goals. An environmental organizations network with other similar environmental organizations might not be effective to promote publics bridging social capital. But if the network includes organizations that seek very different values or even t ake the opposite position toward the same issue, the publics perception of bridging social capital could be different. The effects of networking with very different organizations could be examined in future studies on the relationship maintenance strategy and publics social capital. Also, this study did not consider the individuals motivations for participation.
98 Individuals have different motives or personality characteristics that are associated with democratic participation. Functions that an individual tries to fulfill by volunteering, such as learning new skills, self enhancement, or expressing prosocial values, can affect how willing one would likely be for participation (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen, & Miene, 1998). Also, some specific personality traits can facilitate an individuals civic engagement. For instance, agreeable or extraverted people are more likely to engage in civic behaviors ( McCrae & Costa, 1996; Kosic, 2007). Future studies could examine the effects of social ca pital on intention for democratic participation while taking into account individual motives or personal traits. There are several limitations that are driven by the methodology in this study. First of all, a web based experiment limited the control of the researcher over the experiment. Unlike a laboratory setting, it is difficult in a webbased experiment to confirm that stimuli are perceived as a researcher intended (Reips, 2002). Even though a comprehension question was asked to ensure participants paid attention and carefully read the survey, this could not guarantee that participants completely understood the experiment stimuli as it intended. Also, the direction of communication on Facebook was manipulated to test hypotheses and research questions in this study. A fictitious organizations Facebook pages containing posts with additional announcements such as, No posting is allowed on this page, and No comment/share/Like allowed were made as stimuli for oneway communication direction. However, i n real life, Facebook does not have a setting to show specific posts or announcements are not allowed by users. Hence, the lack of ecological validity might be pointed to as another limitation of this study. In other words,
99 it is possible that publics coul d respond differently to oneway communication Facebook pages of an organization in a real life. For example, as Pretest 1 results indicated, publics may not able to perceive that Facebook does not allow them to deliver their opinions and may behave differ ently. Also, in the experiment, t he ma nipulation questions followed exposure to a Facebook page of organization, the stimuli used in the experiment. Participants responded to the questions for manipulation check before to measurement of the dependent variables. It might affect results of this study because participants were aware of the manipulation of stimuli while responding to measures of social capital and intention to engage in participatory behaviors. The generalizability of findings of this st udy might be an issue. In particular, participants in this study were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) among Internet users. Internet users are more likely to be young and White than the total population in the U.S. (Victory & Cooper, 2002). Also, although previous research on AMT has shown that there is no difference between data from AMT and that from other research methods ( Sprouse, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) it is still possible that participants in this study might not directl y represent all individuals in the population. Conclusion Social capital can contribute to public relations academia as well as practice in that it provides implications about how public relations strategies can affect the creation of community and event ually lead to tangible participatory behaviors in publics. In particular, examining organizational communication strategies on social media can augment the effects of social capital that benefit organizations by allowing them to
100 enabl e building of community with their publics through the twoway communication practice. Little research has investigated the influence of social capital in a public relations context, and even less has examined the direct outcomes of social capital using a measure of social capital. This study expands social capital to public relations scholarship by proposing an integrated model. In the proposed model, relationships among antecedents relationship maintenance strategy and the direction of organizational co mmunication, and consequences of social capital, democratic participation intention were scrutinized. Moreover, this study develops the valid and reliable measurement of social capital in public relations. The integrative model of social capital could provide organizations and public relations scholars with empirical evidence about how communication strategies can lead to publics behavioral intention through social capital. Furthermore, the underlying connection between perceptual outcomes of communicat ion and actual intention for participatory behaviors could provide a better understanding of citizens democratic engagement for a vibrant democratic society.
101 APPENDIX EXPERIMENT STIMULI AND QUESTIONS Instruction: You will see captured pages of an organization Facebook page. Please carefully read posts on the pages and then answer the following questions. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. This online experiment is being conducted to examine effects of social media communication strategies of organizations. During this experiment, you will see pages of organizations social media. Your contribution and participation in this survey is very important for the further development of organizations' communication strategies. Therefore, please read posts on pages carefully before answering questions. This study is being conducted by a doctoral candidat e in the Department of Public Relations at the University of Florida. It will take about 1520 minutes to complete. There are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey. All responses will be used for academic research only and will be kept confidential. Your participation is voluntary and there is no penalty if you do not participate. If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about being in this study, please contact the principal investigator June Yung Kim (firstname.lastname@example.org). If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Florida IRB (Email: email@example.com; Phone Number: 1352 3920433). This study is approved by University of Florida Institu tional Review Board (Protocol #: 2013U 0423). Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in this study. Informed Consent: o I have read the instruction described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the st udy. o I do not agree to participate in this study. I want to withdraw from the study.
102 A Openness strategy and Oneway communication condition
104 B Openness strategy and Twoway communication condition
106 C Networking strategy and One way communication
108 D Networking strategy and Twoway communication
110 [RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATEGY OPENNESS] 1. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I think that this organization, WEC, discloses enough information about its finances and governance to publics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that this organization, WEC, is willing to provide information about what happens inside the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE STRATEGY NETWORKING] 2. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I think that this organization, WEC, has been building a partnership with other organizations that share a similar vision. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that this organization, WEC, has been working in a large network with other associations to achieve its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [DIRECTION OF COMMUNICATION ONE WAY COMMUNICATION] 3. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I think that this organization provides publics with no channels for communicating to WEC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that this organization, WEC is not willing to listen what publics are saying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
111 [DIRECTION OF COMMUNICATION TWO WAY COMMUNICATION] 4. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I think that this organization allows publics to deliver their opinions and thoughts to WEC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that this organization, WEC, provides two way communication channels for publics. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL] 5. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree Wildlife and the Earth Conservation (WEC) has trustworthy people who help to solve WECs problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There is someone the WEC can turn to for advice about making very important decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There are people who can help to protect the WEC in an emergency. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The people the WEC interacts with would put their reputation on the line for the WEC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The people the WEC interacts with would share their resources that when the WEC is in need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The people the WEC interacts with would help the WEC fight injustice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
112 [BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITAL] 6. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree Interacting with people and other organizations would make the WEC interested in things that happen outside of the WEC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the WEC want to try new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the WEC interested in what others unlike them are thinking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the WEC feel like part of a larger community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interacting with people and other organizations would make the WEC feel connected to the bigger picture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interacting with people and other organizations would remind the WEC that everyone in the world is connected in some way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [ONLINE PARTICIPATION INTENTION] 7. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I have an intention to return to this organizations Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to Like this organizations Facebook page, if it is possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would communicate with my Facebook friends about this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to recommend my Facebook friends to visit this organizations Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is worth it to share a post(s) of this organizations Facebook page with my Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
113 It is worth it to add this organization to my interest lists on Facebook in order to see its news updates on my news feed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would visit the official website of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to look for more information about this organization and issues in online. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [OFFLINE PARTICIPATION INTENTION] 8. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Strongly disagree Neither disagree nor agree Strongly agree I have an intention to talk about this organization with my family, friends, or acquaintances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would recommend this organization to my family, friends, or acquaintances. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to contact the organization to receive more information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to attend the organizations activities and events. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to donate to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would work for this organization as a volunteer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have an intention to sign a petition to support this organization and its activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would join this organization as a member. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [ISSUE INVOLVEMENT] 9. Please indicate where your opinion would be the most accurately reflected on the following continuum. Environmental or conservation issues are/do _____________ to me, Of no concern 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concern Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Important Insignificant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Significant Mean nothing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean a lot Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Needed Worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valuable
114 [POLITICAL IDEOLOGY] 10. When it comes to politics, do you usually think of yourself as ______________? Extremely conservative Conservative Slightly conservative Moderate Slightly liberal Liberal Extremely liberal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [DEMOGRAPHICS] 11. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 12. What is your educational level? a. Less than high school diploma b. High school diploma/equiv. c. Some college d. Bachelor's degree e. Masters degree f. Ph.D. degree 13. What is your ethnicity? a. Asian/Pacific Islander b. Black/African American c. Caucasian/White d. Hispanic/Latino e. American Indian f. Other 14. Please indicate your political affiliation. a. Republican b. Democrat c. Independent d. None 15. Please indicate your annual income level. a. $14,999 or Less b. $15,000 $29,999 c. $30,000 $49,999 d. $50,000 $75,000 e. $75,000 $99,999 f. $100,000 or More 16. How old are you?
115 [SCREENING QUESTION] 17. Does the organization's Facebook, that you just saw (NOT in general), allow publics to comment, share, Like, or post? a. Yes b. No
116 LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, P. & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17 40. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall. Ahlqvist, T., B ck, A., Heinonen, S., & Halonen, M. (2010). Roadmapping th e societal transformation potential of social media. foresight, 12(5), 3 26. Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of marketing research, 18 34. Bargh, J. (2000). Beyond simple truths: The humanInternet interaction. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 1 8. Bargh, J. & McKenna, K. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 573 590. Blumler, J. & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: T he current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bok, S. (1989). Secrets On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Vintage Books. Bortree, D. (2005, August). Building relationships with child publics: Study of the content of nutrition Websites for children. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Antonio, TX. Bortee, D. (2010). Exploring adolescent organization relationships: A study of effective relationship strategies with adolescent volunteers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 1 25. Bortree, D. & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35 317319. Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer mediated Communication, 13, 210 230. Brehm, J. & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41 (3), 9991023. Brenner, J. (2012, November 13). Pew Internet: Social Networking. Retrieved December 13, 2012, from http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/ 2012/March/Pew Internet Social Networking fulldetail.aspx
117 Browne, M. & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230258. Bruin, D. (2008, October 21). Voter turnout low, apathy high among youngest age bracket. CBS News. Retrieved December 13, 2012 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/politics/uwire/main4537980. s html Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3 5. Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643 663. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81 105. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. (1954). The voter decides Evanston, IL: Row, Pe terson. Canary, D. J. & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 239 267. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Ed.), Communication and Relational Maintenance (pp. 322). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Carpini, D (2004). Mediating democratic engagement. In L.L. Kaid (Ed.), Mediating democratic engagement (pp. 395435). Handbook of P olitical Communication Research. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8, 342 367. Cigler, A. & Joslyn, M. R. (2002). The extensiveness of group membership and social capital: The impact on political tolerance attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 7 25.
118 Clary, E., Snyder, M., Ridge, R., Copeland, J., Stukas, A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 15161530. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 120. Condon, M. (2009). The Effect of Social Capital on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment in Two Southwestern Cities Madison, WI: University of WisconsinMadison. Retrieved September 31, 2012 fr om http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/behavior/Papers/Condon2009.pdf Conrad, D. (2007). Defining social capital. Electronic Journal of Sociology Retrieved July 6, 2012 from http://sociology.org/content/2007/_contrad_social_capital.pdf Conway, M. (1985). Political participation in the United States Washington, DC: Congress Quarterly Press. Coombs, W. (1998). The Internet as potential equalizer: new leverage for confronting social irresponsibility, Public Relations Review, 24, 289304. De Carolis, D. & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4156. deUlzurun, L. M. (2002). Associational membership and social capital in comparatice perspective: A note on the problems of measurement. Politics and Society, 30(3), 497523. Donath, J. & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71 82. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager's guide to excellence in public relations and communication management Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AMCIS 2007, Keystone, CO. Retrieved October 1, 2012 from http://www.csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook Friends: Social capital and college students use of online s ocial network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 1143 1168. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873 892.
119 Erbe, W. (1964). Social involvement and political activity: a replication and elaboration. American Sociological Review 198 215. Erikson, E. E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton. Esrock, S. & Leichty, G. (2000). Orga nization of corporate Web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26 327 344. Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K., & Rawlins, B. (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7 23 37. Feezell, J., Conroy, M., & Guer rero, M. (2009). Facebook is... fostering political engagement: a study of online social networking groups and offline participation Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada. Fomell, C. D., & Larcker F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39 50. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. The Free Press, New York. Fuk uyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7 20. Gerber, A., Green, P., & Larimer, C. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a largescale field experiment. The American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33 48. Goodman, M. B. (2002). Guest editorial. Corporate Communications, 7(4), 204 205. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380. Grunig, J. E. & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Ed.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational appr oach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E. & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communic ation management (pp. 285325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., Grunig L. A., Sriramesh, K., & Huang, Y., Lyra, S. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7 (3), 163 186.
120 Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication managem ent in three countries Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hallahan, K. (2004). Online public relat ions. In H. Bidgoli (Ed.), The Internet Encyclopedia, Vol. 2 (pp. 769 783). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Hanifan, L. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67 130 138. Harper, R. & Kelly, M. (2 003). Measuring social capital in the United Kingdom London: Office for National Statistics. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 125 147. Hon, L. & Grunig, J. E. (1999) Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute For Public Relations, University of Florida, PO Box 118400 Gainesville, FL 326118400. Hogan, B. & QuanHaase, A. (2010.) Persistence and change in social media. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30(5), 309315. Hook, M., Gerstein, L., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 462 472. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross cultural, multiple item scale for measuring organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 6190.
121 Huang, Y. H. C., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organization public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges Public Relations Review, 39(1), 85 87. Hung, C. J. F. (2000). Organizationpublic Relationships, Relationship Maintenance Strategies, and Relationship Outcomes Paper presented at the Educators Academy, Public Relations Society of America, Miami, FL. Huston, T. L., McHale, S., & Crouter, A. (1986). When the honeymoon's over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Ed.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109 132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huston, T. L. & Robins, E. (1982). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 901925. International Telecommunication Union (2012). Trends in telecommunication reform 2012: Smart regulation for a broadband world. Geneva: Switzerland, ITU. James, W. L., & Sonner, B. S. (2001). Just say no to traditional student samples. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 63 72. Jin, B. (2008, March). Do corporate public relations and citizenship contribute to community building? Enhancing trust as a resource of social capital. Paper presented to the International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL. Johnson, D. W. &. Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kaase, M. (1999). Interpersonal Trust, Political Trust and Noninstitutionalised Political Participation in Western Europe. West European Politics, 22(3), 1 21. Kanervo, E., & Zhang, W. (2005, Nov ember). Mass media, interpersonal and institutional trust and Participation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL. Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunites of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59 68. Kaskutas, L. A., Bond, J., & Humphreys, K. (2002). Social networks as mediators of the effect of Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction, 97(7), 891 900. Keele, L. (2007). Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 241 254. Kelleher, T. & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 395414.
122 Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review 24(3), 321 334. Ki, E. & Hon. L. (2006). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company web sites. Journal of Communication Management, 10, 27 43. Ki, E. & Hon, L. C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organizationpublic relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization. Journalism & Mass Communica tion Quarterly, 84(3), 419 438. Ki, E. & Hon, L. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 1 24. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY : The Guilford Press. Klofstad, C. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 180191. Kosic, A. (2007). Motivation for civic participation of im migrants: the role of personal resources, social identities, and personal traits. University of Oldenburg. POLITIS Working paper (11). Krout, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 10171031. Kwak, N., Shah, D.V., & Holbert, R.L. (2004). Connecting, trusting, and participating: The direct and int eractive effects of social associations. Political Research Quarterly, 57(4), 643652. Lake, R. & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology 19 (3), 567 584. Lampe. C, Ellison N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work New York: ACM, 167 170. Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. (199 8). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of personality and social psychology 74(5), 12381251. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organizationpublic relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55 65.
123 Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167183. Levi, M. (1997). Consent, dissent, and patriotism New York, NY: Cambrige Univ. Press. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611637. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazons Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods, 44(1), 1 23. Mayer, A. & Puller, S. (2008). The Old Boy (and Girl) Network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 329347. McClurg, S. (2003). Social networks and political participat ion: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449464. McClurg, S. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737 754. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the fivefactor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 5187). New York, NY: Guilford. McIntyre, S. H., Montgomery, D. B., Srinivasan, V., & Weitz, B. A. (1983). Evaluating the statistical significance of models developed by stepwise regression. Journal of Marketing Research 1 11. McLeod, J. M., Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland Jr, W. P., Bayer, J., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (1996). Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23(2), 179 209. Millar, F. & Rogers, L. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp.87103). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage. Misztal, B. A. (2001). Trust and cooperation: The democratic public sphere. Jo urnal of Sociology, 37(4), 371 386. Morgan, R. & Hunt, R. (1994). The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20 38.
124 Murkherjee, A. & Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online relationship banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(1), 5 15. Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 3(1 4), 115131. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social cap ital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242266. Narayan, D. & Pritchett, L. (1999). Cents and sociability: Household income and social capital in rural Tanzania. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4), 871897. Newhagen, J. E. & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 4 13. Newsrom, J. T. (2012). Nested Models, Model Modifications, and Correlated Errors. Retrieved on June 9, 2013 from http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/semclass/ho_nested.pdf Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 575586 Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review 22(2), 201214. Newton, K. (2007). Social and political trust. In Dalton, R. Dalton, & H. Klingemann, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp.342361). Oxford University Press, U.S.A. Nie, N. & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society, A preliminary report. Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/InternetStudy.htm Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 7(3), 3 13. Nowak, P. J., Rickson, R. E., Ramsey, C. E., & Go udy, W. J. (1982). Community conflict and models of political participation. Rural Sociology, 47, 333348. ONeill, B. (2007). Indifferent Or Just Different?: The Political and Civic Engagement of Young People in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Network. Oswald, D. & Clark, E. (2003). Best friends forever?: High school best friendships and the transition to college. Personal Relationships, 10, 187 196.
125 Papini, D. R., Farmer, F. F., Clark, S. M., Micka, J. C., & De Barnett, J. K. (1990) Early adolescent age and gender differences in patterns of emotional self disclosure to parents. Adolescence, 25, 959 977. Pasek, J., More, E., & Romer, D. (2008). Realizing the social Internet? Online social networking meets offline social capital. J ournal of Information Technology & Politics, 6 (3 4), 1 31. Perloff, R. M. (2008). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century London, UK: Routledge. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65 78. Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Turning in, Turning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28 (4), 664 683. Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospectus 24, 3448. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community New Y ork, NY: Simon & Schuster. Quintelier, E. & Vissers, S. (2008). The effect of Internet use on political participation an analysis of survey results for 16year olds in Belgium. Social Science Computer Review, 26(4), 411 427. Rahn, W. M., & Transue, J. E. (1998). Social trust and value change: The decline of social capital in American youth, 1976 1995. Political Psychology, 19 (3), 545 565. Reinard, J. C. (2006). Communication research statistics Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Reis, H. T., & Shave r, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 367 389). Chichester, England: Wiley. Resnick, P. (2001). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. In J. Carroll (Ed.), HCI in the New M illennium (pp. 247272). Boston, MA: AddisonWesley. Robison, L., Schmid, A., & Siles, M. (2002). Is social capital really capital? Review of Social Economy, 60(1), 1 21. Rothstein, B. & Stolle, D. (2002). How political institutions create and destroy soc ial capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
126 Ruppel, C. P. & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25 (4), 313 328. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918924. Scott, D. & Willits, F. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior, 26 239 260. Seltzer, T. (2007). A coorientational approach for measuring organizationpublic relationships Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. The Impact of Antecedents and Relationship Maintenance Strategies on Perceived Relationship with Political Parties During the 2008 Presidential General Election. that Matters to the Practice, 588. Shah, V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, N. (2001). Connecting and Disconnecting with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141 162. Shah, D., Schmierbach, M., Hawkins, J., Espino, R., & Donovan, J. (2002). Nonrecursiv e models of internet use and community engagement: Questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 964987. Smith, A. (2011, November 15). Why American use social media. Retrieved May 2, 2012 f rom http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Why Americans Use Social Media.aspx Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptabil ity judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 155167. Stafford, L. & Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationshi ps, 8 217 242. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173 180. Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology, 19(3), 497 525. Stolle, D. & Hooghe, M. (2003). Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
127 Sullivan, J. & Transue, J. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625 650. Surra, C. & Ridley, C. (1991). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants, peers, and observers. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Ed.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 3555). New York, NY: Guilford. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relat ionships. Public Relations Review, 27 263 284. Victory, N. J., & Cooper, K. B. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information Administ ration, 16, 17. Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics (pp. 653771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (4), 875 901. Van Liere, K. & Dunlap, R. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review o f hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181197. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waters, R. D (2008). Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process for individual donors. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 7387. Waters, R. & Lord, M. (2009). Examining how advocacy groups build relationships on the Internet. Internat ional Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14, 231241. Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21 26 42. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer M ediated Communication, 11, 593 628. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
128 W oolley, J. K., Limperos, A. M., & Oliver, M. B. (2010). The 2008 Presidential election, 2.0: A Content Analysis of user generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 631 652. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341 352. Zhang, W. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Another piece of the puzzle: Advancing social capital theory by examining the effect of political party relationship quality on political and civic participation. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4 155 170. Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2010). The Revolution Will be Networked The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior. Social Science Com puter Review, 28(1), 75 92. Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini,M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH June Yung Kim received her bachelors in psychology in 2006 from Chung Ang University (Seoul, South Korea). She received a masters degree in media and communication studies in 2009 from Florida State University. She pursued her doctor al degree specializing in Public Relations in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida and received her Ph.D. in the summer of 2013. During her doctoral study, she worked as an instructor and a teaching assistant. She taug ht Public Relations Research and worked as a teaching assistant of Public Relations Campaigns and Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Public Relations for the University of Florida. She also presented her research papers at national conferences in th e United States. June Yung Kims research focuses on usage and psychological effects of new media, political public relations, and relationship management. She will join the Department of Communication/Journalism at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania in the fall of 2013.