Citation
Social Networking Sites as Tools for Relationship Building

Material Information

Title:
Social Networking Sites as Tools for Relationship Building Users' Motivation toward a Company's Facebook Page
Creator:
Chun, Jung Won
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (156 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.M.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication
Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
LEE,MOON J
Committee Co-Chair:
OSTROFF,DAVID HOWARD
Committee Members:
FERGUSON,MARY A
Graduation Date:
8/9/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Blogs ( jstor )
Intentional learning ( jstor )
Mathematical dependent variables ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Motivation research ( jstor )
Online social networking ( jstor )
Psychological attitudes ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Social media ( jstor )
Websites ( jstor )
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
elm -- enjoyment -- facebook -- interactivity -- relationship -- sns -- tam -- usefulness
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.

Notes

Abstract:
Social Networking Sites (SNSs) have received attention as potential tools for relationship building between a company and the public by providing places of communication and interaction with each other. The purpose of this study is to examine (a) what determinants influence individuals' acceptance of a company's SNSs and (b) whether this acceptance influences their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. This study examined the effect of different message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and different level of interactivity (low vs. high) in accordance with individuals' level of enduring involvement with a company, focusing on a company's Facebook page. A total of 171 subjects participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. The results indicated that the effect of utilitarian-oriented messages was greater than hedonic-oriented messages for highly-involved people. Hedonic-oriented messages had only greater influence on individuals' situational involvement with a company's Facebook under low involvement with a company than utilitarian-oriented messages. The results also showed that perceived usefulness, which was increased by utilitarian-oriented messages, perceived enjoyment, which was increased by hedonic-oriented messages, and perceived interactivity were influential factors for individuals' situational involvement with a company's Facebook page. Also, this situational involvement and enduring involvement with a company significantly affected individuals' intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: LEE,MOON J.
Local:
Co-adviser: OSTROFF,DAVID HOWARD.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-08-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jung Won Chun.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2015
Resource Identifier:
968786200 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SOCIAL NETWORK ING SITES AS TOOLS FOR RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: USERS MOTIVATION TOWARD A COMPANY S FACEBOOK PAGE By JUNG WON CHUN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

To my beloved family

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to say thank s to all the people wh o support and help me. Without their encouragement and support, it would not be possible to complete the long journey toward my thesis. First, I sincerely appreciate my advisor and chair, Dr. Lee, for her great mentorship and constant g uidance . She provided valuable advice and feedback and helped me find a direction whenever I am lost in my research. Her great mentorship and emotional encouragement led me to overcome all challenges and pursue a deeper research during my graduate stud y. Also, I would like to express my thanks to my committee members, Dr. Ostroff and Dr. Ferguson. Their invaluable comments and guidance always helped me develop constructs in my thesis. I am also grateful to my friends , e specially Ari Kim and Hany Kim, and the colleagues in the C ollege of Journalism and Communications for their encouragement and emotional support. Their friendship always cheered me up whenev er I was struggling during the long journey. Most importantly, I have to express the depth of my gratitude to all my family, Dukhyun Chun, Kyungsoon Park, and Dongwook Chun for their belief and financial and emotional support during my graduate study. Above all, I would like to e specially th ank my beloved husband, Won seok Jang , for his everlasting love and faith. He always believes in me and encourages me to make this achievement possible. Your existence itself is encouraging me to aim high . I love you .

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 The Growth of Social Network ing Sites ................................ ................................ ... 15 The Growth of Facebook ................................ ................................ .................. 17 Social Network ing Sites as Tools for Relationship Building with the Public ...... 19 ............ 24 Perceived U sefulness ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 Perceived E njoyment ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Perceived I nteractivity ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 Utilitarian and Hedonic Value ................................ ................................ .................. 38 Involvement and Elaboration Likelihood Model ................................ ....................... 43 Hypotheses and Research Question s ................................ ................................ .... 48 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 58 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 58 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 59 Pretest 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 59 Pretest 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 59 Main Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61 Stimuli Development ................................ ................................ ............................... 62 Types of Message ................................ ................................ ............................ 62 Levels of Interactivity ................................ ................................ ........................ 63 Meas ures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 63 Independent Variables ................................ ................................ ..................... 63 Moderator ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 64 Dependent Variables ................................ ................................ ........................ 65 4 RESULT S ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 69 Sample Characteristics ................................ ................................ ........................... 69 Manipulation Check ................................ ................................ ................................ 69

PAGE 5

5 Random Assignment ................................ ................................ ............................... 70 Testing Hy potheses and Research Question s ................................ ........................ 71 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 109 Summary of Fin dings ................................ ................................ ............................ 109 Theoretical and Practical Implications ................................ ................................ .. 113 Limitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ .......... 121 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 122 APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI ................................ ................................ ................... 125 B STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ............................ 139 C QUESTIONNAIRES ................................ ................................ .............................. 140 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 146 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 156

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Number of participants in each cell ................................ ................................ ..... 68 4 1 Description of participants (N = 171) ................................ ................................ .. 92 4 2 Manipulation check of message type ................................ ................................ .. 92 4 3 Manipulation check of level of interactivity ................................ .......................... 92 4 4 Effect of message type on perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment ....... 92 4 5 Effect of message type with level of enduring involvement on dependent variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 93 4 6 Mean of each group based on the level of involvement and message type for intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend use of the company ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 94 4 7 Multiple comparison of mean difference for intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend use of the company ............................... 94 4 8 Mean of each group based on the level of involvement and level of interactivity for dependent variables ................................ ................................ ... 95 4 9 Multiple comparison of mean difference for dependent variables ....................... 96 4 10 Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 98 4 11 Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to learn more about the company ................................ ................................ ............................. 99 4 12 Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to recommend us e of the company ................................ ................................ ................................ . 100 4 1 3 Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends ................................ ................................ ........... 101 4 1 4 Correlation matrix ................................ ................................ ............................. 102

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on situational .......................... 103 4 2 Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on satisfaction of interaction ................................ ................................ ............. 104 4 3 Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on ................................ .............. 105 4 4 Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page ................................ ............... 106 4 5 Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends ............................... 107 4 6 Results of regression analysis for the full research model ................................ 108

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AS TOOLS FOR RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: USERS MOTIVATION TOWARD A COMPANY S FACEBOOK PAGE By Jung Won Chun August 2014 Chair: Moon J. Lee Major: Mass Communication Social Networking Sites (SNSs) have received attention as potential tools for relationship building between a company and the public by providing places of communication and interaction with each other. The purpose of this study is to examine (a) what dete whether this acceptance influences their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. This study examined the effect of different message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and different level of interactivity (low vs. high) in accordance with individuals level of enduring involvement with a company, focusing on a company s Facebook page . A to tal of 171 subjects participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. The results indicated that the effect of utilitarian oriented messages was greater than hedonic oriented messages for highly involved people. Hedonic oriented messages had only greater influence on individuals situational involvement with a company s Facebook under low involvement with a company than utilitarian oriented messages. The results also showed that perceived usefulness, which was inc reased by utilitarian oriented messages, perceived enjoyment,

PAGE 9

9 whi ch was increased by hedonic oriented messages, and perceived interactivity were influential factors for individuals situational involvement with a company s Facebook page. Also, this situati onal involvement and enduring involvement with a company significantly affected individuals intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the com pany to Facebook friends.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION People feel free to share their feelings, the details of their lives, and their opinions through social media. They also create their own content and collaborate with others by using various interactive tools available on the Web (Harrison & Barthel, 2009). Thus, people actively interact with each other in online communities. Social network ing sites (SNSs) in particular have brought about remarkable changes in ation tool, people can show and share information and opinions with each other m uch easi er than ever before (boyd & Ellison, 2007). SNSs are currently am ong the most significant and effective interactive tools; they allow people to connect to one another, build social networks, and maintain relationships with others ( Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Bernoff & Li, 2008; Joinson, 2008; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2010 ). Today, n ot only individuals but also organizations (e.g., companies, governmental agencies) u se SNSs as communication tools (Syed Ahmad & Murphy, 2010). Since SNSs act as tools for building and maintaining relationships among people, many organizations are also using SNSs to develop relationships with the public (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lamp, 2007; Lin & Lu, 2011b). The emergence of smartphones, especially, has led to more frequent participation in SNSs and boosted the positive effect on relationships between the public and various organizations (Nielsen, 2012 ) . Companies actively use SNSs by direct ly communicating with their consumers (Peters & Salazar, 2010). Many global companies have their own online channels, such as Facebook pages and Twitter accounts , and effectively use them for communication, brand

PAGE 11

11 management, and building positive relation ships (Ellison et al., 2007; Pfeil, Arjan, & Zaphiris, 2009). Facebook, in particular, has come into the spotlight for brand management as well as management of favorable relationships with publics because Facebook is the dominant online social networking tool (Nielsen, 2011). Thus, to gain shows how organizations use SNSs. According to Nielsen (2012), SNSs are used in a variety of ways, i ncluding customer decision making process. Consumers engage with social network channels such as inten tion; in SNSs, brands, products, and services, 53% compliment brands, and 50% express concerns or complaints about brands or services (Nielsen, 2012). This result indicated that people regar express their own opinions and also consider SNSs as tools for learning more about the company. Since communication and interaction is an early step of building relationship betw een organizations and the public (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Gruning & potential to build relationship between companies and the public; that is, SNSs can play a role for initial step of relationship building. To understand SNSs as tools for potential relationship building , it is important to know why individuals use SNSs. If companies comprehend what factors associated with SNSs affect , the information may be

PAGE 12

12 advantageous for building a favorable relationship with the public in the future. In this respect, the determinants that affect should be examined. Several researchers have examined the motivations or determinants that influence & Warshaw, 1989, 1992; Hsu & Lin, 2008; Moon & Kim, 2001; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999; Teo, 2001; Wu, Chen, & Lin, 2007). They proposed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and found that both extrinsic (i.e., usefulness) and intrinsic (i.e., enjoyment) motivations in to use the technology (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Moon & Kim, 2001 ; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999) . With the development of technology, several researchers have extended TAM. For example, after the advent of SNSs, the most prominent interactive tools, new determinants such as interactivity have been investigated in the context of technology acceptance (Lustria, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006; Wu, 1999). In other words, an interactivity, of SNSs has an impact on attitude toward or intention to use the technology. However, few studies have investigated what these factors influence individuals acceptance of how the acceptance of SNSs is related to the relationships between companies and the public. differences such as level of involvement with the company should be considered because they may put a different complexion on acceptance of SNSs. Petty and rate Likelihood Model (ELM) suggested two routes of what

PAGE 13

13 based on personally different levels of involvement that affect attitude formation or change: central and peripheral. In the central route corresponding to high involvement, the usefulness of message argument is the most influential on attitude change while in the peripheral route corresponding to low involvement, affective cues such as attractiveness have a significant impact on attitude change (Petty &Cacioppo, 1981). In this sense, each feature of involvement with the company. The purpose of this study is to examine (a) what determinants influence influences their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. For this purpose, this study exa company that affect attit ude toward the Facebook page is investigated in the TAM context. Moreover, this study also examines whether this acceptance of a Facebook page influences the relationship between a company and the public. Even though relationship building is accomplished over time, communication and interaction through SNSs opens an opportunity to entering into a favorable relationship ; thus, this study focuses on SNSs as tools for communication and interaction and how these communication tools tions that may lead to further relationship between a company

PAGE 14

14 and the public: intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Growth of Social Network ing Sites The concept of social networking sites (SNSs) emerged in the context of the Web 2.0 environment. Several researchers have suggested that SNSs can be understood under Web 2.0 as an umbrella term (boyd & Ellison, 2007; Beer , 2008). The concept of the concept of an active audience. In Web 2.0, people handle technology in more active ways by creating their own content and collaborating with other users in a web based environment, people can more readily interact with ea ch other, share their feelings and opinions, highly associate with webpage display and application, and directly participate in the web based experience (Harrison & Barthel, 2009). This is because web services based on Web 2.0 make it possible for people t o easily use the services without specific technical knowledge (Harrison & Barthel, 2009). SN Ss such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been growing noticeably as interactive tools based on the concept of Web 2.0. Thus, SNSs can be understood through s everal characteristics of Web 2.0: an easy to use tool for retrieving information, producing user generated content, and interacting and collaborating with millions of other users. based services that allow individuals to (1) cons truct a public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections

PAGE 16

16 11). That is, SNSs are simply understood as tools for connections between people that expand an SNSs allow people to link to their family, friends, acquaintances, and even new people with ease (Beer, 2008). Since SNSs are based on individual connections, they ca n connect people with common interests such as exchanging information and sharing opinions and feelings, which can help people build and maintain their social networks (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Bernoff & L i, 2008; Raacke & Bonds Raacke, 2008). By using this online networking tool, people can actively communicate with one another beyond the restrictions of time and space and rapidly disseminate information with ease. SNSs have several characteristics th at di ffer from other online communities such as news sites, blog comments, and forums. Rau, Gao, and Ding (2008) suggested that SNSs are designed for different purposes. The y pointed out that since SNSs are designed for building and maintaining social networks, they are distinguished from other Rau and colleagues (2008) also suggested tha t each person in SNSs is connected in parallel as a network whereas people in other existing online communities are in hierarchical groups. In this sense, SNSs provide a more user centric system than other online communities. Several researchers have also postulated that while SNSs up development, people centric, user controlled, context driven, decentralized, and self d own developed, place centric,

PAGE 17

17 moderator controlled, topic other online services, SNS users are more active and participatory than people in other online communities. SNSs are also more visible, direct, and interpersonal relationship tools than other online communities because they connect people to people (Rau et al., 2008). Thus, in SNSs, connection between use rs is a priority rather than a secondary function. This is because most SNSs enable users to establish and maintain relationships by providing services for self presentation, such as online profiles, and for keeping up with friends and acquaintances, such as friends lists (Rau et al., 2008). Thus, SNSs can be comprehended as online services for building and maintaining interpersonal relationships based on connections among people. Several empirical studies have also proved this notion (Dwyer, 2007; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2010; Joinson, 2008). Dwyer (2007) examined why an individual uses technology mediated communication modes, including instant messenger and text messaging, and social networking sites, such as MySpace, and indicated that people use these too ls to maintain interpersonal relationships. Cheung et al. (2010) also found that maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity, which refers to social benefits stemming from building and maintaining contact with others, influences intent to use SNSs such as Facebook. These results underscore the impact of SNSs as tools for building and maintaining relationships. The Growth of Facebook r ise in popularity parallels developments in technology. According to Brenner and Smith (2013), among online users, almo st three quarters (72%) use SNS;

PAGE 18

18 in comparison with the 8% of online users of SNSs in 2005, this result demonstrates the continuous growth of SNSs. With this popularity, various types of social networking services have emerged, including the microblog (e.g ., Twitter), professional social networking service (e.g., LinkedIn), online video sharing service (e.g., YouTube), and online photo sharing service (e.g., Pinterest). Among these varied types of SNSs, online are still preeminent. In particular, Facebook, which is also a service based on shared profiles, has attracted the most attention from the public throughout the world (Nielsen, 2011). Today, Facebook ranks first among the top 10 American social networks and blogs in terms of most visitors and time spent (Nielsen, 2011). This online profile service launched in early 2004 as a Harvard networks (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Since 2005, Facebook has expanded its servi ce not only for college students but also for all people. Now, all people can have their own profile (called a time line) on Facebook. Moreover, by expanding the service across the globe, various countries, including the United States, are using Facebook; today, there are more than one billion active Facebook users, which means people who have visited the website in the last 30 days (Fowler, 2012). By providing an individual with a personal profile, Facebook allows people to share their life and interests w ith others, and this encourages people to build and maintain their social network. In other words, Facebook is the most prominent service for interaction and relationship building. Several previous studies related to social networking services, thus, have focused on Facebook and its impact as a connection tool ( Ellison et al., 2007, 2011 ; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009

PAGE 19

19 social networking tool. The current study also focused on the use of Facebook in the context of the organizational dimension. Social Network ing Sites as Tools for Relationship Building with the Public As mentioned, SNSs play a significant role in relationship building by helping role in building and maintaining relationships under the interpersonal dimension (Dwyer, 2007; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2010; Ellison et al., 2007; Joinson, 2008); however, this function of relationship building may be expanded to the organizational dimension, which means that SNSs can play a significant role in building and maintaining relationships between organizations and the public. The role of SNSs in relationship building between organizations and publics can be developed from many studies in terms of the World Wide Web as a tool for communication between organizations and the public. Previous researchers have postu lated that web based services have an impact on relationship building between organizations and publics (Kent & Taylor, 1998, 2002; Park & Reber, 2008; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). This is bec ause the Internet provides a place for communication, which is a fundamental factor in relationship building. With the increasing importance of relationship building and management in both profit and non profit organizations, prior researchers have explor ed what relationship means and how to build relationships between organizations and the public. Early studies in regard to organization public relationship building started from interpersonal relationship research. According to several researchers (Surra & Ridley, 1991; Millar &

PAGE 20

20 Rogers, 1976), relationship includes both behavior and cognition with respect to interpersonal communication and interaction with partners. Under the interpersonal dimension, relationship means the exchange of information or feelin gs with others through interpersonal communication or interaction to create mutual adaption and contingent responses (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). In organization publics relationships, thus, communication and interaction are considered important factor s that affect building or maintaining relationships. Broom et al. (1997) tried to explain the relationship between organizations and publics by adopting various perspectives o n relationships, such as interpersonal communication, psychotherapy, interorganiz ational relationships, and systems theory. They suggested three steps of organization publics relationships from antecedents to consequences and additional elements such as the properties of exchanges, transactions, communications, and other interconnected activities. These elements emphasize the importance of communication and interaction that creates mutual contentment. That is, for relationship building between organizations and the public, two way communication is a key factor to make publics feel the i nteraction with organizations (Gruning & Gruning, 1992) because a relationship cannot be built using only one way communication interactions (Taylor et al. , 2001). After the advent of the Internet, the audience had more power and this active audience has b een a key factor in two way or many to many communication. In this respect, the World Wide Web received attention as a tool for relationship building between organizations and publics . Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002) pointed out the importance of dialogue bet ween organizations and the public via the Internet for

PAGE 21

21 relationship building and maintenance. They posited that the Internet is a space where dialogue can affect relationship building. Since dialogue has several characteristics, such as mutuality, propinqu ity, empathy, and commitment, it can create relationships between organizations and publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002) . Based on this argument, they presented five principles for building dialogic relationships: dialogic loop, the usefulness of information, the generation of return visits, ease of the interface, and the rule of conservation of visitors. To create a dialogic loop via the Internet, it is important that people feel a presence toward the website. a primary part of the dialogic loop; in teraction with the public is significant for relationship building with the public. They also suggested that providing useful information is important in establishing a relationship with the public. With regard to the principle for the generation of return visits, they argued that to make visitors return to the sites, interesting content, in teractivity, and useful information are important. Thus, if people feel pleasure or contentment when they visit a website, they ar e likely to revisit the site. These five principles reflect characteristics of the Internet, such as interactivity, entertainment, and exchange of information, and also have an effect on relationship building. Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) indicated that for relational maintenance and satisfactory interactions. In other words, these principles

PAGE 22

22 are needed to build and maintain relationships and develop long term and satisfying relationships betwe en organizations and the public (Taylor et al., 2001). So in the context of the organizational dimension. Taylor et al. (2001) investigated how five principles. Through this study, they implied that the use of web services in a investigate an environment principles to analyze how organizations use their web based service and suggested the web as a place for relationship building . However, these studies only focused on how well designed the web services were but did not explore how the online services actually influence relationship building with the public. Some scholars have tried to examine the relationship between interactive online communication and the organization publics relationship. Kelleher and Miller (2006) voice, communicated relational commitment measured by assurance and openness, task sharing, responsiveness/customer service, and positivity/optimism are correlated web pages and found that conversational voice and communicated relational commitment a re positively correlated with some relational outcomes (trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment). Because conversational human voice and communicated relational commitment are based on communication with publics,

PAGE 23

23 s (2006) result indicated that the relationship between organizations and publics can be built or maintained by interacting with people via online services. These previous studies ca n b e applied to SNSs in terms of the impact of web based services on relationship building. Since SNSs are web based interactive tools, these services can also be comprehended in the context of relationship building on the Web. Moreover, SNSs are the easiest way to connect to the public and, thus, many organizations are using them to communicate with the public more interactively than ever before. Organizations can listen and talk to the public more effectively because an SNS is a user centered communication tool. Wright and Hinson (2009) suggested that SNSs change how organizations communicate with employees, customers, stockholders, and communities. In particular, companies are using SNSs as interactive tools with their customers, and this is a growing trend (Peters & Salazar, 2010). Recently, researchers have begun to investigate the use of SNSs in the business context not only for advertising but also for brand and relationship management. Several studies have show n t hat many companies are using SNSs to enh ance their brand attractiveness (Lin & Lu, 2011a; Peters & Salazar, 2010). In particular, studies have focused on Facebook (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). For example, McCorkindale (2009) analyzed the content of Facebook fa n p ages of 50 companies on the Fortune 500 index to examine the level of current usage. The study found that most companies do not simply use Facebook pages to convey information directly related to their businesses; they als o u se them to correspond with t heir customers. This result

PAGE 24

24 implies that companies know the impact of Facebook in terms of managing positive relationships with the public. However, these studies only focused on how companies use SNSs as tools for relationship building by analyzing the c ontent in SNSs, but little empirical research exists with regard to actual effect of SNSs on relationship building. To unearth this as tools for relationship building. In th is sense, the present study investigate s how of the service influences relationship building. Even though t he organization publics relationship is built over a long period of time (Hon & Gruning, 1999 ), interaction may be a trigger to create further favorable relationships between companies and publics via online because communication and interaction is the beginning stage to enter a favorable relationship with the public, In this respect, this study examine s several intentions that may lead to further relationship building (i.e., intention to learn more about the company , intention to recommend us e of the company , intention to promote the company to Facebook friends) . received attention from various researchers ( Davis , 1989; Davis et al. , 1989, 1992; Hsu & Lin, 2008; Moon & Kim, 2001; Teo et al. , 1999; Teo, 2001; Wu, Chen, & Lin, 2007 ) . Since SNSs are the predominant new IT, these tools can also be studied in the context of personal acceptance of IT. The prevailing mod el to explain users' acceptance of IT is

PAGE 25

25 the technology acceptance model (TAM). This model is derived from studies in regard to factors that drive individuals' behavior, such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). Fisherbein and Ajzen (1975) indicated th at attitude toward a behavior and subjective norm are determinants of actual behavior. They suggested that these two determinants influence intention toward behavior, which leads to actual behavior. In his or her behavioral intent and subjective norms, and this intention is highly correlated with actual action. To explore the process of behavior, they presented the definition of each determinant; attitude itive or negative feelings (evaluative should not perform the behavior in questi toward a behavior is determined by beliefs, and subjective norms are influenced by normative beliefs. As TRA suggests some determinants of attitude toward a behavior, Davis (1986) also proposed determinants tha t influence attitude toward acceptance and or rejection of technology. He also adopted the effect of attitude toward a behavior on actual behavior from the TRA model and suggested that attitude toward the technology has an influence on intention to use the technology. Early TAM research found that subjective norms have no impact on intention to use the technology (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and thus many of early TAM studies excluded subjective norms as an independent variable. tude toward behavior is assumed to be affected by personal belief in the TRA research, the determinants that influence attitude toward technology

PAGE 26

26 have been actively examined in TAM research. The early model of technology acceptance only focused on how user s' perception of the technology's usefulness and ease of use influences attitude toward technology and intention to use it (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). Also, the initial model was based on how users perceive usefulness and ease of use when they emplo y the functions of specific technology. However, with changes in the technology environment, in particular under Web 2.0, not only perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use but also other determinants such as perceived enjoyment and perceived interact ivity have received attention to explain users' acceptance of technology because several characteristics in Web 2.0 can be distinguished from the previous web environment (Lin & Lu, 2011b; Zhang & Lu, 2011; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006). SNSs are considered pro minent web services in the context of Web 2.0. Thus, the features of Web 2.0, such as active users, fast and easy dissemination of information, and interaction with others, are also relevant to SNSs. t is important to examine the Perceived U sefulness As antecedent studies of TAM, several studies have examined the factors that ently possess certain factors that stimulate them to act. He suggested two types of motivations affecting acceptance of technology. In particular, since extrinsic mo tivation is a desire for

PAGE 27

27 behavior that brings about a specific outcome, the usefulness of the technology is a technology usage. According to Davis (1989, p. 985), perceived u sefulness of the technology refers that perceived usefulness affects attitud e toward information technology and intention to use it, which closely links to actual use of the technology. Thus, this determinant significantly influences information technology usage. Early studies of TAM focused on the use of computers (Davis, 1989; D avis et al., 1989, 1992; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995). computers, especially word processing systems. They found that perceived usefulness intention to use computers. Since the advent of the Internet, many studies have also examined what based services such as online banking and e commerce; results indicated that perceived usefulne ss is an influential determinant affecting attitude toward the service or intention to use it (Cyr, Hassanein, Head, & Ivanov, 2007; Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003; Gefen & Straub, 2004; Lai & Li, 2004; Pikkarainen, Pikkarainen, Karjaluoto, & Pahnila, 20 04; Teo, Lim, & Lai., 1999; Teo, 2001). Gefen and colleagues (2003), for example, applied TAM to online shopping activity. They studied what determinants affect online commerce by using perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in TAM. They also added trust in the e vendor as a variable to investigate how an individual uses online vendors. They

PAGE 28

28 vendors. They proved once again that perceived usefulness is the strongest direct de terminant of intended use of online commerce. In turn, in the context of web based services, attitude toward the service and intent to use it. More recently, with the r apid growth of SNSs, researchers have paid more attention to how TAM applies to the use of SNSs (Lee, Xiong, & Hu, 2012; Leng, Lada, Muhammad, Ibrahim, & Amboala, 2011; Kwon & Wen, 2010; Lin & Lu, 2011b; Shin, 2010; Zhang & Lu, 2011). Kwon and Wen (2010) s howed that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are significant determinants influencing the use of SNSs. They also added individual propensities as external variables, including social identity, altruism, and telepresence, that affect these dete rminants. By adding individual propensity, the authors reinforced the impact of perceived usefulness on intention to use SNSs. These studies concluded that attitude toward technology and intention to use it a re determined by perceived usefulness. This mea ns that perceived usefulness is a main determinant to account for why people use SNSs. However, initial studies of TAM were limited in fully understanding why people use specific technology because they only focused on an extrinsic motivation represented a s perceived usefulness. Thus, follow up studies have been conducted to include other determinants of the technology usage. Perceived E njoyment Even though both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations affect intention to use information technology, early TAM st udies only focused on extrinsic motivation that

PAGE 29

29 refers to doing of an activity for leading to a separable outcome or increasing job performance. Thus, these studies usually investigated perceived usefulness of technology as a main determinant that affects intention to use it; however, they did not examined determinants related to intrinsic motivation. To reinforce the model, several researchers included intrinsic motivation in their TAM research (Davis et al., 1992; Igbaria, Iivari, & Maragahh, 1995). They introduced the concept of perceived enjoyment as a form of intrinsic motivation affecting intention to use a computer in the workplace; inherently interesting or enjoyab respect, perceived enjoyment of technology is regarded as intrinsic motivation. Several studies examined the inf and perceived enjoyment) on the intention to use word processing software and business graphics programs in the workplace (e.g. Davis et al., 1992; Igbaria et el., 1995). They found that people use computers in workplace because they perceive them as not only useful but also enjoyable. Intrinsic motivation such as perceived enjoyment is also r elated to general use of the Internet. Teo et al. (1999) examined both extrinsic and intrinsic motivati on in Internet perceived usefulness but also perceived enjoyment influences Internet usage, measured in terms of frequency and diversity of usage. Teo (2001) further studied the relationship between demographic variables; motivation variables such as perceived

PAGE 30

30 usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment; and Internet activit ies such as messaging, browsing, downloading, and purchasing. Through this study, he concluded again that perceived enjoyment is also a significant factor for using the Internet. Moon and Kim (2001) also extended TAM in a World Wide Web context. They fou nd that when individuals connect to the web, they perceive playfulness or enjoyment as well as usefulness. Hsu and Lin (2008) supported this argument in the context of blog usage. The researchers investigated which blog factors (i.e., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment) allow individuals to participate in a blog (e.g. reading blog posts or leaving comments to the posts) and found that perceived enjoyment is the most influential factor that affects attitude toward participating in a blog whereas perceived usefulness has no significant impact on blog use. With the emergence of SNSs, perceived enjoyment has received more attention that perceived enj oyment is a stronger predictor of intention to use a pleasure oriented information system than perceived usefulness, Lin and Lu (2011b) found that enjoyment Leng and co lleagues (2011) also found that perceived enjoyment is more significant than perceived usefulness in terms of SNS usage. Based on this result, they concluded that people use SNSs for fun and enjoyment. These results indicate that the use of SNSs is more cl as perceived usefulness.

PAGE 31

31 The study of motivations for SNS usage has been conducted not only based on the personal dimension but also on the organizational dimension. Lee and colleagues (2012) pointed out that SNSs can be used by companies as marketing tools, especially for event marketing. They analyzed Facebook event pages to determine what makes people visit them. According to their study, perceived enjoyment has a significant impact perceived ease of use are not significantly influential. They suggested that it is important to generate emotions and provide enjoyment to visitors of event pages to arouse intenti on of going to the event. All these recent results demonstrate the importance of enjoyment when people use SNSs. I n this regard, perceived enjoyment can be examined as a significant variable in the context of SNS usage. However, most previous studies have SNS and simply generalized the result of the studies; some simply concluded perceived enjoyment of SNSs is more influential than perceived usefulness in terms of intention to use the SNSs (Leng et al., 2011; Lin & Lu, 2011b). However, the tendency of SNSs usage may vary from individual to individual. Thus, it is needed to investigate what Perceived I nteractivity One of the main advantages of the Internet is that it opens up an opportunity for two way or many to many communication for interaction with others. In this respect, interactivity has received attention as a significant characteristic of web based services (Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Wu & Chang, 2005). However, since interactivity in computer mediated communication has been researched in only the past 15 to 20 years and the concept is composed of various facets, the definition of interactivity on the web has not

PAGE 32

32 been well established (Do wnes & McMillan, 2000; Johnson, Bruner , & Kumar, 2006). Thus, several definitions of interactivity exist in the Internet context. Steuer (1992) proposed that interactivity refers to "the extent to which users can participate in modifying the format and c communication parties can act on each other, on the communication medium, and on the messages and the degree to which suc Meanwhile, Ha and James (1998) pointed out that existing definitions of interactivity start from the unrealistic concept of mutual interest in two way communication. Instead, extent to which the communicator and the 461). To create a more elaborate concept of interactivity, they also suggested five dimensions of interactivity: playfulness, choice, connectedness, information collection, and reciprocal communication. Based on these previous studies, McMillan and Hwang (2002) further suggested three features of interactivity through which to measure it: direction of communication, user control , and time. These three elements encompass several concepts. For example, direction of communication includes reciprocity, two way communication, responsiveness, and interchange, user control contains participation, and time means real time communication, timely response, and quick and easy navigation for seeking information that users want (McMillan & Hwang, 2002). These dimensions were created in an environment mediated by the Internet and, thus, there may be two kinds of interactivity in accordance with the target of interaction; individuals can interact with

PAGE 33

33 other people via the Internet, but they can also interact with the interface. McMillan (2002) indicated that interactivity is not only applied to communication among individuals but also to character istics of a specific medium by suggesting three types of interactivity: user to user, user to system, and user to document interactivity. Stromer Galley (2004) also argued that interactivity must be investigated under two distinct perspectives: (a) interac tion between individuals and computer or web based systems and (b) interaction among people. In this context, two views of interactivity may be proposed: functional and contingency. Sundar, Kalyanaraman, and Brown (2003) argued that the functional view of e xample, they posited that time is a significant factor in measuring interactivity and suggested that quick and easy navigation of the interface can be included under the element called time. Corresponding to this concept, other researchers have also studi ed interactivity in the context of functional features such as hyperlinks, chat rooms, feedback forms, and downloading function (Chang & Wang, 2008; McMillan, Hwang, & Lee, 2003; Trammell, Williams, Postelnicu, & Landreville, 2006). These studies postulate d that websites including a greater number of functional features retain higher interactivity. For example, McMillan et al. (2003) considered websites with high interactivity as sites that d the hyperlink as a key element of interactivity because it facilitates the quick and easy location of

PAGE 34

34 interactivity does not allow for understanding of all aspects of intera ctivity but merely explains what functions the web services have for interactivity. Sundar and colleagues (2003) pointed out that functional interactivity seems to be predicated more on enhancing visual features of interactivity than designating outcomes o f actual interactive communication. To account for the full aspects of interactivity, Sundar et al. (2003) presented the messages, with an emphasis on how messages relate of the extent that in a given series of communication exchanges, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degr ee to which previous exchanges es to one another. That is, under the contingency view, message contingency, which means successive messages depending on previous messages, is a significant concept in understanding interactivity; thus, for high interactivity, consecutive responses are im portant during interaction. Previously mentioned definitions of interactivity have also suggested response time and response contingency as significant factors of interactivity. Based on that suggestion, Alba, Lynch, Weitz, Janiszewski, Lutz, Sawyer, and Wood (1997) proposed an instantaneous response similar to the response time in face to face communication for effective electronic communications. They also suggested response contingency,

PAGE 35

35 function of the In other words, the contingency view of interactivity is based on an immediate and consecutive response from one party to the other party. In this respect, real time communication such as face to face communication can be considered contingency interactivity. Sunder and colleagues (2003) also regarded face to face communication as the highest interactivity in the contingency view, whereas information retrieval systems were regarded as the lowest; f ace to face communication facilitates a higher degree of contingency when one party responds to the other. Thus, to increase interactivity in computer mediated communication, many studies have focused on how to adapt properties of face to face communicati on to computer mediated communication (Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kelleher, 2009; Kuhn, 2005; Sweester & Metzgar, 2007). They considered the concept of conversation in the web based service context; that is, a real conversational voice can be regarded as a k ey organizations and publics, which positively correlates with main relational outcomes such as trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. His study paralleled to one communication and thus blogs are regarded as humanized web services and thus blogs can be considered the most i nteractive web based platform for natural and real communication. With the prevalence of SNSs, however, social networking services can be regarded as more interactive tools than blogs; SNSs are considered more intimate and

PAGE 36

36 immediate media than blogs beca use they provide an interface that is easier to use and more conversational content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). In other words, SNSs may be understood as more humanized tools than blogs. Thus, interactivity, particularly from the contingency view of interac actual acceptance of SNSs. Several previous studies have investigated how perceived interactivity influences attitude toward web based services (Lustria, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006; Wu, 1999). Wu (1999) investigated how perceived interactivity is related to attitude toward websites through two major greeting card websites and found that perceived interactivity is positively related to attitude toward websites. Thorson and Rodgers (2006) also exa mined the relationship between perceived interactivity in web blogs and attitude toward the websites and the results indicated that high perceived interactivity influences high attitude toward websites. However, most previous studies on interactivity were based on websites, whereas fe w empirical studies have focused on the impact of interactivity in social networking services. In SNSs, people can interact with others with much greater ease in real time, and this is one of the most remarkable attributes tha t distinguish SNSs from other online services such as typical websites, online communities, and online discussion boards. Thus, interactivity can be a more influential factor affecting attitude toward SNSs versus other online services. In other words, if u interactivity, they may develop a positive attitude toward the sites. Moreover, previous studies have rarely distinguished between contingency interactivity and functional interactivity, but mainly focused on the functional view of

PAGE 37

37 int eractivity. Most previous research investigated the function of web based services such as the hyperlink to determine how interactivity affects attitude toward the service. Even though some studies ha ve examined contingency interactivity, little empirical research has investigated the contingency view of interactivity in the context of SNSs. In this sense, perceived interactivity, particularly contingency interactivity, may be adopted in TAM as one variable affecting attitude toward the online social networ king tool. In this sense, this study illustrates how perceived interactivity directly influences attitude toward SNSs. to interact with others (Valenzuela et al., 2009), the satisfaction of interaction may play a using it, they may feel the satisfaction of interaction via SNSs. In this regard, the satisfaction of interaction can affect attitude toward SNSs. Previous research also posited that attitude is determined by satisfaction (Abdul Muhmin, 2010). According to the study, in online shopping, satisfactio n with previous online purchase s positively affect s attitude toward online purchase s . In the same vein with this study, satisfaction of interaction can influence attitude toward SNSs. Even though se veral previous studies have investigated the influence of perceived ease of use on attitude toward technology or intention to use technology, the present study does not include perceived ease of use as a variable because each Facebook page has the same int SNSs, how the web based interface was designed was important because each web -

PAGE 38

38 based service had a different interface depending on the web designer. However, SNSs produce the same interface for users and do not need to consider an easy to use design. Thus, perceived ease of use is excluded from the determinants that affect attitude toward SNS usage and intention to use. With the exception of perceived ease of use, this study has proposed three determinants toward SNSs and intention to use them: perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived interactivity. Utilitarian and Hedonic Value ess) and intrinsic (e.g., enjoyment) motivations affect their behavior toward technology usage, previous consumer behavior research has also suggested two motivations for consumer sensory . That is, c directed activities of searching information, retrieving memory cues, weighing evidence, and arriving at a nd persons who (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982, p. 135). Based on these two asp ects of consumer purchase behavior, according to Batra and Ahtola (1990), consumers evaluate a c onsumption object with both uti litarian and hedonic dimensions . U nder a utilitarian dimension, people consider how useful or beneficial the object is, while und er a hedonic dimension, people regard pleasant and agreeable feelings associated with the object as a priority. Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) also pointed out that both utilitarian and hedonic values of consumer behavior

PAGE 39

39 have received attention among previous consumer behavior researchers ( e.g., Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982) . These previous researchers also posited that utilitarian values, which elicit task related and ratio nal behavior, regard individual s behavior (e.g., shopping) as work; on the other hand, hedonic values, which are more subjective than utilitarian values, consider personal behavior (e.g., shopping) as forms of fun, playfulness, and entertainment (Babin et al., 1994). For example, when they go shopping, cons umers consider consumption a s a behavior for achieving a functional or practical task with utilitarian values and, thus, they seek and evaluate useful and practical information related to a consumption object during purchas e behavior; meanwhile, they also regard consumption as a beha vior for concentrating on the enjoyment of shopping itself with hedonic values. In line with the concept of utilitarian/hedonic value, some researchers suggested that the product itself can be divided into two types of goods, depending on what nature it ha s: utilitarian goods and hedonic goods (Okada, 2005; Wertenbroch & Dhar, 2000). Wertenbroch and Dhar (2000) defined utilitarian goods are deemed consumption is more cognitively driven, instrumental, and goal oriented and accomplishes a funct consumption is primarily characterized by an affective and sensory experience of the utilitarian/hedonic goods literatur e, information technology can also be classified in these two types (van der Heijden, 2004). Previous research suggested that some particular information systems have hedonic natures, which provide users with pleasurable experience (e.g., video games) wher eas others have utilitarian natures,

PAGE 40

40 Heijden, 2004). In turn, van der Heijden argued that a hedonic system should include Thu s, in line with this previous research, content (or messages) in an information system can be also classified in both utilitarian and hedonic oriented content. In accordance with the definition of utilitarian and hedonic goods by Wertenbroch and Dhar (2000), this study defines utilitarian oriented message s have utilitarian nature such as cognitively driven, instrumental, goal oriented, functional, whereas hedonic oriented message s (or content) are that have a hedonic nature such as affective, p leasurable, fun, and enjoyable . ( p. 61 ). Therefore, if a particular information system provides users with utilitarian oriented message s , they may perceive the usefulness of the system; on the other hand, he donic oriented message s in a specific system allow users to perceive enjoyment of the system. In this regard, the concept of utilitarian/hedonic value is closely related to TAM; as mentioned, people perceive its usefulness and enjoyment while using partic ular technology. In other words, people accept the technology if they feel it is useful or enjoyable when they use it. Since utilitarian oriented message s are functional, practical and useful, utilitarian oriented message s lead to the perceived usefulness of a particular technology. People can also obtain pleasure, enjoyment , and fun when they see hedonic oriented message s while using a particular technology , and thus , hedonic oriented content causes perceived enjoyment. The research of C h ilders, Carr, Peck , and Carson (2001) confirmed the parallel between the concept of utilitarian/hedonic value and TAM research. They suggested

PAGE 41

41 online shopping behavior. Since online shoppin g is based on interactive technology , such as the Internet, they applied TAM to understand the whole process of consumers onl ine shopping hedonic values regarding consumer behavior are co nsistent with some determinants (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment) of technology adoption. In other words, instrumental or utilitarian goal directed consumers regard and evaluate product related information as a priority during their online shopping experience and, thus, they may consider the usefulness of the interactive media as a more instrumental factor in their online shopping behavior; meanwhile, hedonic oriented consumers seek enjoyment, adventure, and fun in their online shopping experience and want to enjoy shopping while using the int eractive shopping vendor. In this sense, Childers and colleagues (2001) suggested that both determinants (i.e., perceived usefulness and using online shopping vendors motivations for consumer behavior. content (or m essage) in SNSs. In the Web 2.0 environment, content has received attention because it can link to other content through hyperlinks or an RSS feed, which is a content delivery vehicle. With emerging RSS feeds, individuals simply receive content, messages, and information that interest them by subscribing to constantly

PAGE 42

42 SNSs have been developed with the function of news feeds. RSS feed is usually delivered by the RSS feed. Unlike previous online channels, SNSs are easier and faster platforms for delivering content. Users can receive information of interest through their news feed on SNSs with no effort. Since most SNS content is simple and short, users can easily acquire content or messages through their news feed without neglecting the content (or messages). For instance, o n Facebook, users can have content or on their interest on their feed when the friends click the like button of the content (or messages). Thus, because users can easily receive information of interest that is auto matically delivered to their news feed in SNSs, the messages (or content) in SNSs are significant factors in attracting users. In line with the study by Childers and colleagues (2001), individuals may use particular SNS channels to gratify two types of mo tivation: utilitarian and hedonic. People may accept SNSs by seeking useful information or enjoyment in accordance with each motivation. Also, in line with previous researchers who proposed the concept s of utilitarian and hedonic goods, this study suggests that SNSs offer both utilitarian and hedonic oriented message s in SNSs and that each type of message causes perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment , respectively. While most previous studies of SNSs have focused on how useful or enjoyable SNSs are in functional aspects, little empirical research has examined how content itself in order to adapt TAM research to SNSs ,

PAGE 43

43 how individuals perceive messages (or content) in SNSs should be examined; in other words, pe rceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment caused by each type of message Involvement and Elaboration Likelihood Model Even though TAM studies are well established to inv estigate what determinants influence intention to use particular technology, these studies did not consider processing behavior should be examined fully to understand SNSs usage on a personal level. Also, since many TAM studies are based on investigation in terms of determinants of attitude toward the technology, which lead to behavior such as actual use of the technology, TAM links to other research about the process of attitude change. Researchers have pointed out that many theories in regard to the attitude change process, including TRA, can be relatively located along an elaboration continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Petty and Cacioppo (1981) proposed the Elaboration Likelihoo d Model (ELM), which by message s and even leads to attitude formation or change. According to ELM, two routes of persuasion bring about attitude changes: the centra l route and the peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). These two route represents high involvement while the peripheral route corresponds to low involvem ent. Several initial studies proposed definitions of involvement, and most of these definitions suggest that involvement is related to personal relevance (Andrews & Shimp, 1990; Celsi & Olson, 1988; Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Mitchell, 1979; Rothschild,

PAGE 44

44 researchers argued that three factors affect personal involvement toward objects suc h as products and services: (a) the characteristics of the individual, (b) physical features of the stimulus (e.g., the type of media, content of the communication, product types that are advertised), and (c) varying situations (Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Zaichkowsky, 1986). characteristics of the stimulus and varying circumstances are situational and transitory, several researchers have presented two types of involvement: end uring and situational (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Houston & Rothschild, 1978). Enduring involvement represents interest, value, and goals and, thus, this type of involveme nt is stable and unchangeable (Huang, 2006; Wang, Wang, & Farn, 2009). Enduring involvement is also the result of & Rothschild, 1978; Zaichkowsky, 1986). Meanwhile, s ituational involvement refers to a temporary condition (Huang, 2006; Wang et al., 2009). Thus, situational involvement occurs in varying situations and cognitive proc esses such as a high risk purchase and this type of involvement usually dwindles after the purchase (Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Richins & Bloch, 1986; Zaichkowsky, 1986). In this regard, type of media, or stimulus for involvement, can be considered a fac tor that causes situational involvement; today, in the same vein, involvement with a

PAGE 45

45 website is usually seen as situational involvement (Mazaheri, Richard, & Laroche, 2011; Richard & Chandra, 2005). Because all online activities such as clicking links or b website is not enduring but waning after they stop using the site. Richard and Chandra (2005) posited that if people are highly involved in websites, they carefully find inform ation related to a product in a cognitive way before purchase. They also found that site involvement is significantly correlated with attitude toward the site. Thus, site involvement can be considered an important source of cues that affect attitude toward the service providers (Mazaheri et al., 2011; Richard & Chandra, 2005). The concept of with a particular SNS may also affect attitude toward the SNS. Both enduring and information related to products, brands, or services (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Park, Lee, & Han, 2007). Petty and Cacioppo (1986) argued that the likelihood of elaboration can be affected by an in high involvement with a message, personal motivation and ability to process information play an essential role in elaboration of information. In other words, if an individual has a h igher level of motivation and ability to evaluate information in a message, that individual will scrutinize the message and consider the usefulness of information in the message (Andrews & Shimp, 1990; Petty & Cacioppo, 1983, 1986). Thus, in the central ro In this sense, individuals in high involvement are more likely to devote the cognitive effort to evaluate the advantages of information in the message (Petty et al., 1983). This

PAGE 46

46 means that under high involvement people can change their attitude based on the quality of a message, which refers to the extent of its persuasive effectiveness. Meanwhile, in the peripheral route, individuals do not consider the usefulness of a mes sage as much and expend less cognitive effort than in the central route because they have low involvement with the message. According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986), in the peripheral route, attitudes can be changed by associating an issue position with affe ctive cues. In other words, if an individual has a lower level of motivation and ability to consider arguments related to an issue, affective cues such as music, scenery, characteristics of source, and quantity of message argument will have an impact on hi s or her attitude (Andrews & Shimp, 1990). Thus, in the peripheral route, individuals consider non likeability, attractiveness of the message, and heuristic cues instead of usefulness of the Previous empirical research has also supported this argument (Andrews & Shimp, 1990; Petty et al., 1983). Petty et al. (1983) examined what aspect of advertisement affects attitude t oward a product in the context of both high and low involvement. They found that the advertising message has a significant impact on attitude toward the product under high involvement, whereas celebrity status of the product significantly influences attitu de toward the product in low involvement. Andrews and Shimp (1990) also i nvestigated how personal level of involvement works on attitude change toward a product through experimental adverting. They found that in the central route a strong message argument influences attitude change, whereas in the peripheral route favorable or unfavorable source characteristics significantly affect attitude change. Even

PAGE 47

47 though these studies were based on involvement in the advertising context, they can apply to SNSs because the results indicated that in the central route message argument is the most influential determinant to affect attitude toward the product, while in peripheral route attractive factors of advertisements affect attitude toward the product. In high involvem ent, individuals may consider usefulness of information in SNSs as a significant factor, whereas in low involvement they may consider enjoyment as an influential determinant when using SNSs. In turn, involvement has a great influence on attitude toward brands, products, also be understood in the context of influence on attitude toward the S NSs. Involvement with a company can be considered enduring involvement because people already experience involvement with a particular company based on their personal knowledge, experience, and intrinsic motivation related to the company. Also, the author adopts the concept of situational involvement and thus c onsistent with previous research investigating involvement with a website as situational involvement (Mazaheri et al., 2011; Richard & Chan proposed that in a buying environment, properties of websites such as informativeness and entertainment are positively correlated to site involvement and this type of involvement is also significantly relat ed to purchase intention. In this sense, if individuals perceive SNS characteristics such as usefulness, enjoyment, and interactivity, these

PAGE 48

48 features may influence involvement with the SNS that affects attitude toward the site and intention to use it. By i nvestigating the effect of both enduring and situational involvement, this Hypotheses and Research Question s Based on this theoretical background , the present study examines the acceptance of and how this acceptance affects their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends by adopting TAM and ELM. Early studies of TAM proposed perceived usefulness as an influential factor affecting attitude toward the technology and the intention to use it (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). Subsequent studies of TAM suggested that not only perceived usefulness but technology (Davis et al., 1992). These previous studies have been extended to the SNS context. In SNSs context, previous research focused on the us e of SNSs itself based on (e.g., usefulness and enjoyment of SNSs derived from its function, see Lin & Lu, 2011) . Since a company s SNSs are online social networking services based on the function of the SNSs, it is plausible that people s perception of usefulness and enjoyment in the function of a company s SNSs may influence individuals use of them. However, when expand ing the concept of technology acceptance from general SNSs to a company s SNSs, the study should consider another factor that affect people s acceptance of a company s SNSs to elaborate the

PAGE 49

49 study under the s SNSs context. Since in the SNS s environment, content is viewed as an important element in the development of favorable attitudes toward o nline services, features of the content in SNSs should also be examined. In this regard, this study investigates how individuals perceive content in a Because individuals w ith utilitarian values who demonstrate task related and rational behavior seek useful information and individuals with hedonic values who seek playfulness, entertainment , and fun look for enjoyment while using SNSs (Babin et al., 1994), there may be two ty pes of message s (or content) in SNSs: utilitarian oriented message s and hedonic oriented message s . If people obtain utilitarian oriented messages via SNSs, they may perceive usefulness; meanwhile, if individuals see hedonic oriented messages in SNSs, they may perceive enjoyment. Thus, in this study, two hypotheses are suggested: H1 : Utilitarian oriented message s increase perceived usefulness of a s Facebook page more than hedonic oriented message s . H2 : Hedonic oriented message s increase perceived en joyment of a s Facebook page more than utilitarian oriented message s . The o riginal TAM research suggested perceived usefulness as a main determinant that affect s attitude toward technology. With the development of technology, previous researchers also added new predictors to accurately investigate how people accept the technology. Several studies proposed perceived enjoyment as another factor that influence s indiv 1995; Teo et al., 1999; Moon & Kim, 2001). As web based services have emerged,

PAGE 50

50 perceived interactivity has also received attention as a main determinant of attitude toward the techno logy (Lustria, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006; Wise et al., 2006; Wu, 1999). Moreover, for clear understanding of the whole process in using the service, the variable to affect the literature (Mazaheri et al., 2011). Based on these works of literature, the following hypotheses are proposed to investigate wh ich determinants have an impact on H3 : Eac h determinant, (a) p erceived usefulness , (b) perceived enjoyment, and (c) perceived interactivity, Facebook page. Even though TAM is a well acceptance of t echnology, previous research has only focused on general usage but did not consider the differences of using it between individuals. In other words, personal with technology, can have a significant effect on their technology acceptance process. Based on Houston this study , involvement with a company is considered as enduring involvement , because it is built over time upon motivation , and thus it cannot be changed with ease. The present study also adopts ELM to f ully examine the role of involvement with a company. ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) suggests that , in high involvement , individuals carefully consider the usefulness

PAGE 51

51 of information in a message through a cognitive process, whereas in low involvement , people do not focus on the message itself but consider affective cues such as enjoyable sources. Thus, in high involvement, the presence of utilitarian oriented message s o n a , whereas in low involvement , the use o f hedonic oriented message s may be a more influential factor. Based on this concept, this study examines how the level of enduring involvement with a company Several researchers have argued that not only enduring involvement but also ( Celsi & Olson, 1988; Houston & Rothschild, 1978). In addition, recent research has suggested that website involvement is de emed as situational involvement (Mazaheri et al., 2011; Richard & Chandra, 2005). In this context, this study considers involvement with a in which each determinant (i.e., utilitarian and hedonic orien ted messages) situational involvement with a company s Facebook page. Previous research presented meaningful findings to support the influence of determinants such as usefulness and enjoyment on involvement with web services. Mazaheri et al. (2011) indicated that website involvement is positively influenced by the hedonic value. Thus, i n accordance with ELM research, with the different level s of enduring involvement with a company , the effect of the message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) may influence individuals situational involvement with a company s Facebook page differently .

PAGE 52

52 Moreover, because SNSs are the most dominant tools for interaction (Rau et al., 2008), individuals may expect to be satisfied just interact ing with others while using networking tools, people may have a favorable attitude toward SNSs. In this sense, this study suggests satisfaction of interaction as a new concept for fully understanding the Thus, consistent with ELM, people in high involvement with a company may feel greater satisfaction of interaction with utilitarian oriented message s than hedonic oriented message s, whereas people in low involvement with a company may feel more satisfaction of interaction with hedonic oriented messages than utilitarian oriented messages . The original ELM research investigated how individuals different level of involvement affects their attitude change. As noted above, high involved people use central route for their attitude change, while low involved people use peripheral route. In this sense, message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) may affect individu als attitude s toward a company s Facebook page differently in accordance with their level of enduring involvement with a company. Likewise, influence intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to reco mmend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook f riends may also be influenced by different message type ( utilitarian vs. hedonic) with regard to individuals level of enduring involvement with a company. In other words, in high involvement with a company, the effect of utilitarian oriented messages is greater than hedonic oriented messages, whereas in low involvement with a company, the effect of hedonic orien ted

PAGE 53

53 messages is greater than utilitarian oriented messages. In this regard, the following hypotheses have been proposed: H4 : There is a two way interaction between the level of enduring involvement with a company and the type of message . H4 1 : U nder high involvement with a company, the effect of utilitarian oriented message s is greater than hedonic oriented message s on (a) situational , (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . H4 2 : Under low involvement with a company, the effect of hedonic oriented message s is greater than utilitarian oriented message s on (a) situational , (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . Since SNSs are prominent web services for interaction and communica tion with others, perceived interactivity was added as a determinant in this study. Fortin and communicate with service providers and other consumers and, thus, it is likely to

PAGE 54

54 , attitude toward the online services, and intention to use it . Their study can be modified to the SNSs context . According to ELM, high involved people are only affected by the usefulness of the message argument in their attitude change , whereas several other peripheral cues influence low involved people. In this regard, perceived interactivity can be considered a peripheral cue; thus, we can predict that , in low enduring involvement with a co mpany , Facebook page , attitude toward the Facebook page, and intention to use it . Even though perceived interactivity is regarded as a peripheral cue, interactivity is the most prominent characteristic of web based services, particularly SNSs. Thus, in contrast to previous studies on ELM, higher perceived interactivity may also play a significant role in dependent variables (i.e., situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, satisfaction of interaction, attitude toward a company s Facebook page, intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company , intention to recommend use of the company, intention to promote the company to Facebook friends) even under the high enduring involvement conditio n. Thus, this study presents hypothes e s and r esearch question s related to perceived interactivity: H 5 : Under low enduring involvement with a company, the effect of perceived high interacti vity is greater than perceived low interactivity on (a) situational , (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to

PAGE 55

55 recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . RQ1 : Under high enduring involvement with a company, what is the role of interactivity in the formation of (a) situational Facebook page , (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends ? Even though previous research did not predict any relationship among the level of enduring involvement with a company , level of interactivity, and type of message, there may be a three way interaction among these three variables. More specifically, when combined with the level of enduring involvement with a company, the level of interactivity may play a significant role in the effect of the message type. In this regard, a research question is as follows: RQ2 : Is there an interaction effect among the level of involvement, level of interactivity, and type of message? TAM is a well established model to explain the process of individuals technology acceptance. As noted above, the current study proposed new concepts (i.e., situational involvement with a company s Facebook page and satisfaction of interaction) to fully understand individuals acceptance of a company s Facebook page. Thus, these two variables may be significant factors that affect attitude toward a company s Facebook page. To be specific, page is increased, that individual may also feel satisfactio n of interaction with the

PAGE 56

56 company through the Facebook page, which can lead to a positive attitude toward the Facebook page. Previous research also indicated that attitude toward a specific behavior is determined by satisfaction (Abdul Muhmin, 2010). Thus, satisfaction of interaction can be an influential factor in attitude toward SNSs. H 6 satisfaction of interaction. H 7 : Satisfaction of interaction has a positive influence on attitude toward a TAM research has also investigated the relationship between attitude toward a technol ogy and intention to use it . T his process can be applied to SNS usage. In the technology can be a modified intention to subscribe to the page , because subscribing to the system of Facebook pages implies continuous use of the pages. Thus, if an individual develops a y influence intention to subscribe to the page. Previous research has also indicated that web based services such as SNSs play a potentially significant role in relationship building between organizations and publics by providing a place for conversation (Kent & Taylor, 1998, 2002; Park & Reber, 2008; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Taylor et al., 2001; Waters et al., 2009). However, the correlation between acceptance of a Facebook page and relationship building between a company and the public cannot be predicte d simply because a relationship is formed over the long term si nce the use of a specific technology occurs in a brief moment. Nevertheless, because communication through SNSs is an initial step for building

PAGE 57

57 relationship s , favorable relationship s may be bui lt in the near future if people have a favorable attitude toward SNSs, which are tools for communication and interaction between companies and the public. Thus, in this study, several intentions are suggested that can lead to a fur ther relationship in the future . H 8 (a) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (b) intention to learn more about the company , (c) intention to recommend use of the company, and (d) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Study Design To in vestigate all hypotheses and research question s in this study, a 2 (message type: utilitarian oriented vs. hedonic oriented) × 2 (level of interactivit y: low vs. high) factorial design with a co variate, involvement with a company (low vs. high), treated as a factor long term , and experience (Huang, 2006; Wang et al., 2009), (enduring) involvement with a company was measured but not manipulated. Thus, the message type and the level of i nteractivity is a manipu lated variable, while the (enduring) involvement with a company is a measured variable. Situational i bscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend u se of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends were measured as dependent variables. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (i.e., utilitarian oriented message s with low interactivity, utilitarian oriented message s with high interactivity, hedonic oriented message s with low interactivity, and hedonic oriented message s with high interactivity).

PAGE 59

59 Procedure Pretest 1 characteristics, knowledge, experience, and intrinsic motivation; thus, enduring involvement refers to the long term consideration of a specific object (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Huang, 2006; Wang et al., 2009). In this regard, an existing company was used to measure enduring involvement. A pretest was conducted to make a clean selection of the com panies for the main study without bias. Participants ( N = 20) were recruited for this pretest o n October 27, 2013. Fifteen companies were randomly selected from the Fortune 500 index to ate the level of involvement, the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) , created by Zaichkowsky (1994) w as s . To select a p roper company, the company should have a similar number of pe ople in both low and high involvement groups. Based on the results from the pretest, Walmart was selected for the main study because the company had enough numbers of participants in both low and high involvement ; that is, both low and high involvement gro ups had a similar number of participants . Pretest 2 To ensure an appropriate experimental setting, another pretest was conducted for selecting proper messages. Participants in the pretest ( N = 3 0) were provided a total of twelve messages (six utilitarian and six hedonic oriented messages) and were asked to answer the questionnaire to confirm significant differences in their perception of each many of the previous studies have

PAGE 60

60 used a single item scale for a manipulation check ( Wertenbroch & Dhar , 2000; Kim & Morris, 2007; Okada, 2005), for a more accurate manipulation check, this study created a multi item scale with a clear definition of utilit arian/hedonic value from Wertenbroch and Dhar (2000) (i.e., unpleasant/pleasant, not fun/fun, unenjoyable/enjoyable, not appeal to the senses/appeal to the senses for hedonic value, not informative/informative, not functional/functional, not practical/prac tical, not useful/useful). Among the six messages of each type, five messages with the highest weighted scores were selected for the posts o n the Facebook page. The pretest was conducted on January 27, 2014. After the selection of messages, the author also tested how participants perceive the messages o n the Facebook page using the above scale. As a result, participants who saw utilitarian oriented messages reported a higher level of perceived utilitarian value ( M = 5.30, SD = .84) than those who viewed hedo nic oriented messages ( M = 4.41, SD = .85), t ( 28 ) = 2. 89 , p < .01 . Meanwhile, participants viewing hedonic oriented messages answered a higher level of perceived hedonic value ( M = 5.42, SD = .78) than those who saw utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 4.39, SD = 1.19), t ( 28 ) = 2. 82 , p < .0 1 . Thus, the pretest confirmed that each version of messages (utilitarian vs. hedonic) is under proper condition. Other participants (N=20) were also asked to respond to the questionnaire to verify the significant differences in their item, 5 point Likert scale was used to measure the perception of interactivity. The result showed that t he high level of interac tivity ( M = 4.16 , SD = .47 ) was rated higher than the low level of

PAGE 61

61 interactivity ( M = 2.76 , SD = .91 ), t ( 18 ) = 4.33 , p < . 001. The pretest confirmed that each version of interactivity (low vs. high) is under proper condition. Main Study Since the younger generation (those aged 18 34 ) still comprises the vast majority of active SNSs users (Nielsen, 2011) , t he sample for the main experiment consisted of college students i n a Southeastern United States u niversity . The main study was conducte d for two weeks from March 22 to April 4, 2014 after receiving IRB approval ( protocol # 2014 U 0023 ) . A total of 171 participants were recruited for this study. Four different versions of fictitious Facebook pages (i.e., utilitarian oriented message s with l ow interactivity, utilitarian oriented message s with high interactivity, hedonic oriented message s with low interactivity, and hedonic oriented message s with high interactivity) were created with the same interface and the same basic information from the c ompany to prevent any confounding effects. Each participant was provided with a survey link including one of four Facebook pages via email and randomly assigned to one of the online experimental conditions by clicking a link into the email . They received e xtra credits as compensation. Among the 171 participants, 44 were assigned to the utilitarian oriented message s with a low interactivity condition, 40 were assigned to the utilitarian oriented message s wit h a high interactivity condition, 44 were assigned to the hedonic oriented message s with a low interactivity condition , and 43 were assigned to the hedonic oriented message s with a high interactivity condition. Participants were also divided into two groups based on their level of involvement with a compan y (low vs. high) by performing a median split . See Table 3 1 for the number of each cell . In the first stage of the experiment, participants were asked to answer some questionnaires regarding subjects such as their involvement with a company (Walmart),

PAGE 62

62 whe their attitude toward Facebook itself. Then the participants were shown page and were asked to evaluate the Facebook page carefully. After reading all messages o n th e Facebook page, participants were asked to answer the questionnaires that include dependent variables, manipulation check, and demographic information (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, and education). Stimuli Development page were created, combining two types of message s and two levels of interactivity. Each Facebook page was virtually the same and offers the same basic information, such as an introduction to the company, cover image, and profile picture ; only the posts di ffered . Also, each Facebook page contained five posts with messages that were manipulated in accordance with each version. For the first group, the Facebook page offered five posts with utilitarian oriented messages with a low interactivity condition. For the second group , the Facebook page contained five posts with utilitarian oriented messages with a high interactivity condition. For the third group, the Facebook page contained five posts with hedonic oriented messages and a low interactivity condition. F or the last group, the Facebook page contained five posts with hedonic oriented messages and a hi gh interactivity condition ( Appendix A). Types of Message Two determinants in the TAM research (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment) have a strong association with both utilitarian and hedonic values. Hence, in this study, two types of messages were manipulated to represent both utilitarian and hedonic values. Under a utilitarian dimension, people may consider how useful or beneficial the message is, whereas with a hedonic dimension, they may experience

PAGE 63

63 pleasant, enjoyable, and agreeable feelings associated with the message as a priority (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Wertenbroch & Dhar, 2000 ). In this study, relevant and informativ e messages related to the company were included as utilitarian and humorous, entertaining, and enjoyable messages (e.g., jokes related to the product or service) were included as hedonic or iented message s ; each message in a different version had the same context , but different message s appea r . Each Facebook page contained either (a) utilitarian or (b) hedonic oriented messages. Levels of Interactivity According to the contingency view of interactivity, interactivity refers to responsiveness to one another (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1988). In other words, if full interactivity occurs, communication roles are necessarily interchangeable, and interactants should respond to one another (Sundar et al ., 2003). Based on this interactivity condition. Following the suggestions from the study by Wise, Hamman, and Thorson (2006), under the high interactivity condition, companies dir ectly replied to all comments from customers and the replies were also related to previous comments. On the other hand, under the low interactivity condition, companies did not reply to any of the comments from customers. Measures Independent Variables Ut ilitarian oriented message: To evaluate the utilitarian oriented message, this study created a 4 item, 7 point semantic differential scale based on a clear definition of utilitarian value from the study by Wertenbroch and Dhar (2000) : not

PAGE 64

64 informative/infor mative, not functional/functional, not practical/practical, not useful/useful. Hedonic oriented message: Like the utilitarian oriented messag e , the hedonic oriented message was also measured with a 4 item, 7 point semantic differe ntial scale created according to the definition of hedonic value by Wertenbroch and Dhar (2000): unpleasant/pleasant, not fun/fun, unenjoyable/enjoyable, not appeal to the Perceived interactivity: Each a 5 item, 5 point Likert scale ( Thorson & Rodgers , 2 006) its customers while they wer ific questions quickly and efficiently via its Facebook Moderator (Enduring) Involvement with a company: item, 7 point semantic differential PII scale: important/unimportant, boring/interesting, relevant/irrelevant, exciting/unexciting, means nothing/means a lot to me, appealing/unappealing, fascinating/mundane, worthless/valuable, involving/uninvolving, not needed/needed.

PAGE 65

65 Dependent Variables Perceived usefulness: a 4 item, 7 point Likert scale ( Blanco, Blasco & Azorín , 2010) Perceived enjoyment: a 4 item, 7 point Likert scale ( Blanco, Blasco & Azorín , 2010) ( Situational ) Involvement with the Facebook page: involvemen t with the Facebook page was measured by a 6 item, 7 point semantic differential scale from : unimportant/important to m e, irrelevant/relevant to my needs, not worth/worth remembering, not worth/worth paying attention to, does not matter/matters to me, insignificant/significant to me. This Satisfaction of interaction: sfaction of interaction was measured using a 7 item, 7 point semantic differential satisfaction scale ( Wang, Hernandez, & Minor , 2010) : dis satisfied/satisfied, displeased/pleased, unfavorable/favorable, unpleasant/pleasant, I did not like it at all/I liked it very much,

PAGE 66

66 Attitude toward the Facebook page: To measure the partic toward th e Facebook page, this study use d Moon and Kim (2001) and Mazaheri, item, 7 unfavorab alpha was .95. Intention to subscribe to the Facebook page: subscr ibe to the Facebook page was evaluated by adopting Moon and Kim (2001) and item, 7 point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree): wort Intention to learn more about the company: m ore about the company w as measured by using Hsu and Lin (2008) and Lee, Xiong, 5 item, 7

PAGE 67

67 Intention to recommend us e of the company: As with intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company w as me asured by item, 7 point Likert c Intention to promote the company to Facebook frien ds: Intention to promote the compa ny to Facebook friends w as measured using Hsu and Lin (2008) and Lee, item, 7 mpany to Facebook Fa

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 1. Number of participants in each cell Involvement Interactivity Message N Low Low Utilitarian 19 Hedonic 25 Total 44 High Utilitarian 21 Hedonic 21 Total 42 Total Utilitarian 40 Hedonic 46 Total 86 High Low Utilitarian 25 Hedonic 19 Total 44 High Utilitarian 19 Hedonic 22 Total 41 Total Utilitarian 44 Hedonic 41 Total 85 Total Low Utilitarian 44 Hedonic 44 Total 88 High Utilitarian 40 Hedonic 43 Total 83 Total Utilitarian 84 Hedonic 87 Total 171

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Sample Characteristics The sample of this study consisted of respondents who atten d a Southeastern United States u niversity. Among the total of 171 participants, 126 (73.7%) were females and 45 (26.3%) were males ( Table 4 1). The majority of the participants were 18 to 25 years old (90.6%, n = 155) , and the largest ethnic group was Caucasian (59.6%, n = 102), followed by Hispanic (16.4%, n = 28), Asian (9.4%, n = 20), African American (8.8%, n = 15), Native American (1.2%, n = 2), and others (4.74%, n = 4). Among the 171 respondents, 169 participants (98.8%) are using SNSs , and only two respondents (1. 2%) answered that they are not using SNSs. In terms of Facebook usage, 166 participants (97.1%) answered that they are using Facebook , and five participants (2.9%) are not using Facebook. Among the Facebook users, 75.4% ( n = 1 29 ) reported that they are usi ng Facebook for 1 to 10 hours per week , 14% (n = 24) answered 11 to 20 hours, 5.3% (n = 9) answered 21 to 30 hours, and 5.3% (n = 9) answered more than 30 hours per week. Also, seven participants (4.1%) responded they are following s actual Faceboo k page. Manipulation Check and hedonic oriented messages and the level of interactivity, an I ndependent S ample T test was conducted. The result s indicated that participants who saw utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 4.95, SD = 1.29) had a significantly higher level of perceived utilitarian value than participants who saw hedonic oriented messages ( M = 4.27, SD = 1.38), t (169) = 3.30, p < .01. Likewise, participants who viewed hedon ic oriented messages ( M = 4.74, SD = 1.26)

PAGE 70

70 reported a significantly higher level of perceived hedonic value than participants viewing the utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 4.29, SD = 1.26), t (169) = 2.16, p < .05. Therefore, the manipulation of message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic oriented) was successful. The result s of the interactivity manipulation check also showed that the level of interactivity (low vs. high) was also successfully manipulated. The high level of interactivity ( M = 4.86, SD = 1.14) was rated higher than the low level of interactivity ( M = 3.42, SD = 1.25), t (169) = 7.88, p < . 001. Thus, manipulations of the stimulus were confirmed successfully ( Table 4 2). Random Assignment For a proper experiment setting, participants were divided into two groups based on their level of enduring involvement with a company (low vs. high), and then they were randomly assigned to one of four different Facebook page ( i.e., utilitarian oriented messages with low interactivity, utilitarian oriented messages with high interactivity, hedonic oriented messages with low interactivity, and hedonic oriented messages with high interactivity ). Thus, for the accurate random assignment, there should be no difference among participants enduring involvement in each Facebook page. One way A nalysis of Variance (A NOVA ) was performed with four types of Facebook page as the independent variable and participants enduring involvement with a com pany as the dependent variable to test whether the random assignment is successful. The r esults indicated that the eff ect of Facebook page type was no t significant on participant enduring involvement with a company , F (3, 167) = .91, p = .44. This study also measured individuals attitude toward Facebook itself. Consistent with the level of enduring involvement with a company, for the successful random assignment, there

PAGE 71

71 should be no difference in terms of participants attitude toward Facebook itself with in each experimental group . Thus, ANOVA analysis was perform ed again with Facebook page type as the independent variable and attitude toward Facebook itself as the dependent variable . The results showed that different types of Facebook page had no signific ant effect on attitude toward Facebook itself, F (3, 167) = 2.25, p =.09. Thus, random assignment was successful. Testing Hypotheses and Research Question s Hypothesis 1 predicted that the utilitarian oriented message increases individuals perceived usefulness more than hedonic oriented message. To examine this, an I ndependent S ample T test was performed. The result s showed that participants who viewed the utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 4.07, SD = 1.20) had a higher level of perceived us efulness toward the Facebook page t han those who viewed the hedonic oriented messages ( M = 3.55, SD = 1.13), t (169) = 2.93, p < .01. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 proposed that hedonic oriented message s increase perceived enjoyment more than utilitarian oriented messages. The result s indicated that participants who viewed hedonic oriented messages ( M = 4.41, SD = 1.47) had a higher level of perceived enjoyment toward the Facebook page than those who saw utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.93, SD = 1.29), t (169) = 2.25, p < .05. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was also supported. Hypothesis 3 a sserted that each determinant (i.e., perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived interactivity) has an influence on situational involvement analysis was performed with three determinants as the independent variables and

PAGE 72

72 situational involvement with a company s Facebook page as the dependent variable . The result s revealed that all three predictors, perceived usefulness ( = .3 7 , p < .001), perceived enjoyment ( = .2 0 , p < .01) and perceived interactivity ( = .2 1 , p < .01), situational pr page. In this regard, H ypothes e s 3a, 3b , and 3c were supported. Hypothesis 4 proposed that there is a two way interaction effect between the level of enduring involvement with a company and the type of message . More specifically, hypothesis 4 1 anticipated under high enduring involvement with a company, the effect of utilitarian oriented messages is greater than hedonic oriented messages on (a) situational involvement with a co mpany s Facebook page, (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. In contrast, hypothesis 4 2 predicted under low enduring involvement with a co mpany, the effect of hedonic oriented messages is greater than utilitarian oriented messages on (a) situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to sub scribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. may affect the resu lt, attitude toward Facebook itself was included as a covariate in this study. In this sense, a 2 ( enduring involvement level: low vs. high) × 2 (message type:

PAGE 73

73 utilitarian vs. hedonic) between subjects Multivariate Analysis of Cov ariance ( M ANCOVA) was cond ucted. For Hypothesis 4a, t he result s revealed that in terms of the situational way interaction between the level of enduring involvement (low vs. high) and message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic), F (1, 166) = 19.50, p < .001. There was also a significant main effect of involvement level, F (1, 166) = 5.55, p < .05, but no significant main effect of message type, F (1, 166) = 2.18, p = .14. Attitude toward Facebook itself did not also F (1, 166) = 2.03, p = .16 ( Figure 4 1). More specifically, this interaction effect showed that participants who have a high level of endurin g involve ment with a company responded more favorabl y to situational involvement with a company s Facebook page when they viewed the utilitarian oriented message s ( M = 4.12 , SD = 1.38) than the hedonic oriented message s ( M = 3.0 0 , SD = 1.34), F ( 1, 1 66 ) = 17.13 , p < .001. U nder low enduring involvement with a company, subjects who saw hedonic oriented messages ( M = 3. 39 , SD = 1.20) had a higher situational utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2.8 4 , SD = .90), F ( 1, 166 ) = 4.22 , p < .05. Thus, Hypothesis 4a 1, and 4a 2 were supported. Hypothese s 4b predicted a two way interaction effect between the message type and the level of enduring involvement with a company s Facebook page on satisfaction of interaction. Th e results showed that a significant two way interaction between the level of enduring involvement (low vs. high) and message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) existed on satisfaction of interaction, F (1, 166) = 4.39, p < .05 , accompan ied by no

PAGE 74

74 significant main effect of involvement level, F (1, 166) = 3.36, p = . 07 , but no significant main effect of message type, F (1, 166) = 1.39, p = .24 . For this two way interaction, the covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) significantly affected satis faction of interaction , F (1, 166) = 4.20, p < .05 ( Figure 4 2). As Hypothesis 4b 1 predicted , in high enduring involvement with a company , participants viewing utilitarian messages ( M = 4. 61 , SD = 1.06) had a higher level of satisf action of interaction with the company than those who saw hedonic messages ( M = 4.1 0 , SD = 1.30), F (1, 166 ) = 5.30 , p < .05. However , under low enduring involvement with a company, there was no significant difference of satisfaction of interaction between participa nts who saw hedonic oriented message s ( M = 4.1 2 , SD = .97) and those who saw utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.9 7 , SD = .88), F (1, 166 ) = .40 , p =. 53 . Thus, Hypothesis 4b 1 was supported, but 4b 2 was not supported. Hypothesis 4c also anticipated a two way interaction between the message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic ) and the level of enduring involvement (low vs. high) on the attitude toward a company s Facebook page. The results indicated that there was a significant two way interaction, F (1, 166) = 5.16 , p < .05 , but no significant main effects of both enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166) = .13 , p = . 72, and message type, F (1, 166) = .01 , p = . 91 . The covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) significantly influenced attitude toward a company s Facebook page , F (1, 166) = 6.25 , p < .05 ( Figure 4 3 ). Although the results showed two way interaction existed, a simple effects test revealed that participants who have h igh enduring involvement with a company reported similar levels of a ttitude toward a company s Facebook with both utilitarian oriented ( M = 4 .46 , SD = 1. 44 ) and hedonic oriented messages ( M = 4. 00 , SD

PAGE 75

75 = 1.43 ), F (1, 166 ) = 2.80 , p = . 10 . Likewise , participants who reported low level of enduring involvement with a company had no significantly different attitude toward a company s Facebook page between hedonic oriented ( M = 4. 37 , SD = 1.18 ) and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.9 6 , SD = . 94 ), F (1, 166 ) = 2.29 , p =. 13 . In this sense, Hypothese s 4c 1 and 4c 2 were not supported. Hypothesis 4d proposed two way interaction between the message type and the enduring involvement level on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. The results indicated that there was a significant two way interaction between the type of mes sage (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166) = 13.74 , p < .0 01 with a significant main effect of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166) = 4.20 , p < .05, but no main effect of message type, F (1, 166) = 1.14 , p = . 29 . Attitude toward Facebook itself did not significantly influence intention to subscribe to the Facebook page , F (1, 166) = .89 , p = .35 ( Figure 4 4 ). More specifically, as Hypothe sis 4d predicted, respondents with a high level of enduring involvement with a company had greater intention to subscribe to the Facebook page when they accessed utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2.70 , SD = 1.37 ) than hedonic oriented messages ( M = 1.90 , SD = . 96 ), F (1, 166 ) = 11.23 , p < .01 . Meanwhi le , respondents in low enduring involvement with a company reported no significant difference of intention to subscribe to the Facebook page between hedonic oriented ( M = 2.17 , SD = 1.18 ) and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 1.73 , SD = .8 1 ) , F (1, 166 ) = 3.41 , p = .07 . T hus, Hypothesis 4d 1 was supported, but 4d 2 was not supported . Hypothesis 4e predicted two way interaction between the type of message (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and enduring involvement level (low vs. high) on intention to

PAGE 76

76 learn more a bout the company . However, t he results showed that there was no significant two way interaction F (1, 166) = 1 .85 , p = .18, but significant main effect s of both the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166) = 7.83 , p < . 01, and the type of message , F (1, 166) = 4.17 , p < .05 . The covariate (a ttitude toward Facebook itself ) did not significantly affect intention to learn more about the company , F (1, 166) = .89 , p = .35 . Since it is inappropriate to perform simple effects test in the absence of a significant interaction ( Iacobucci, Tybout, Sternthal, Kepper, Verducci & Meyers Levy, 2001; Keppel, 1991 ) , this study did not conduct simple effects test . I nstead, post hoc test was performed for testing hypotheses . Because this study adopted adjuste d means (or estimated marginal means) for post hoc test due to the effect of the covariate , Bonferroni s method was used. P articipants were divided into four groups depending on the message type and the level of enduring involvement with a company (i.e., g roup 1: low involvement and utilitarian oriented messages, group 2: low involvement and hedonic oriented messages, group3: high involvement and utilitarian oriented messages, and group 4: high involvement and hedonic oriented messages). The results revealed that there was a significant differences among these four groups, F (3, 166) = 4.79, p < .01. More specifically, however, the results only found that participants under low enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2.80, SD = 1.1 3) had greater intention to learn more about the company than those under high enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.62, SD = 1.30), p < .05 , and subjects under low enduring involvement and hedonic oriented messages ( M = 2.66, SD = 1.40) reported greater intention to learn more about the company than those under high enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages

PAGE 77

77 ( M = 3.62, SD = 1.30), p < .01. P articipants under high enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages con dition ( M = 3.62 , SD = 1.30 ) had no significant difference from those under high enduring involvement and hedonic oriented messages condition ( M = 2.95 , SD = 1.26 ) in terms of intention to learn more about the company, p = .11 . Likewise, there was no significant difference between participants under low enduring involvement and hedonic oriented messages ( M = 2.66 , SD = 1 . 40 ) and those under low enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2. 80 , SD = 1.13 ) , p = 1.00 . Therefore, Hypothesis 4e 1 and 4e 2 were not supported. Hypothesis 4f also anticipated a two way interaction effect on intention to recommend use of the company . T he results revealed significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a comp any, F (1, 166) = 18.80 , p < .001, but no main effect of message type, F (1, 166) = .63 , p = .43 . N o significant two way interaction between the level of enduring involvement with a company (low vs. high) and the type of message (utilitarian vs. hedonic) also existed for the intention to recommend use of the company , F (1, 166) = 2.72 , p = . 10 . The covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) did not have a significant influence on intention to recommend use of the company , F (1, 166) = 1.09 , p = . 30. Con sistent with hypothesis 4e, simple effects test was not appropriat e because of insignificant interaction. Thus, post hoc test with Bonferroni was performed to test hypotheses 4 f 1 and 4 f 2. The result of Bonferroni post hoc test also showed that significant differences existed among four groups, F (3, 166) = 7.45, p < .001. To be specific, participants under low enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages condition ( M = 2.43, SD = 1.10 ) reported greater intention to recommend use of the company than those under high enduring involvement and

PAGE 78

78 utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.63, SD = 1.41 ), p < .001. Also, respondents under low enduring involvement and hedonic oriented messages ( M = 2.60, SD = 1.30 ) had higher intention to recommend us e of the company than those under high enduring involvement and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 3.63, SD = 1.41 ), p < .01. However , subjects who accessed utilitarian oriented messages under high enduring involvement condition ( M = 3. 63 , SD = 1.41 ) had a similar level of intention to recommend use of the company with those who accessed hedonic oriented messages under high enduring involvement condition ( M = 3. 13 , SD = 1.39 ) , p = .53 . Likewise, u n der low enduring involvement with a company , there was no significant difference of intention to recommend use of the company between both hedonic oriented messages ( M = 2.60 , SD = 1.30 ) and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2.43 , SD = 1.10 ), p =1 . 00. Thus, Hypothese s 4f 1 and 4f 2 were not supported. Hypothesis 4g also proposed a two way interaction effect on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. As predicted, the results indicated that there was a significant two way interaction between enduring involvement level (low vs. high) and mes sage type (utilitarian vs. hedonic), F (1, 166) = 10.93 , p < .01, accompanied by a significant main effect of enduring involvement level, F (1, 166) = 4.47 , p < .05, no significant main effect of message type, F (1, 166) = 3.45 , p = .07 ( Figure 4 5) . T he covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) did not significantly affect intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, F (1, 166) = 1.26 , p = .26. To be specific, as Hypothesis 4g 1 proposed, under high enduring involvement with a company, inten tion to pro mote the company to Facebook friends was higher for utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 2.85 , SD = 1.56 ) than for hedonic oriented messages ( M = 1.88 , SD =

PAGE 79

79 1.02 ) , F (1, 166) = 13.19 , p < .001. Thus, hypothesis 4g 1 was supported. In contrast, no significant difference between hedonic oriented ( M = 2.10 , SD = 1.19 ) and utilitarian oriented messages ( M = 1.83 , SD = 1.06 ) existed for the intention to promote the company to Facebook friends under low enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166) = 1 .00 , p = .32. In this regard, hypothesis 4g 2 was not supported. Hypothesis 5 proposed that under low enduring involvement with a company, the effect of perceived high interactivity is greater than perceived low interactivity on (a) situational , (b) satisfaction of interaction, (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of th e company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. To test Hypothesis 5, Bonferroni post hoc test was performed considering the effect of the covariate, attitude toward Facebook itself. Before conducting post hoc test, participants we re divided into four groups in accordance with the level of interactivity and the level of enduring involvement with a company (i.e., group 1: low involvement and low interactivity, group 2: low involvement and high interactivity, group 3: high involvement and low interactivity, and group 4: high involvement and high interactivity). In terms of Hypothesis 5a, the results in dicated that there was no significant difference among these four groups, F (3, 166) = 2.10, p = .10. More specifically, under low endu ring involvement with a company, there was no significant difference between perceived high interactivity ( M = 3.27 , SD = 1.21) and low interactivity ( M = 3.0 1 , SD = 1.00) regarding individuals situational involvement p = 1.00 . Thus, Hypothesis 5a was not supported.

PAGE 80

80 Regarding satisfaction of interaction, there was a significant difference among the groups, F (3, 166) = 3.10, p < .05. Hypothesis 5b predicted that in low enduring involvement with a company, perceived high int eractivity would have a greater influence on satisfaction of interaction. The results revealed that under low enduring involvement with a company, subjects in a high interactivity condition ( M = 4.30 , SD = .96 ) had a similar level of satisfaction of intera ction than those in a low interactivity condition ( M = 3.81 , SD = .86 ) , p = . 22 . In this regard, Hypothesis 5b was not supported. In terms of attitude toward a company s Facebook page , the results in dicated that no significant difference existed among the groups, F (3, 166) = . 62, p = .60 . The results also showed that u nder low enduring involvement with a company, no significant difference between perceived high interactivity ( M = 4.36 , SD = 1.21) and low interactivity ( M = 4. 01 , SD = 1.00) existed o n attitude toward a company s Facebook page , p = 1.00 . Thus, Hypothesis 5c was not supported. For intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, there was no significant difference among the groups, F (3, 166) = 2.36 , p = .07 . Hypothesis 5d anticipated that t he effect of perceived high interactivity is greater on the intention to subscribe to the Facebook page than perceived low interactivity under low enduring involvement with a company. However, the results showed that in low enduring involvement with a company, participants under a high interactivity condition ( M = 2.10 , SD = 1.12 ) reported a similar level of intention to subscribe the Facebook page as those under a low interactivity co ndition ( M = 1.83 , SD = 1.00 ) , p = 1.00 . In this regard, Hypothesis 5d was also not supported.

PAGE 81

81 Regarding intention to learn more about the company, the results indicated that a significant difference existed on intention to learn more about the company , F (3, 166) = 2.76, p < .05. Hypothesis 5e proposed that perceived high interactivity has a greater influence on intention to learn more about the company than perceived low interactivity in low enduring involvement with a company. However, the results reveal ed that under low enduring involvement with a company, participants in a high interactivity condition ( M = 2.77 , SD = 1.25 ) had no significant ly different level of intention to learn more about the company from participants in a low interactivity condition ( M = 2.69 , SD = 1.31 ) , p = 1.00 . In this sense, Hypothesis 5e was not supported. In terms of intention to recommend use of the company, there was a significant difference among the groups, F (3, 166) = 6.52, p < .001. Hypothesis 5f predicted that for people who have low enduring involvement with a company, the effect of perceived high interactivity is greater on their intention to recommend use of the company than perceived low interactivity . However, the results showed that in l ow enduring involvement with a company, participants under a high interactivity condition ( M = 2.63 , SD = 1.12 ) reported a similar level of intention to recommend use of the company with those under a low interactivity condition ( M = 2.41 , SD = 1.00 ) , p = 1.00 . Thus, Hypothesis 5f was not supported. Even though this study did not find the effect of high interactivity under high enduring involvement condition on intention to recommend use of the company, the results showed that participants who accessed high interactivity under low enduring involvement condition had greater intention to recommend use of the company than those who accessed low interactivity under low enduring involvement condition, p < .05, and also high enduring involvement condition, p < .05 .

PAGE 82

82 Regarding intention to promote the company to Face book friends, the results revealed that no significant difference existed on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends , F (3, 166) = 2.07, p = .11. Hypothesis 5g proposed that in low enduring i nvolvement with a company, perceived high interactivity has more influence on the intention to promote the company to Facebook friends than perceived low interactivity . The results indicated that for respondents who have low enduring involvement with a com pany, intention to promote the company to Facebook friends was higher when they accessed high interactivity ( M = 2.08 , SD = 1.27 ) than low interactivity ( M = 1.88 , SD = .99 ) , p = 1.00 . Thus, Hypothesis 5g was not supported. Research question 1 was intended to determine the role of interactivity in the formation of (a) , (b) satisfaction of interaction), (c) attitude toward a company s Facebook page, (d) intention to subscribe to the F acebook page, (e) intention to learn more about the company, (f) intention to recommend use of the company, and (g) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends under high involvement with a company. T he test of research question 1 was conducted wi th Hypothesis 5 through Bonferroni post hoc test by dividing samples into four groups depending on the level of enduring involvement with a company and the level of interactivity . In terms of research question 1a, the results showed that under high involvement with a company, there was no significant difference between perceived high interactivity ( M = 3.48 , SD = 1.49) and low interactivity ( M = 3.66 , SD = 1.43) on individuals situational i p = 1 . 00 .

PAGE 83

83 Resear ch question 1b examined the role of high interactivity in the formation of satisfaction of interaction under high enduring involvement with a company . The results showed that under high enduring involvement, participants who accessed high interactivity ( M = 4.49 , SD = 1.13 ) had a similar level of satisfaction of interaction to those who accessed low interactivity ( M = 4.23 , SD = 1.25 ), p = 1 . 00 . Thus, there was no effect of interactivity level on satisfaction of interaction under a low enduring involvement condition. Even though this study did not find the effect of high interactivity under high enduring involvement with a company, however, the results indicated that participants under high enduring involvement and high interactivity condition had a higher level of satisfaction of interaction than those under l ow enduring involvement and low interactivity condition, p < .05. Research question 1c investigated the effect of high interactivity on the formation of attitude toward a company s Facebook page unde r high enduring involvement with a company . The results revealed that no significant difference between high interactivity ( M = 4.27 , SD = 1.38 ) and low interactivity ( M = 4.21 , SD = 1.25 ) existed on attitude toward a company s Facebook page under high enduring involvement with a company , p = 1 . 00 . Research question 1d was designed to determine the effect of high interactivity on users intention to subscribe to the Facebook page in high enduring involvement with a company . The results indicated that fo r respondents who had high enduring involvement with a company, intention to s ubscribe to the Facebook page was similar under both high interactivity ( M = 2.13 , SD = 1.24 ) and low interactivity condition ( M = 2.49 , SD = 1.24 ) , p = . 93 . Thus, no significant effect of high interactivity under high

PAGE 84

84 enduring involvement with a company existed on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. Research question 1e examined th e role of high interactivity in users intention to learn more about the company under high enduring involvement with a company . The results showed that in high enduring involvement with a company, participants under a high interactivity condition ( M = 3.25 , SD = 1.35 ) had no significant difference of i ntention to learn more about the company than those under a low interactivity condition ( M = 3.33 , SD = 1.29) , p = 1 . 00 . In this sense, under high enduring involvement with a company, the effect of different interactivity is not significant on intention to learn more about the company. Research question 1f investigated the effect of high interactivity on intention to recommend use of the company in high enduring involvement with a company . The results showed that under high enduring involvement with a compa ny, those who accessed high interactivity ( M = 3.31 , SD = 1.47 ) had a similar level of intention to recommend use of the company to those who accessed low interactivity ( M = 3.46 , SD = 1.37) , p = 1 . 00 . Thus, there was no significant effect of high level of interactivity on intention to learn more about the company under high enduring involvement with a company. However, the results revealed that participants under high enduring involvement and high inter activity condition had greater intention to recommend use of the company than those under low enduring involvement and low interactivity , p < .05 . Research question 1g proposed to examine th e role of high interactivity in users intention to promote the c ompany to Facebook friends in high enduring involvement with a company . The results revealed that for respondents who had high enduring

PAGE 85

85 involvement with a company, no significant difference between high interactivity ( M = 2.22 , SD = 1.53 ) and low interacti vity ( M = 2.54 , SD = 1.27) existed on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends , p = 1 . 00 . As follow up analyses, two way interaction effects between the level of enduring involvement with a company (low vs. high) and the level of interactivity (low vs. high) were examined through two way MANCOVA analyses. The results revealed that there was no significant two way interaction effect on situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, F (1, 166 ) = 1.24 , p = . 27, with a significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 4.84 , p < . 05, but no significant main effect of the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = .05 , p = . 83. The covariate, attitude toward Facebook itself, did not significantly affect situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, F (1, 166 ) = 1.57 , p = . 21. In terms of satisfaction of interaction, no significant two way interaction effect existed, F (1, 166 ) = 1.24 , p = . 27, accompanied by no significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 3.46 , p = . 07, and a significant main effect of the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = 5.30 , p < .05. Attitude to ward Facebook itself had no significant influence on satisfaction of interaction, F (1, 166 ) = 3.48 , p = . 06. For attitude toward a company s Facebook pa ge, there was no significant two way interaction effect, F (1, 166 ) = .56 , p = . 45. The main effect of enduring involvement level did not exist, F (1, 166 ) = .09 , p = . 76, as well as interactivity type, F (1, 166 ) = 1.18 , p = .28. Attitude toward Facebook itself, the covariate, had a significant impact on attitude toward a company s Facebook page, F (1, 166 ) = 6.38 , p < . 05.

PAGE 86

86 Regarding intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, there was no significant two way interaction effect, F (1, 166 ) = 3.08 , p = . 08, with no significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 3.68 , p = . 06, and no the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = .07 , p = . 79. The covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) did not significantly affect i ntention to subscribe to the Facebook page, F (1, 166 ) = 1.03 , p = . 31. In terms of intention to learn more about the company, the results revealed that no significant interaction between the level of enduring involvement with a company and the level of i nteractivity, F (1, 166 ) = .16 , p = . 69, accompanied by a significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 8.02 , p < . 01, but no significant main effect of the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = .00 , p = . 99. Attitude toward Facebook itself did not have a significant influence on intention to learn more about the company, F (1, 166 ) = .39 , p = . 53. The results also indicated that no significant interaction effect existed on intention to recommend use of th e company, F (1, 166 ) = .80 , p = . 37. There was a significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 18.46 , p < . 001, but no significant main effect of the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = .03 , p = . 87. Attitude to ward Facebook itself, the covariate in this study, did not have a significant influence on intention to recommend use of the company, F (1, 166 ) = 1.07 , p = . 30. For intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, there was no significant interaction effect between the level of enduring involvement with a company and the level of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = 1.74 , p = . 19, accompanied by a significant main effect of the level of enduring involvement with a company, F (1, 166 ) = 4.18 , p

PAGE 87

87 < . 05, but no significant main effect of the type of interactivity, F (1, 166 ) = .09 , p = . 76. Attitude toward Facebook itself had no significant effect on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, F (1, 166 ) = .96 , p = . 33. Research question 2 ex amined whether there is a three way interaction effect among the level of involvement, level of interactivity , and type of message. Three way M ANCOVA analysis with attitude toward Facebook itself as the covariate was performed to examine the relationship a mong involvement level (low vs. high), interactivity level (low vs. high), and message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic). The result s showed that there was no significant three way interaction among these variables on individuals situational involvement with a company s Facebook page , F (1, 162) = 1.61, p = .21 , with no effect of the covariate, attitude toward Facebook itself , F (1, 162) = 2.54, p = .11. Likewise, there was also no significant t h ree way interaction effect among those variables on other dependent variables. To be specific, no three way interaction existed on satisfaction of interaction, F (1, 162) = .44 , p = . 5 1 , with the significant effect of covariate , F (1, 162) = 4.82 , p < . 05, on attitude toward a company s Facebook page, F (1, 162) = .55 , p = . 46, with the significant effect of covariate, F (1, 162) = 6.63 , p < . 05, on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page , F (1, 162) = 2. 85 , p = . 09, with no effect of the covariate, F (1, 162) = 1.56 , p = . 2 1 , on intention to learn more about the company, F (1, 162) = .08 , p = . 78, with no effect of covariate, F (1, 162) = .99 , p = . 32, on intention to recommend use of the company, F (1, 162) = .70 , p = . 4 1 , with no effect of the covariate, F (1, 162) = 1.45 , p = . 23, and on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, F (1, 162) = 1.50 , p = . 22, with no effect of the covariate, F (1, 162) = 1.93 , p = .1 7.

PAGE 88

88 Hypothes e s 6 to 8 proposed the effect of eac h variable on another variable. Hypothesis 6 anticipated the effect of situational involvement with a company s Facebook page on satisfaction of interaction, and Hypothesis 7 predicted that satisfaction of interaction affects attitude toward a company s Facebook page. For Hypothesis 6, the author performed hierarchical multiple regression analyses with enduring involvement with a company as the independent variable in model 1 , perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived interactivity added as the independent variables in mod el 2 , situational involvement with a company s Facebook page added as the independent variables in model 3, and satisfaction of interaction as the dependent variable. For Hypothesis 7, hierarchical multiple regression was also performed. S atisfaction of in teraction was added as the independent variables and attitude toward a company s Facebook page was included as the dependent variable. The result s affects satisfaction of interaction, = .3 3 , p < .001, and satisfaction of interaction has a = .49, p < .001. Thus, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported. Hypothesis 8 predicted attitude toward a company s Facebook page has a pos itive influence on (a) intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, (b) intention to learn more about the company, (c) intention to recommend use of the company, and (d) intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. To test the full model of this s tudy, hierarchical multiple regression analyses w ere performed. Because the current study has four dependent variables regarding intention (i.e., intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend

PAGE 89

89 us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends), the author repeated the analyses four times for the full model . In the first hierarchical multiple regression, intention to subscribe to the Facebook page was considered as a d ependent variable , and all other variables were regarded as independent variables. Likewise, the other three analyses have the same independent variables but different dependent variables : intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend u s e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, the author entered only enduring involvement with a company as the independent variable (model 1) . In the second step, all three determinants (perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived interactivity) were added with enduring involvement with a company as the independent variables (model 2) . In the third step, situational involvement with a company s Facebook pag e was added as the independent variable (model 3) , and in the fourth step, satisfaction of interaction was entered with aforementioned independent variables (model 4) . Finally, in the fifth step, attitude toward a company s Facebo ok page was entered with a ll oth er independent variables (model 5) 1 . The results indicated that a subscribe to the Facebook page, = .2 6 , p < .05, intention to learn more about the company, = .2 3 , p < .05, and intention to recommend us e of the company, = .21 , p 1 Multicollinearity refers to detected high correlation between two or more variables in regression analysis that causes problems to investigate a successful model. SPSS provides tolerance values and VIF to examine multicollinearity. When the tolerance value of a variable is less than 0.01, th e variable can be excluded due to multicollinearity (Brace & Snelgar, 2000). VIF is an alternative method to investigate multicollinearity. Because it is the reciprocal of tolerance, a high value of VIF, particularly more than 10, indicates a strong corre lation among variables (Brace & Snelgar, 2000). In this study, the lowest value of tolerance in each variable was .30; thus, multicollinearity was not detected.

PAGE 90

90 < .05, but it has no significant influence on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, = .06, p < .57. In this regard, Hypothesis 8a, 8b and 8c were supported, but 8d was not supported. In the fifth model of this study, not only attitude toward a company s Facebook page but also individual enduring involvement with a company ( = . 17 , p < .0 1) and situational involvement with a company s Facebook page ( = . 41 , p < . 001) aff ected intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. Individuals enduring involvement with a company ( = . 17 , p < . 01) and situational involvement with a company s Facebook page ( = . 42 , p < . 001) also influenced their intention to learn more about the co mpany. Moreover, both enduring involvement with a company ( = .2 9 , p < .0 01) and situational involvement with a company s Facebook page ( = .2 4 , p < .0 1) had an influence on intention to recommend use of the company. Even though attitude toward a company s Facebook page did not affect intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, enduring involvement with a company ( = . 14 , p < .05 ) and situational involvement with a compan s Facebook page ( = . 49 , p < .0 01) wer e also predictors of affecting in dividuals intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. In this sense, in terms of intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, the proposed model 1 explained 10%, model 2 explained 28%, model 3 explained 42%, model 4 explained 42%, and model 5 e xplained 43% of variance in intention to subscribe to the Facebook page ( Table 4 10) . There were no significant changes from the model 3 to the model 5, and thus, the model 3 was adopted as a proper model to examine the effect of independent variables on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. Regarding intention to learn more about the company, the model 1 explained

PAGE 91

91 10%, the model 2 explained 26%, the model 3 explained 44%, the model 4 explained 47%, and the model 5 explained 48% of var iance in intention to learn more about the company ( Table 4 11) . For intention to recommend use of the company, the model 1 explained 18%, the model 2 explained 33%, the model 3 explained 41%, the model 4 explained 44%, and the model 5 explained 45 % of variance in intention to recommend us e of the company ( Table 4 12) . Even though R square values were escalated from the model 3 to the model 5, the value s were marginally increased (e.g., 0.44 to 0.48 for intention to intention to learn more about the company and 0.41 to 0.45 for intention to recommend use of the company). Thus, the model 3 was adopted to investigate the final model of this study in terms of intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend use of the company. Also, in terms of intention to promote the company to Facebook friends, the model 1 explained 7%, the model 2 explained 18%, the model 3, the model 4, and the model 5 explained 34% of variance in intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. The resul ts indicated that there were not any significant changes among the model 3, 4, and 5. Thus, the model 3 was adopted to explain the variables that affect intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . Table 4 13 showed the result of hierarchical regr ession for intention to promote the company to Facebook friends.

PAGE 92

92 Table 4 1. Description of participants (N = 171) Variables Description Frequency Percent Gender Female 126 73.7 Male 45 26.3 Age 18 25 155 90.6 2 5 < 16 9.4 Ethnicity Caucasian (White) 102 59.6 Hispanic 28 16.4 Asian 20 11.7 African American 15 8.8 Native American 2 1.2 Others 4 2.3 Table 4 2. Manipulation check of message type Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. ( p ) Message type Utilitarian Perceived utilitarian 4.95 1.29 3.30 .032 Perceived hedonic 4.27 1.38 Hedonic Perceived utilitarian 4.29 1.26 2.16 .001 Perceived hedonic 4.74 1.26 Table 4 3. Manipulation check of level of interactivity Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. ( p ) Level of Interactivity Low 3.42 1.25 7.88 .00 1 High 4.86 1.14 Table 4 4. Effect of message type on perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment Message type Mean Std. Deviation n t Sig. ( p ) Perceived usefulness Utilitarian 4.07 1.20 84 2.93 .004 Hedonic 3.55 1.13 87 Perceived enjoyment Utilitarian 3.93 1.29 84 2.25 .026 Hedonic 4.41 1.47 87

PAGE 93

93 Table 4 5. Effect of message type with level of enduring involvement on dependent variables Note. UT = U tilitarian oriented M essages, HED = Hedonic oriented M essages a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Attitude toward Facebook itself = 5.2 3 . Dependent Variable Level of involvement Message type Mean SD n F Sig. ( p ) Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page Low U T 2.84 a .90 40 4.22 .042 H ED 3.3 9 a 1. 20 46 High U T 4.1 1 a 1.38 44 17.13 .00 1 H ED 3.00 a 1.3 4 41 Satisfaction of Interaction Low U T 4.00 a .88 40 .40 .528 H ED 4.1 2 a .97 46 High U T 4.6 1 a 1.06 44 5.30 .023 H ED 4.0 8 a 1.30 41 Attitude toward a Company s Facebook Page Low U T 3.96 a .9 4 40 2.29 .132 H ED 4.37 a 1.1 8 46 High U T 4.46 a 1.4 4 44 2.80 .096 H ED 4.0 1 a 1.43 41 Intention to Subscribe to the Facebook page Low U T 1.7 3 a .81 40 3.41 .067 H ED 2.17 a 1.1 8 46 High U T 2.70 a 1.3 7 44 11.23 .001 H ED 1.89 a .9 6 41 Intention to Promote the Company to Facebook Friends Low U T 1.83 a 1.0 6 40 1.00 .319 H ED 2. 10 a 1.1 9 46 High U T 2.85 a 1.56 44 13.19 .00 1 H ED 1.8 8 a 1.0 2 41

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 6. Mean of each group based on the level of involvement and message type for intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend use of the company Note. UT = U tilitarian oriented Messages, HED = Hedonic oriented Messages a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Attitude toward Facebook itself = 5.2 3 . Table 4 7. Multiple comparison of mean difference for intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend use of the company Dependent Variable Comparison Mean Difference Intention to learn more about the company Low and UT vs. Low and HED .14 Low and UT vs. High and UT .82* Low and UT vs. High and HED .14 Low and HED vs. High and UT .96* Low and HED vs. High and HED .28 High and UT vs. High and HED .67 Intention to recommend use of the company Low and UT vs. Low and HED .17 Low and UT vs. High and UT 1.20* Low and UT vs. High and HED .71 Low and HED vs. High and UT 1.03* Low and HED vs. High and HED .54 High and UT vs. High and HED .49 Note. Low and UT = low enduring involvement with a company and utilitarian oriented messages, Low and HED = low enduring involvement with a company a nd hedonic oriented messages, High and UT = high enduring involvement with a company and utilitarian oriented messages, High and HED = high enduring involvement with a company and hedonic oriented messages . *The mean difference is significant at the .05 le vel using Bonferroni comparison . Dependent Variable Level of involvement Message type Mean SD n Intention to L e arn more about the Company Low U T 2.80 a 1.13 40 H ED 2.66 a 1.40 46 High U T 3.6 2 a 1.30 44 H ED 2.9 5 a 1.2 6 41 Intention to Recommend use of the Company Low U T 2.4 3 a 1. 10 40 H ED 2. 60 a 1.30 46 High U T 3.6 3 a 1.4 1 44 H ED 3.13 a 1.39 41

PAGE 95

95 Table 4 8 . Mean of each group based on the level of involvement and level of interactivity for dependent variables a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Attitude toward Facebook itself = 5.2 3 . Dependent Variable Level of involvement Level of interactivity Mean SD n Situational Involvement Facebook Page Low Low 3.0 1 a 1.00 44 High 3.27 a 1.21 42 High Low 3.66 a 1.43 44 High 3.48 a 1.49 41 Satisfaction of Interaction Low Low 3.81 a .86 44 High 4. 30 a .96 42 High Low 4.2 3 a 1.25 44 High 4.4 9 a 1.13 41 Attitude toward a Page Low Low 4.0 1 a 1.08 44 High 4.36 a 1.11 42 High Low 4.21 a 1.50 44 High 4.27 a 1.38 41 Intention to Subscribe to the Facebook page Low Low 1.83 a 1.00 44 High 2.10 a 1.1 2 42 High Low 2.4 9 a 1.24 44 High 2.1 3 a 1.24 41 Intention to Learn more about the Company Low Low 2.6 9 a 1.3 1 44 High 2.7 7 a 1.2 5 42 High Low 3.33 a 1.29 44 High 3.25 a 1.3 5 41 Intention to Recommend use of the Company Low Low 2.41 a 1.1 9 44 High 2.6 3 a 1.24 42 High Low 3.46 a 1.3 7 44 High 3.31 a 1.47 41 Intention to Promote the Company to Facebook Friends Low Low 1.8 8 a .99 44 High 2.0 8 a 1.27 42 High Low 2.5 4 a 1.26 7 44 High 2.2 2 a 1.53 41

PAGE 96

96 Table 4 9. Multiple comparison of mean difference for dependent variables Dependent Variable Comparison Mean Difference Situational involvement with a Low and Low vs. Low and High .27 Low and Low vs. High and Low .66 Low and Low vs. High and High .48 Low and High vs. High and Low .39 Low and High vs. High and High .21 High and Low vs. High and High .18 Satisfaction of interaction Low and Low vs. Low and High .48 Low and Low vs. High and Low .41 Low and Low vs. High and High .67* Low and High vs. High and Low .07 Low and High vs. High and High .19 High and Low vs. High and High .26 Facebook page Low and Low vs. Low and High .36 Low and Low vs. High and Low .21 Low and Low vs. High and High .27 Low and High vs. High and Low .15 Low and High vs. High and High .09 High and Low vs. High and High .06 Intention to subscribe to the Facebook page Low and Low vs. Low and High .27 Low and Low vs. High and Low .65 Low and Low vs. High and High .29 Low and High vs. High and Low .38 Low and High vs. High and High .24 High and Low vs. High and High .36 Intention to learn more about the company Low and Low vs. Low and High .08 Low and Low vs. High and Low .65 Low and Low vs. High and High .57 Low and High vs. High and Low .57 Low and High vs. High and High .49 High and Low vs. High and High .08 Intention to recommend use of the company Low and Low vs. Low and High .22 Low and Low vs. High and Low 1.05* Low and Low vs. High and High .90* Low and High vs. High and Low .83* Low and High vs. High and High .68 High and Low vs. High and High .15

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 9 . Co ntinued Dependent Variable Comparison Mean Difference Intention to promote the company to Facebook friends Low and Low vs. Low and High .20 Low and Low vs. High and Low .66 Low and Low vs. High and High .34 Low and High vs. High and Low .46 Low and High vs. High and High .14 High and Low vs. High and High .32 Note. Low and Low = low involvement and low interactivity, Low and High = low involvement and high interactivity, High and Low = high involvement and low interactivity, High and High = high involvement and high interactivity. *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level using Bonferroni comparison.

PAGE 98

98 Table 4 10 . Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to subscribe to the Facebo ok page Model Adjusted R 2 F SE Sig. ( p ) Tolerance VIF 1 I C .10 19.88 .07 .32 .00 1 1.00 1.00 2 I C .28 17.68 .06 .2 4 .001 .95 1.0 5 PU .0 8 .34 .00 1 .69 1.4 5 PE .06 .0 9 .249 .7 4 1.35 PI .0 6 .11 .117 .8 3 1.2 1 3 I C .42 25.19 .0 6 .1 7 .008 .92 1.0 9 PU .07 .16 .032 . 60 1.68 PE .0 6 .0 1 .921 .70 1.42 PI .0 6 .01 .849 .7 8 1.28 I CFB .0 7 .48 .00 1 .5 8 1.7 4 4 I C .42 21.07 .0 6 .16 .009 .9 2 1.09 PU .0 8 .15 .053 .57 1.75 PE .06 .02 .774 .6 7 1.50 PI .06 .01 .854 .63 1.58 I CFB .07 .4 6 .00 1 .49 2.02 SI .10 .0 8 .412 .38 2.6 2 5 I C .43 19.66 .0 6 .1 7 .006 .9 2 1.09 PU .0 8 .11 .148 .55 1.8 2 PE .0 6 .04 .568 .6 6 1.5 2 PI .06 .02 .751 .63 1.58 I CFB .0 8 .4 1 .00 1 .4 7 2.14 SI .11 .0 5 .659 .30 3.30 A CFB .0 9 .2 6 .010 .3 5 2.8 8 Note. I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, PU = Perceived Usefulness , PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s Facebook Page

PAGE 99

99 Table 4 11 . Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to learn more about the company Model Adjusted R 2 F SE Sig. ( p ) Tolerance VIF 1 I C .10 20.18 .08 .33 .00 1 1.00 1.00 2 I C .26 15.66 .07 .2 6 .00 1 .95 1.0 5 PU .0 9 .34 .00 1 .69 1.4 5 PE .07 .04 5 .548 .7 4 1.35 PI .0 7 .1 7 .021 .8 3 1.2 1 3 I C .44 27.58 .06 .17 .004 .92 1.0 9 PU .08 .137 .068 . 60 1.68 PE .0 7 .1 6 .024 .70 1.42 PI .06 .05 .416 .7 8 1.28 I CFB .0 8 .56 .00 1 .5 8 1.7 4 4 I C .47 25.79 .06 .16 .006 .9 2 1.09 PU .08 .09 .225 .57 1.75 PE .0 7 .2 1 .003 .6 7 1.50 PI .0 7 .04 .555 .63 1.58 I CFB .08 .4 7 .00 1 .49 2.02 SI .11 .28 .002 .38 2.6 2 5 I C .48 23.58 .06 .1 7 .004 .9 2 1.09 PU .08 .0 6 .452 .55 1.8 2 PE .06 .22 .001 .6 6 1.5 2 PI .0 7 .05 .473 .63 1.58 I CFB .08 .42 .00 1 .4 7 2.14 SI .12 .17 .091 .30 3.30 A CFB . 10 .2 3 .017 .3 5 2.8 8 Note. I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, PU = Perceived Usefulness, PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s F acebook Page

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 12 . Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to recommend us e of the company Model Adjusted R 2 F SE Sig. Tolerance VIF 1 I C .18 37.72 .08 .43 .00 1 1.00 1.00 2 I C .33 21.84 .07 .35 .00 1 .95 1.0 5 PU .0 9 .2 8 .00 1 .69 1.4 5 PE .07 .0 7 .370 .7 4 1.35 PI .0 7 .1 7 .016 .8 3 1.2 1 3 I C .41 24.82 .0 7 . 30 .00 1 .92 1.0 9 PU .0 9 .1 4 .079 . 60 1.68 PE .0 7 .0 1 .895 .70 1.42 PI .0 7 .0 9 .187 .7 8 1.28 I CFB .08 .38 .00 1 .5 8 1.7 4 4 I C .44 23.26 .0 8 .28 .00 1 .9 2 1.09 PU .0 9 .0 9 .247 .57 1.75 PE .0 7 .0 6 .402 .6 7 1.50 PI .07 .0 1 .926 .63 1.58 I CFB .0 9 .2 9 .001 .49 2.02 SI .1 2 .28 .003 .38 2.6 2 5 I C .45 21.23 .0 7 .2 9 .00 1 .9 2 1.09 PU .0 9 .0 6 .476 .55 1.8 2 PE .0 7 .0 8 .274 .6 6 1.5 2 PI .07 .0 2 .833 .63 1.58 I CFB .0 9 .24 .004 .4 7 2.14 SI .13 .17 .094 .30 3.30 A CFB .10 .22 .022 .3 5 2.8 8 Note. I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, PU = Perceived Usefulness, PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s F acebook Page

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 1 3 . Regression analysis for the effect of variables on intention to promote the company to Facebook friends Model Adjusted R 2 F SE Sig. Tolerance VIF 1 I C .07 14.35 .08 .28 .00 1 1.00 1.00 2 I C .18 10.12 .07 .2 3 .002 .95 1.0 5 PU .09 .3 2 .00 1 .69 1.4 5 PE .07 .09 .245 .7 4 1.35 PI .07 .1 3 .104 .8 3 1.2 1 3 I C .34 18.85 .0 7 .1 5 .025 .92 1.0 9 PU .0 9 .12 .131 . 60 1.68 PE .0 7 .20 .008 .70 1.42 PI .0 7 .01 .851 .7 8 1.28 I CFB .08 .5 4 .00 1 .5 8 1.7 4 4 I C .34 15.84 .0 7 .14 .030 .9 2 1.09 PU .0 9 .1 1 .196 .57 1.75 PE .07 .2 2 .005 .6 7 1.50 PI .07 .0 2 .815 .63 1.58 I CFB .0 9 .5 1 .00 1 .49 2.02 SI .1 2 .09 .351 .38 2.6 2 5 I C .34 13.59 .0 7 .14 .029 .9 2 1.09 PU .09 . 10 .252 .55 1.8 2 PE .07 .22 .004 .6 6 1.5 2 PI .07 .02 .790 .63 1.58 I CFB .09 .49 .00 1 .4 7 2.14 SI .13 .06 .594 .30 3.30 A CFB .1 1 .0 70 .517 .3 5 2.8 8 Note. I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, PU = Perceived Usefulness, PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s Facebook Page

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 1 4 . Correlation matrix Mean SD PU PE PI I CFB SI A CFB IS CFB IL C IR C IP C PU 3.81 1.19 1 .49 ** .39 ** .60 ** .58 ** .60 ** .47 ** .44 ** .44 ** .37 ** PE 4.18 1.40 49 ** 1 .32 ** .46 ** .52 ** .51 ** .33 ** .22 ** .31 ** .14 PI 4.12 1.40 .39 ** .32 ** 1 .42 ** .60 ** .50 ** .29 ** .31 ** .32 ** .24 ** I CFB 3.35 1.30 .60 ** .46 ** .42 ** 1 .66 ** .66 ** .62 ** .64 ** .57 ** .56 ** SI 4.20 1.08 .58 ** .52 ** .60 ** .66 ** 1 .77 ** .48 ** .55 ** .55 ** .40 ** A CFB 4.21 1.27 .60 ** .51 ** .50 ** .66 ** .77 ** 1 .55 ** .56 ** .56 ** .40 ** IS CFB 2.14 1.16 .47 ** .33 ** .29 ** .62 ** .48 ** .55 ** 1 .71 ** .71 ** .80 ** IL C 3.01 1.32 .44 ** .22 ** .31 ** .64 ** .55 ** .56 ** .71 ** 1 .76 ** .69 ** IR C 2.95 1.38 .44 ** .31 ** .32 ** .57 ** .55 ** .56 ** .71 ** .76 ** 1 .71 ** IP C 2.18 1.29 .37 ** .14 .24 ** .56 ** .40 ** .40 ** .80 ** .69 ** .71 ** 1 Note. **p < .01 I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, PU = Perceived Usefulness, PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s Facebook Page, IS CFB = Intention to Subscribe to the Facebook page, IL C = Intention to Learn more about the Company, IR C = Intention to Recommend use of the Company, IP C = Intention to Promote the Company to Facebook Friends

PAGE 103

10 3 Figure 4 1. Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on situational

PAGE 104

104 Figure 4 2. Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on satisfaction of interaction

PAGE 105

105 Figure 4 3 . Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on attitude toward a company s Facebook page

PAGE 106

106 Figure 4 4 . Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page

PAGE 107

107 Figure 4 5 . Interaction effect between level of enduring involvement and message type on intention to promote the company to Fac ebook friends

PAGE 108

108 Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05 I C = Enduring Involvement with a Company, UT = Utilitarian oriented Messages, HED = Hedonic oriented Messages, PU = Perceived Usefulness, PE = Perceived Enjoyment, PI = Perceived Interactivity, I CFB = Situational Involvement with a Company s Facebook Page, SI = Satisfaction of Interaction, A CFB = Attitude toward a Company s Facebook Page Figure 4 6 . Resul ts of regression analysis for the full research model

PAGE 109

109 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Summary of Findings The purpose of this study is to investigate what factors (i.e., perceived usefulness, SNSs and whether this use of SNSs has an influence on their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends. After the advent of SNSs, content (or message s n ewsfeed after following particular SNS s and, thus, people can easily and quickly receive interesting content. Thus, depending on the type of content (or message) delivered to their SNS newsfeed, people may perceive its usefulness or enjoyment , which affect s their intention to use the SNS. In this regard, this study also examined which type of message (utilitarian vs. hedonic) influences individuals perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment of SNSs, particularly Facebook. Hypothes e s 1 and 2 addressed the effect of message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) on perceived the current study predicted, utilitarian oriented message s increase the perceived usefulness compared to hedonic oriented message s, whereas hedonic oriented message s increases the perceived enjoyment compared to utilitarian oriented message s . Also, these determinants, s ( or content) themselves can also be important predictor s Facebook page.

PAGE 110

110 situational involvement with a company. As previous ELM studies suggested, the results of this study found a significant interaction between type of message (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and le vel of enduring involvement with a company (low vs. high) by performed MANCOVA . To be specific, high involved people viewing utilitarian oriented messages were more highly oriented messages , while low involved people accessing hedonic oriented message s have higher situational utilitarian oriented message s . Even though the current study found the effect of hedonic oriented message s on situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, the general results of this study particularly highlighted the process of using central route in ELM research . To be specific, participants who highly involved a company had greater satisfaction of interaction, intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, and intention to promote t he company to Facebook friends when they accessed utilitarian oriented messages than hedonic oriented messages, although there was no difference between hedonic and utilitarian oriented messages for low involved people in terms of all dependent variables except for situational involvement with a company s Facebook page . Based on these findings, we can postulate that utilitarian oriented message s are clearly influential among highly involved people , but hedonic oriented messages are marginally influential among low involved people. I n line with previous ELM suggestion , thus, particularly usefulness of messages for high ly

PAGE 111

111 involved people has a significant influence on individuals attitude and behavior intention in SNSs setting. In contrast, peripheral cues such as enjoyable content have a marginal effect on low involved people s attitude and behavior intention under SNS s setting. With the development of web based technology, previous studies have focused on the role of interactivity in online services ( Lustria, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006; Wise et al., 2006; Wu, 1999). This study also adopted the concept of perceived i nteractivity as the key determinant to examine the Multiple regression analysis showed that perceived interactivity was also an influential factor for individuals situational as perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment. However, when one s different levels of enduring involvemen t with a company was considered , there was no significant difference between low and high interac tivity in terms of situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, satisfaction of interaction, attitude toward a s Facebook page, intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommen d use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Faceb ook friends . In this regards, the level of interactivity (low vs. high) has no significant impact on both low and high involved people. Because a company s Facebook page is an online social networking service derived from Facebook itself, participant attitude toward Facebook itself may have an effect on the results of study. In this sense, this study added attitude toward Facebook itself as the covariate when conducting MANCOVA analysis. The results showed that the covariate (attitude toward Facebook itself) significantly affect participant s satisfaction of interaction and attitude toward a company s Facebook page; on the other

PAGE 112

112 hand, it did not have a sig nificant effect on other dependent variables (i.e., situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends). By controlling individuals attitude toward Facebook itself, the current study obtained more accurate results in terms of the effects of independent variables (i.e., message type, interactivity level, and the level of enduring involvement with a company) on dependent variables, particularly satisfaction of interaction and attitude toward a company s Facebook page. MANCOVA analyses showed the effects of different conditions (i.e., the level of enduring involvement w ith a company, message type, and the level of interactivity) on dependent variables. However, these analyses did not reveal the relationship among variables. To examine the process of technolog y acceptance (particularly Facebook page) and the relationship between this acceptance and intention s regarding potential relationship building , hierarchical multiple regression was conducted . The results indicated that satisfaction of interaction, which has a significant influence on attitude toward the on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page and other intentions that may lead to further relationship building between a company and the public such as intention to learn more about the company and intention to recommend us e of the company , but did not significantly affect intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . However, this study has mean ingful findings in terms of the effects of involvement on intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use

PAGE 113

113 of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends as well as intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. In the full model of this study, the results indicated that both enduring involvement with a company and situational involvement s Facebook page posit ively influenced all intention s. Meanwhile, the effects of satisfaction of interaction and attitude toward a company s Facebook page were marginal on the intentions. In this regard, enduring involvement toward a particular company and situational involvement towa rd its Facebook page can be influential predictors for intention to continuous ly us e the particular Facebook page and intentions that may lead to further relationship s in the near future. Theoretical and Practical Implications This study provides several meaningful theoretical and practical implications in building a nd maintaining relationship s between organizations TAM was used for theoretical background. Previous researchers already conducted a study regarding the effects of the determinants such as usefulness and enjoyment of SNSs on individuals use of SNSs (Lin & Lu, 2011). Because companie s SNSs are their online social networking services provided by the SNSs provider, their usefulness and enjoyment can be considered as sig nificant determinants that affect individuals acceptance of companies SNSs as previous TAM research suggested. To exp and TAM from general SNSs to a company s SNSs , however , another factor, particularly content (or messages) should be considered as an inf luential predictor. In the SNSs environment, content (or messages) is automatically and rapidly delivered to individuals newsfeed, and, thus, people s perception of messages may influence the process of their acceptance of a company s SNSs. In this sense, t his study contributes to the

PAGE 114

114 literature of technology acceptance by adopting the effect of message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) . As noted above, SNSs provide an easy platform for delivering messages to s , and thus, message s (or con tent) can be a significant predictor in affect ing in the SNSs context . Previous research only focused on pe usefulness and enjoyment of technology itself. Thus, this study investigated whether message type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) increase d perceived usefulness and enjoyment page and intention to use it. T he result s showed that utilitarian and hedonic messages , respectively. In other words, utilitarian oriented message s usefulness more than hedonic oriented message s, whereas hedonic oriented message s increase their perceived enjoyment more than utilitarian oriented message s . The resul t s also revealed that both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoymen t are s Facebook page, which affect intention to subscribe to the Facebook page . In this sense, the current study extend s TAM research by introducing the effect of message type. The o riginal TAM research focused only on perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989). With the development of technology, another determinant, perceived enjoyment, was added to the TAM research (Davis et al., 1992; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995; Teo et al., 1999; Moon & Kim, 2001). Also, with the emergence of web based service, several previous

PAGE 115

115 s their attitude toward online services ( Lustria, 2007; Thorson & Rodgers, 2006; Wu, 1999 ). As a prominent interactive tool, interactivity in SNSs has also received attention as a significant factor in y as use it. According to the result s of the current st udy, perceived interactivity ha d an situational ge. Since this study found that situational involvement with a company s Facebook page significantly affect ed intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, perceived inte ractivity can be added as a predictor in TAM research under the context of SNSs. Previous research of technology acceptance normally focused on how these to their intention to use it (Davis et al., 1992; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995; Teo et al., 1999; Moon & Kim, 2001). To Facebook page, this study adopted the concept of both enduring and situational involvement . Since situational involvement refers to immediate and transitory consideration towa rd an object ( Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Zaichkowsky, 1986 ) , involvement with a company s Facebook page was considered to be a situational involvement in this study; meanwhile, involvement with a company was considered as enduring involvement, which has b een formed by personal characteristics, knowledge, and experience over a long period of time ( Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Zaichkowsky, 1986). Some studies also considered involvement with a website to be a form of situational involvement; researchers found that this site involvement is significantly

PAGE 116

116 related to individuals attitude toward the site , which affects intention to use it (Mazaheri et al., 2011; Richard & Chandra, 2005). In line with the previous research, the current study also indicated that ind ividuals situational involvement with a company s Facebook page had a positive influence on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. Moreover, the results revealed that personal enduring involvement with a company also influence s intention to subscribe to the Facebook page. Thus, by adding both enduring and situational involvement as variables that affect intention to use it, this study contributes to the literature of TAM research. Moreover, SNSs are used as tools for interaction with others ( Valenzu ela et al., 2009) . T he satisfaction of interaction can also be a significant variable to account for In this sense , this study also proposed the satisfaction of interaction as a variable to inves tigate whether or not Facebook page. Even though the results indicated that, in the full model, the satisfaction of interaction had no impact on intention to subscribe to th e Facebook page, it had a positive influence on one s attitude toward a company s Facebook page. In other words, if people are satisfied with their interaction with a company via its Facebook page, then they may have a favorable attitude toward the Faceboo k page . Even though the results of this study found the effect of one variable on another (i.e., the effect of situational involvement with a company s Facebook page on satisfaction of interaction, the effect of satisfaction of interaction on attitude toward a company s Facebook page, the effect of attitude toward a s Facebook page on intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, intention to learn more about the

PAGE 117

117 company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the com pany to Facebook friends) by testing hypotheses, the full model of the current study indicated that satisfaction of interaction and attitude toward a company s Facebook page had marginally influence on participan intention to subscribe to the Facebook p age, intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends in contrast with situational involvement with a company s Facebook page, which was a significant factor that affected people s intention to subscribe to the Facebook page and intentions that potentially lead to relationship building in the near future. technology, they have ignored the individu al differences in acceptance of technology. To enhance the literature for technology acceptance, this study adopted ELM to account research of technology acceptance from gene ral usage to indiv idual level of usage by underlining the argument of the previous ELM research. For example, high ly in volved people viewing utilitarian oriented message s Facebook page than those who accessed hedoni c oriented message s because they are more likely to be devoted to evaluating the quality of the message s by using a central route during information processing (Petty et al., 1983). In contrast, low involved people acebook page when they viewed hedonic oriented message s than utilitarian oriented message s, because they tend to pay more attention to affective cues (e.g., enjoyment or attractiveness of content) than the usefulness of message s through the peripheral route (Andrews & Sh imp, 1990; Petty et

PAGE 118

118 al., 1983). In contrast with the effect of (enduring) involvement level on (situational) involvement with a company s Facebook page, however, only high level of involvement with a company had a significant impact on the other dependent variables such as satisfaction of interaction, attitude toward a company s Facebook page, and all intentions, but low level of involvement with a company had no influence on the dependent variables. In other words, under high involvement with a company, the effect of utilitarian oriented messages was greater than hedonic oriented messages; however, under low involvement with a company, the effect of hedonic oriented messages was not significantly different from utilitarian orie nted messages. Thus, the current study only highlighted the effect of central route, corresponding to high involvement, but marginally supported the effect of peripheral route, corresponding to low involvement. This study also contributes to the literatur e of ELM research. To investigate how people react involvement toward the company, this study adopted the concept of utilitarian and hedonic value. As predicted, this study revealed that utilitarian oriented message s are a main source for the central route corresponding to high involvement, whereas hedonic oriented message s are a major factor of the peripheral route, corresponding to low involvement. Therefore, the current study extends pr evious literature by containing the role of utilitarian and hedonic values in social media setting. Moreover, this study integrated the concept of enduring and situational involvement to enhance the ELM research. Although previous literature regarding inv olvement proposed both enduring and situational involvement, little empirical research of ELM has examined both enduring and situational involvement , respectively.

PAGE 119

119 Situational involvement has received attention regarding web based service research ( McMilla n et al., 2003) . In this regard, situational involvement with a particular SNS should be examined for a complete The c situational involvement and found the effect of message type on individuals involvement with the involvement with a company. change process by incorporating both enduring and situational involvement in an ELM context. This study also provides meaningful implications for SNSs as tools for organization public relationship building. Even though some previous studies suggested the role of web based services including SNSs as tools for organization public relationship building (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Park & Reber, 2008; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007), few empirical studies have been p erformed regarding the actual effect of SNSs on affect potential relationship building (i.e., intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend us e of th e company, intention to promote the company to Facebook friends), this study creates a meaningful step for contributing to the literature of organization public relationship building in the SNSs context. As noted above, the results indicated that individua situational involvement with a s Facebook page had a significant influence on their intention to learn more about the company, intention to recommend use of the company, and intention to promote the company to Facebook friends . Thus, we can pos tulate that individuals greater involvement toward a

PAGE 120

120 can be a first step of an expanded relationship with the organization in the near future. This study presents an opportunity for PR practitioners to build and maintain rel ationship s with the public via SNSs by providing valuable implications for SNSs as tools for building relationship . PR practitioners may approach the public via SNSs by organi zation. The result s of this study indicated that individuals situational involvement with a s Facebook page, which affect ed intentions that potentially lead to further relationship building, was influenced by the effect of message type depending on the different level of enduring involvement with a company. Thus, the current study highlighted that people who have a high level of involvement with the organization are more likely to devote cognitive effort by evaluating the quality of messages (Petty et al. , 1993). In this regard, for high involv ement people, PR practitioners may provide useful information (e.g., product informat ion or sales information) through their SNSs. On the oth er hand, to attract low involv ement people to their organization, they should post hedonic oriented content (e.g., jokes) on their SNSs to provide such individuals with enjoyment to increase their sit uational involvement with a company s Facebook page . This is because i n dividuals who have a low level of involvement with the organization consider affective and heuristic cues instead of the usefulness of content. In this regard, the result s of the curre nt study can help PR practitioners to take the first step for potential relationshi p building with the public via SNSs by enhancing the information process. For favorable relationship s with high involved people, organizations should create

PAGE 121

121 useful messages, particularly organization related information , in their SNSs. Moreover, enjoyable content should be considered as important factors in SNSs to attract low s , which can lead to favorable relationship s between organizations and the public in the near future . Limitations and Future Research This study has several limitations. First, this study conducted the experiment with only one company, the retail corporation Walmart , and did not include various industries. As the selected company is concentrated in one industry, the study may demonstrate a problem with generalization. In other words, other business sectors may produce different results from a retail corporation. Thus, future research should consider including diverse industries for experiment. Second, the sample of this study consisted of only university students because the majority of the SNSs population is the younger generation (Nielsen, 2011). However, this may l ead to limitation s in external validity. Since the population of SNSs among online users has dramatically increased in recent years (Brenner & Smith, 2013), research which aims to collect data from all age groups is necessary. However, this study did not r eflect other population groups and thus cannot be generalized to the general p ublic . Therefore, future studies should be conducted among various population s . Also, because an existing company was used for the current study, personal bias that participants already had related to the brand image may have affected the result s of personal bias toward image of the company (or brand) may influence their attitude toward the Facebook page regardless of what experimental co ndition to which they are exposed. In order to investigat e a more

PAGE 122

122 accurate effect of involvement with a company, future studies should conduct the experiment with fictitious companies to eliminate any existing personal bias. Although , this study found a s tatistical difference on subjects perception of two different types of message ( utilitarian vs. hedonic), the difference was marginally significant. Therefore, it could create a potential problem. Specifically, the difference was .68 for utilitarian message, and . 45 for hedonic message; therefore, it is difficult to argue that subjects in two different groups had truly perceived the message differently. Future study should use a stronger m anipulation to increase generality of the results. Even though most of the hypotheses were supported, the effect of the level of interactivity under different level s of enduring involvement with a company was not found in this study. This may be because p erceived interactivity is not the same as actual interactivity between participants and the company. To be specific, interactivity in this study was manipulated by third perso n them. Participants only saw these comme nts and replies. Actual interactivity between a company and participants did not occur during the experiment, and thus, participants may not regard manipulated interactivity in this study as actual interactivity. Therefore, for a more accurate experimental setting, other scholars should consider how actual interactivity can be manipulate d. Conclusion In sum, the current study expands the previous research of SNSs as tools for relationship building. Prior research only examined how organizations use SNSs fo r relationship building with the public by performing content analysis of their Facebook pages or Twitter accounts (Park & Reber, 2008; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Taylor et al. , 2001) page

PAGE 123

123 and whether this attitude influences intentions which are potentially related to findings for both academia and practitioners. First, this study found that, under the high involvement condition, utilitarian oriented message s ha ve an influence on individuals Facebook page, which affect s their attitude toward the Facebook page. Under the low involvement condition, however, hedonic oriented message s are influential on individuals Moreover, under high involvement with a company, utilitarian oriented messages have a greater influence on the satisfaction of interaction, the intention to subscribe to the Facebook page, the intention to learn more about the company, and the intention to promote the company to Facebook friends than a hedonic oriented message. In other words, utilitarian oriented messages are strong predictors for high inv olvement people. These results highlighted the suggestion of ELM in terms of a central route. Even though the current study proposed the effect of the interactivity level under different levels of enduring involvement with a company, the role of interacti vity was not clearly revealed under both high and low enduring involvement with a company. However, in terms of the satisfaction of interaction, which significantly affects attitude eater than low interactivity for low involvement people. Thus, it is necessary to consider a high interactivity condition for people who have low involvement with a company. This study also postulates that positiv ely influences the intention to learn more about the company and the intention to

PAGE 124

124 recommend the us e of the company . Because the relationship has been formed over a long period time, it is not easy to simply conclude that people who accessed a ebook page have an intention to build a relationship with the company. However, their intentions to learn more about the company and recommend its use create an opportunity for initial steps toward a future relationship with the company. For the first step of a relationship between organizations and the public, the current study can provide PR practitioners with an effective guideline of using SNSs. In academia, this study sheds light on SNSs as tools for relationship building efforts between organizations and the public. Future studies are required to investigate the effect of SNSs on actual relationship building by using SNSs over a long period of time.

PAGE 125

125 APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI Page 1: Utilitarian oriented message under low interactivity condition

PAGE 126

126 Detail ed messages and comments in Page 1

PAGE 127

127 Detailed messages and comments in Page 1

PAGE 128

128 Page2: Utilitarian oriented message under high interactivity condition

PAGE 129

129 Detailed messages and comments in Page 2

PAGE 130

130 Detailed messages and comments in Page 2

PAGE 131

131 Detailed messages and comments in Page 2

PAGE 132

132 Page3: Hedonic oriented message under low interactivity condition

PAGE 133

133 Detailed messages and comments in Page 3

PAGE 134

134 Detailed messages and comments in Page 3

PAGE 135

135 Page 4: Hedonic oriented message under high interactivity condition

PAGE 136

136 Detailed messages and comments in Page 4

PAGE 137

137 Detailed messages and comments in Page 4

PAGE 138

138 Detailed messages and comments in Page 4

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX B STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT Dear Participants; The collected information in this survey will be used to examine which factors of of it and how this acceptance affect intention to potential relationship bui lding. It would be greatly appreciated if you would simply complete the following questionnaires. Your contribution and participation in this survey is very important for the further examination of quality of experience. It is expected to take 10 15 minute s to complete the survey. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. In addition, there are no known risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey and we guarantee that your responses will not be identified with you pe rsonally. We promise not to share any information that identifies you with anyone outside my research group. Also, your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You will receive extra credit s for participating in the study. Your participation is voluntary a nd there is no penalty if you do not participate . Also, you can withdraw to take the survey at any time without penalty. If you have any questions or concerns about completing the questionnaire or about being in this study, plea se contact the addresses below. Also, t his study is approved by IRB (protocol #2014 U 0023). If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB (Email: irb2@ufl.edu ; Phone Numbe r: 1 352 392 0433). Thank you again for your cooperation and the valuable information you are providing in this survey. Sincerely, Jung Won Chun Graduate student College of Journalism and Communications University of Florida jwchun@ufl.edu

PAGE 140

140 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES 1. Introduction In following pages, you will be asked to answer questionnaires. Please read the questions carefully and click the box that most closely matches your response. 2. The questions below are about your involvement with a company . Please read each question ca refully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. To me Walmart is: Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Exciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unexciting Means nothing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means a lot to me Appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing Fascinating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mundane Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless Involving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolving Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Needed 3. Yes No If you click Yes, please go to Q. 3 1. If not, go to Q. 4. 3 1. The questions below are about your page you already follow . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. To me is: Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Exciting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unexciting Means nothing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means a lot to me Appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing Fascinating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mundane Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless Involving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolving Not needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Needed

PAGE 141

141 4. The questions below are about your Attitude toward Facebook itself . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. To me Facebook is Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like Unfavorably 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorably Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant Wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foolish 5. Now, you will be provided with . Please see the page and read all messages and comments very carefully. 6. The questions below are about your feeling with the MESSAGES in the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. The MESSAGES in the Facebook page are: Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant Not fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fun Unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enjoyable Not appeals to the senses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appeals to the senses Not informative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Informative Not functional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Functional Not practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Practical Not useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Useful 7. The questions below are about your perception of the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Str ongly Strongly Disagree Agree I feel that the Facebook page I just saw is enjoyable and entertaining. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that the Facebook page I just saw is pleasant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that the Facebook page I just saw is not boring. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Facebook page I just saw is attractive and fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Facebook page provides the information I need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that the Facebook page I just saw does not offer me irrelevant information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 142

142 The Facebook page offers me data that I need to make my decisions to use Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel that the Facebook page I just saw is helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. The questions below are about your perception of interactivity in the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Str ongly Strongly Dis agree Agree Interacting with Walmart via Facebook page was like having a conversation with Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Walmart talked back to its customers while they were navigating Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Walmart's Facebook page is interpersonal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Walmart's customers could communicate directly to Walmart if they wanted to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 specific questions quickly and efficiently via its Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The questions below are about your involvement with the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. To me the Facebook page that I just saw is: Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Not worth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worth remembering Not worth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worth paying attention to Does not matter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Matters to me Insignificant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Significant 10. The questions below are about your satisfaction of interaction between the companies via this Facebook page . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. How do you feel about interaction with the company after seeing the Facebook page ? Dissatisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Satisfaction Displeased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleased Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant I did not like it at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like it very much

PAGE 143

143 all Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contented Terrible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Delighted 11. The questions below are about your Attitude toward the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement. The Facebook page I just saw is Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Like Unfavorably 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorably Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant Wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Foolish 12. The questions below are about your Intention to subscribe the Facebook page you just saw . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Strongly Strongly Dis agree Agree I will subscribe to the Facebook page in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will frequently use this Facebook page in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will recommend others to subscribe to the Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I intend to subscribe to this Facebook page as soon as possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is worthwhile to subscribing to this Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. The questions below are about your Intention to learn more about the company after seeing its Facebook page . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Str ongly Strongly Disa gree Agree I want to know more about Walmart in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am most likely to know more about Walmart after seeing its Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Facebook page makes me know more about Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I intend to know more about Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is worthwhile to know more about Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 144

144 14. The questions below are about your Intention to recommend us e of the company after seeing its Facebook page . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Strongly Strongly Di sagree Agree I will recommend others to use Walmart in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am most likely to recommend others to use Walmart after seeing its Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 others to use Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I intend to recommend others to use Walmart. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 products. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. The questions below are about your Intention to promote the company to Facebook friends after seeing its Facebook page . Please read each question carefully and click the appropriate box beside each statement (1= strongly disagree 7= strongly agree). Stron gly Strongly Disagree Agree I will promote Walmart to my Facebook friends in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am most likely to promote Walmart to my Facebook page. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The promote Walmart to my Facebook friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I intend to promote Walmart to my Facebook friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is worthwhile to promote Walmart to my Facebook friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Please either check the appropriate box or fill in the blank for the items below

PAGE 145

145 How many hours do you use the Internet per a week? _____________ How many hours do you use Social Network ing Sites per a week? _______________ How many hours do you use Facebook per a week? _______________ I am: Male Female I am: __________ years old My annual house hold income is: __________ $9,999 or less $10,000 ~ $39,999 $40,000 ~ $69,999 $70,000 ~ $119,999 $1 20,000 ~ $199,999 $200,000 or higher My highest level of education is: Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate degree Other__________ I am: African American Asian American Caucasian/White Native American Hispanic Other __________please specify: __________ Thank you for your participation

PAGE 146

146 LIST OF REFERENCES Abdul Muhmin, A. G. (2010). Repeat purchase intentions in online shopping: the role of satisfaction, attitude, and online retailers' performance. Journal of International Consumer Marketing , 23 (1), 5 20. Alba, J., Lynch, J., Barton Weitz, Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Int eractive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61 (3), 38 53. Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characterist ics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing , 7 (3), 195 214. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644 6 56. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing letters , 2 (2), 159 170. danah boyd & Nicole El lison. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication , 13 (2), 516 529. Bernoff, J. & Li, C. (2008). Harnessing the Power of the Oh So Social Web. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49 (3), 36 42. Blanco, C. F., Blasco, M. G., & Azorin, I. I. (2010). Entertainment an d informativeness as precursory factors of successful mobile advertising messages. Communications of the IBIMA , 1 11 boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communicati on, 13 (1), 210 230. Brace, N., & Snelgar, R. (2000). SPSS for Psychologists : A Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows . Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Brenner, J., & Smith, A. (2013). 72% of Online Adults are Social Networking Site Users. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/social networking sites.aspx Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 (2), 83 98. Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Resear ch, 15 (2), 210 224.

PAGE 147

147 Chang, H. H., & Wang, I. C. (2008). An investigation of user communication behavior in computer mediated environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2336 2356. Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networ ks: Why do students use facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior , 27 (4), 1337 1343. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of retailing , 77 (4), 511 535. Cy r, D., Heead, M., & Ivanov, A. (2009). Perceived interactivity leading to e loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive affective user responses. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 67 (10), 850 869. Davis Jr, F. D. (1986). A technology acce ptance model for empirically testing new end user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information t echnology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319 340. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982 1003. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the Workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111 1132. Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity a qualitative identification of key dimensions. Ne w Media & Society , 2 (2), 157 179. Dwyer, C. (2007, January). Digital Relationships in the. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 19 29). IEEE. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benef its of facebook ?friends:? social capital and college students? use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143 1168. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital impl ications of facebook enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 873 892. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

PAGE 148

148 Fortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web based advertisement. Journal of Business Research , 58 (3), 387 396. Fowler, G. (2012, October, 4). Facebook: One Billion and Counting. The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100008723963904436354045780361 64027386112 Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1) , 51 90. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e products and e services. Omega, 32 (6), 407 424. Goh Say Leng, Suddin Lada, Mohd Zulkifli Muhammad, Ag Asri Hj Ag Ibrahim, & Tamrin Amboala. (2011). An exploration of social networking sites (SNS) adoption in malaysia using technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16 (2), 1 27. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communications. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp. 285 326). Hil lsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 42 (4), 457 474. Harrison, T.M. & Barthel, B. (2009). Wield n ew media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media & Society, 11(1), 155 178. Heijden, H. v. d. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28 (4), 695 704. Hi rschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92 101. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer mediated environments: Conceptual foun dations. Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50 68. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132 140. Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelin es for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.

PAGE 149

149 Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. ( 1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. C.Jain (Ed.), Research frontiers in mark eting: Dialogues and direction (pp. 184 187). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Hsu, C., & Lin, J. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45 (1), 65 74. Huang, M. H. (2006). Flow, enduring, and situational involvement in the Web environment: A tripartite second order examination. Psychology & Marketing , 23 (5), 383 411. Iacobucci, D., Tybout, A., Sternthal, B., Kepper, G., Verducci, J., & Mey ers Levy, J. (2001). Analysis of variance. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 10 (1/2), 5 35. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23 (6), 587 605. Igbaria, M., Iivari, J., & Maragahh, H. (1995). Why do indivi duals use computer technology? A finnish case study. Information & Management, 29 (5), 227 238. Johnson, G. J., Bruner II, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2006). Interactivity and its facets revisited: Theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising , 35 (4), 35 52. Jo inson, Adam N. ( 2008 ) . Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1027 1036. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons , 53 (1), 59 68. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of communication , 59 (1), 172 188. Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication , 11 (2), 395 414. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1 998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public relations review , 24 (3), 321 334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public relations review , 28 (1), 21 37.

PAGE 150

150 Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook . Prentice Hall, Inc. Kim, J., & Morris, J. D. (2007). The power of affective response and cognitive structure in product trail attitude formation. Journal of Advertising , 36 (1), 96 106. Kuhn, M. (2005, January). C.O.B.E: A proposed code of blogging ethics. Paper presented to the Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility Conference at Harvard Law School. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu:8080/webcred/wp content/cobeblogethics.pdf Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2), 254 263. Lai, V. S., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for internet banking: An invariance analysis. Information & Mana gement, 42 (2), 373 386. on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 3 1 (3), 819 827. Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011a). Intention to continue using Facebook fan pages from the perspective of social capital theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (10), 565 570. Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011b). Why people use social netw orking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1152 1161. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, p erson, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of advertising , 31 (4), 53 64. Lustria, M. L. A. (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (6), 766 776. Turk. Behavior research methods , 44 (1), 1 23. Mayfield, R. ( 2005). Social network dynamics and participatory politics. In J. Lebkowsky & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Extreme democracy, (pp. 116 132). Mazaheri, E., Richard, M., & Laroche, M. (2011). Online consumer behavior: Comparing canadian and chinese website visitors. Journal of Business Research, 64 (9), 958 965.

PAGE 151

151 McCorkindale, T.C. (2009). Can you see the writing on my wall? A content analysis of the 12 th Annual International Public Relations Resear ch Conference , 351 353. McMillan, S. J. (2002). A four part model of cyber interactivity Some cyber places are more interactive than others. New Media & Society , 4 (2), 271 291. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising , 31 (3), 29 42. McMillan, S. J., Hwang, J., & Lee, G. (2003). Effects of structural and perceptual factors on atti tudes toward the website. Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (4), 400. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: A potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. Advances in consumer research , 6 (1), 191 196. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world wide web context. Information & Management, 38 (4), 217 230. Muehling, D. D., Stoltman, J. J., & Grossbart, S. (1990). The impact of comparative advert ising on levels of message involvement. Journal of Advertising , 19 (4), 41 50. Nielsen (2011, n.d.). State of the media: the social media report. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/ social/ Nielsen (2012, n.d.). State of the media: the social media report. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/ Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 43 53. International encyclopedia of communication , 4 , 1475 1480. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what is web 20.html Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzu ela, S. (2009). Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 12 (6), 729 733.

PAGE 152

152 Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on line consumer reviews on co nsumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce , 11 (4), 125 148. Park, H., & Reber, B. H. (2008). Relationship building and the use of Web sites: How Fortune 500 corporations use their Web sites to build relationships. Public Relations Review , 34 (4), 409 411. PETERS, A., & SALAZAR, D. (2010). Globalization in marketing: An empirical analysis of business adoption and use of social network sites. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 570. Retrieve from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/570 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research , 8 , 20 24. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating ro le of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research , 10 , 135 146. Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Age differences in online social networking A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Comp uters in Human Behavior, 25 (3), 643 654. Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H., & Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer acceptance of online banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Internet Research, 14(2) , 224 235 . Potin , J. (2007, March 25). Artificial intelligence: With help from the humans. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/business/yourmoney/25Stream .html?_r=0 Raacke, J., & Bonds Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend Networking Sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (2), 169 174. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1998). Interactivity on t he Nets. Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet , 173 90. Rau, P. P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (6), 2757 2770.

PAGE 153

153 Reips, U. D. (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89 114). San Diego: Academic Press. Richard, M. O., & Chandra, R. (2005). A model of consumer web navig ational behavior: conceptual development and application. Journal of business Research , 58 (8), 1019 1029. Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 280 2 85 Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions. Advances in consumer research , 11 (1), 216 217. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54 67. Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relations Review , 33 (2), 227 229. Shin, D. (2010). Analysis of online social: a cross national stud y, Online Information Review , 34 (3), 473 495. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of communication , 42 (4), 73 93. Stromer Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity as product and interactivity as process. The Information Society , 20 (5), 391 394. Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating Web Site interactivity impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication research , 30 (1), 30 59. Surra, C. A., & Ridley, C. A. (1991 ). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants, peers, and observers. Studying interpersonal interaction , 35 55. Sweetser, K. D., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship management tool. Public Relations Rev iew , 33 (3), 340 342. Syed Ahmad, S. F., & Murphy, J. (2010). Social networking as a marketing tool: The case of a small australian company. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19 (7), 700 716. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review , 27 (3), 263 284. Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., & Lai, R. Y. C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage. Omega, 27 (1), 25 37.

PAGE 154

154 Teo, T. S. H. (2001). Demographic and motivation variables associated with internet usage activities. Internet Research, 11 (2), 125 137. Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasoci al interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6 (2), 39 50. Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M., & Landreville, K. D. (2006). Evolution of online campaigning: Increasing interactivity in candidate Web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication & Society , 9 (1), 21 44. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social n etwork site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and Participation1. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 14 (4), 875 901. van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly , 28 (4), 69 5 704. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 310 320. Wang, Y. J., Hernandez, M. D., & Minor, M. S. (2010). Web aesthetics effec ts on perceived online service quality and satisfaction in an e tail environment: The moderating role of purchase task. Journal of Business Research , 63 (9), 935 942. Wang, K., Wang, E. T., & Farn, C. K. (2009). Influence of web advertising strategies, cons umer goal directedness, and consumer involvement on web advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Electronic Commerce , 13 (4), 67 96. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How no nprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review , 35 (2), 102 106. Wertenbroch, K., & Dhar, R. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60 71. Wise, K., Hamman, B., & Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication , 12 (1), 24 41. Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2009). An updated look at the impact of social media on public relations practice. Public Relations Journal , 2(2). Wu, G. (1999, March). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward web sites. In PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADVERTISING (pp. 254 262). American Acad emy of Advertising.

PAGE 155

155 Wu, J. J., & Chang, Y. S. (2005). Towards understanding members' interactivity, trust, and flow in online travel community. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 105 (7), 937 954. Wu, J., Chen, Y., & Lin, L. (2007). Empirical evaluation o f the revised end user computing acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), 162 174. Yoo, C. Y., & Stout, P. A. (2001). Factors affecting users' interactivity with the web site and the consequences of users' interactivity. In PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADVERTISING (pp. 53 61). Pullman, WA; American Academy of Advertising; 1999. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341 352. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptuali zing involvement. Journal of advertising , 15 (2), 4 34. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising , 23 (4), 59 70. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 1816 1836. the technology acceptance model. Paper presented at the Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), 2011 International Conference on, 5148 5151.

PAGE 156

156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jung Won Chun was born in Seoul, South Korea. She graduated from Sookmyung Women s Univers ity in 2009, earning a B.A. in t elecommunications and Korean Language and Literature as a double major. After graduat ion, she worked for Newsis, which is a news agency in South Korea as a news reporter focusing on international news. In Newsis, s he wrote international news articles based on AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg. After that, she worked for Joongang il bo Eoconomist, which is a leading newsweekly in South Korea as a research assistant and news reporter. S he assisted in the manangement of Gangh wa County PR department in creating effective community development strategy , participated in publishing reports and books, interviewed prominent figures from various circles, and wrote articles. She earned her Master of Arts in M ass C ommunication at Univ ersity of Florida in 2014, and plans to pursue her doctoral degree in m ass c ommunication, concentrating on p ublic r elations in fall 2014.