Empty Spaces: Understanding A Facebook User's Experiences of Social Networking Sites

[Empty Spaces]
Understanding a Facebook user’s experience of Public Relations conducted through Social Networks.
Nathan Wooding
BA (Hons) Public Relations
2008-2009
A dissertation of 11,632 words
Nathan Wooding i
e9502498
Declaration
[Empty Spaces]: Understanding a Facebook User’s Experiences of Public Relations conducted
through Social Networks.
A dissertation submitted by Nathan Wooding in partial completion of the award BA (Hons)
Public Relations.
‘I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations
of Bournemouth University. The work is original except where indicated by special reference in
the text. No part of this work has been presented to any other University for examination either
in the United Kingdom or overseas.’
Signed…………………………………
Dated………………………………….
Nathan Wooding
BA (Hons) Public Relations
2008-2009
Nathan Wooding ii
e9502498
Abstract
This study provides insights into Facebook users’ experiences of Public Relations conducted
through Social Networking Sites (SNS) using both literature and primary research.
Social Networks are considered to be one of the greatest successes of Web 2.0 and Social Media
(Hart et al 2008) with Facebook paramount amongst them. It is argued that the rapid rise of
Social Media and SNS in particular is not a fashionable trend but a change in the way the public
uses the Internet. The Internet has changed the way in which communication takes place
effectively revolutionising the practice of PR.
This dissertation critically examines the literature surround SNS, online and offline models of
Public Relations, Privacy and Trust, identifying key themes and relevant sources of data to
inform the study. The study provides primary evidence regarding how Facebook users perceive
groups, their thoughts on PR and their behaviour within the site and Facebook groups. This
dissertation concludes that whilst people will join Facebook groups with a startling
promiscuity, they are very rarely active within them. It also finds that people’s self-reported
awareness of Public Relations is high. Lastly, it finds because people believe they are aware of
Public Relations activities they do not care that Facebook groups are used for Public Relations.
This dissertation fills a gap in the literature regarding the use of SNS for PR purposes, it also
identifies several areas that would benefit from further research.
Nathan Wooding iii

e9502498
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge several people in regards to this dissertation. Firstly, I would like
to thank Mike Molesworth for his guidance, support and random chats in his office – I know I
was never an ideal student but his patience and genuine passion for this topic was enough for
the two of us.
Secondly, I would like to thank everybody who took part in my research and those people on
BAPR who listened to my problems when things slowed down.
Thirdly, I would like to thank all my housemates, with special reference to DG who kept
distracting me and GS who wouldn’t let me settle.
This dissertation is complete because of your support.
Nathan Wooding iv
e9502498
Dedication
This dissertation represents the culmination of four years of higher education. With this in mind it is
dedicated equally to those who believed I could do it and to those who didn’t.
I’ll name no names.
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
- Sir Isaac Newton
Nathan Wooding v
e9502498
Table of Contents
Declaration .................................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract....................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................iv
Dedication.....................................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................vi
Table of Tables.............................................................................................................................ix
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 4
2.1 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL MEDIA ................................................................................... 5

2.2 SNS ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 ONLINE/OFFLINE PR .................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 SNS AND PR...............................................................................................................................11
2.5 PRIVACY AND TRUST ENTWINED .................................................................................................12
2.6 PR AND TRUST ...........................................................................................................................14
2.7 CONCLUSION AND RATIONALE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...............................................................15
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................16
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................17

3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................17
3.3 DATA COLLECTION .....................................................................................................................17
3.3.1 Online questionnaires .........................................................................................................17
3.3.2 Questionnaire Design..........................................................................................................18
3.3.3 Distribution.........................................................................................................................19
3.3.4 Sample................................................................................................................................19
3.3.5 Piloting...............................................................................................................................20
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................20
3.4.1 Cross-tabulation .................................................................................................................20
3.4.2 Triangulation. .....................................................................................................................21
3.5 CREDIBILITY ...............................................................................................................................21
3.5.3 Generalisability ..................................................................................................................22
3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS...................................................................................................................23
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................24

4.2 DESCRIBING THE SAMPLE ............................................................................................................24
4.2.2 Level of Awareness of PR ....................................................................................................24
4.3 LOGIN FREQUENCY .....................................................................................................................25
Nathan Wooding vi
e9502498
4.3.1 Login Frequency by Sex ......................................................................................................26
4.3.2 Login Frequency by Age......................................................................................................26
4.4 RQ1: WHAT TYPE OF GROUPS DO FACEBOOK USERS JOIN AND WHY?.............................................26
4.4.2 Categories of Groups ..........................................................................................................26
4.4.3 Frequency of Group Activity................................................................................................27
4.4.4 Explanation of Group Activity .............................................................................................28
4.4.5 Reasons for Joining Groups ................................................................................................28
4.4.6 Reasons for not Joining Groups...........................................................................................29
4.5 RQ2: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS?.........................................30
4.5.2 Reasons for Creating Groups ..............................................................................................30
4.5.3 Believability of Information in Groups.................................................................................31
4.6 RQ3: DO FACEBOOK USERS CARE ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS BEING USED FOR PR? .....................31
4.6.2 Dubious Practice ................................................................................................................31
4.6.3 Observing Whether or Not a Group has been Set-up to Conduct PR.....................................33
4.6.4 Does PR Make You Feel Differently Towards Facebook Groups? ........................................34
4.6.5 Happy – Unhappy ...............................................................................................................35
4.6.6 Angry – Ambivalent.............................................................................................................35
4.6.7 It is Wrong – It is Right .......................................................................................................36
4.6.8 I Care – I do not Care .........................................................................................................36
4.7 RQ4: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT THEIR USE OF FACEBOOK? .................................37
4.7.2 Facebook Groups and Trust ................................................................................................37
4.7.3 Trusting – Untrusting..........................................................................................................38
4.7.4 Active – Passive ..................................................................................................................38
4.7.5 Means a Little – Means a Lot ..............................................................................................39
4.7.6 Exciting – Boring ................................................................................................................39
4.7.7 Serious – Playful.................................................................................................................40
4.7.8 Useful – Useless..................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................42
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................43

5.1.1 Discussing the participants..................................................................................................43
5.2 RQ1: WHAT TYPE OF GROUP DO FACEBOOK USERS JOIN, AND WHY? .............................................43
5.3 RQ2: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS?.........................................44
5.4 RQ3: DO FACEBOOK USERS CARE ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS BEING USED FOR PR? .....................45
5.5 RQ4: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT THEIR USE OF FACEBOOK? .................................46
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................47
6.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................48

6.2 ANSWERING RQ1: WHAT TYPE OF GROUP DO FACEBOOK USERS JOIN, AND WHY?..........................48
6.3 ANSWERING RQ2: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS? .....................48
6.4 ANSWERING RQ3: DO FACEBOOK USERS CARE ABOUT FACEBOOK GROUPS BEING USED FOR PR? ..49
6.5 ANSWERING RQ4: WHAT DO FACEBOOK USERS THINK ABOUT THEIR USE OF FACEBOOK?..............49
6.6 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................50
Nathan Wooding vii
e9502498
6.7 LIMITATIONS ..............................................................................................................................50
6.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................................................50
CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................51
CHAPTER 8: APPENDICES.............................................................................................................56
Appendix I..................................................................................................................................... I
Appendix II...................................................................................................................................II
Appendix III.................................................................................................................................III
Appendix IV.............................................................................................................................. VIII
Appendix V..................................................................................................................................IX
Appendix VI............................................................................................................................... XII
Nathan Wooding viii

e9502498
Table of Tables
Table 1: Age by Sex.............................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 2: Cross-tabulation Sex by Awareness of PR................................................................................................ 25
Table 3: Login Frequency by Sex .......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 4: Login Frequency by Age ......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 5: Cross-tabulation Sex by Believability....................................................................................................... 31
Table 6: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Dishonest PR Group.......................................................................................... 32
Table 7: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Awareness of PR............................................................................................... 33
Table 8: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Changed Feelings .............................................................................................. 34
Table 9: Semantic Differential Scale - Happy: Unhappy......................................................................................... 35
Table 10: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Happy: Unhappy ............................................................................................. 35
Table 11: Semantic Differential Scale - Angry: Ambivalent ................................................................................... 35
Table 12: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Angry: Ambivalent.......................................................................................... 36
Table 13: Semantic Differential Scale - It is Wrong: It is Right............................................................................... 36
Table 14: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Right: Wrong .................................................................................................. 36
Table 15: Semantic Differential Scale - I Care: I Do Not Care ................................................................................ 36
Table 16: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Care: Don't Care.............................................................................................. 37
Table 17: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Trust ............................................................................................................... 37
Table 18: Semantic Differential Scale -Trusting: Untrusting................................................................................... 38
Table 19: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Trusting: Untrusting ........................................................................................ 38
Table 20: Semantic Differential Scale - Active: Passive ......................................................................................... 38
Table 21: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Active: Passive................................................................................................ 39
Table 22: Semantic Differential Scale - Means a Little: Means a Lot ...................................................................... 39
Table 23: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Means Little: Means a Lot ............................................................................... 39
Table 24: Semantic Differential Scale - Exciting: Boring ....................................................................................... 39
Table 25: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Exciting: Boring .............................................................................................. 40
Table 26: Semantic Differential Scale - Serious: Playful......................................................................................... 40
Table 27: Cross-Tabulation: Sex by Serious: Playful.............................................................................................. 40
Table 28: Semantic Differential Scale - Useful: Useless ......................................................................................... 41
Table 29: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Useful: Useless................................................................................................ 41
Nathan Wooding ix
e9502498
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Four Models of PR (Grunig and Grunig, 1989)..........................................................................................7
Figure 2: Four-part model of Cyber-Interactivity (McMillan 2002) p.276 ............................................................... 10
Figure 3: A causal model of online trust (Corritore et al 2003, p749) ...................................................................... 13
Figure 4: How Aware of PR Do You Think You Are?............................................................................................ 25
Figure 5: Frequency of Group Category................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 6: Frequency of Group Activity .................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 7: Explanation of Group Activity................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 8: Reason for Joining Groups ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: Reasons for not Joining Facebook Groups............................................................................................... 29
Figure 10: Reasons for Setting-up Facebook Groups .............................................................................................. 30
Figure 11: How Believable Do You Find the Information within Groups to Be? ..................................................... 31
Figure 12: Respondent Feelings towards Dishonest Facebook Groups .................................................................... 32
Figure 13: Can You Tell Whether a Group had been Set-up for PR?....................................................................... 33
Figure 14: Do You Feel Differently Towards a Group Set-up for PR? .................................................................... 34
Figure 15: Do You Trust Facebook Groups?.......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 16: The Major Differences between Deductive and Inductive Research. Adapted from Saunders et al (2007),
p120..............................................................................................................................................................I
Figure 17: Choosing a Non-Probability Sampling Method. Adapted from Saunders et al (2007), p228...................... II
Nathan Wooding x
e9502498
Chapter 1: Introduction
Nathan Wooding 1
e9502498
1.1 Introduction
There is much discussion surrounding Social Networking Sites (SNS). Seen by many as the
global phenomenon of 2008, around two-thirds of the world’s internet population uses or visits
a SNS (Nielsen 2009). Between December 2007 and December 2008, the amount of time spent on
SNS rose by 63% to 45 billion minutes (Nielsen 2009). SNS are now being seen as another
channel with which to communicate with consumers and they have the potential to change the
way in consumers are targeted and engaged. This presents many unique opportunities and
problems to PR professionals.
Facebook is a SNS founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg. It is described as a “social utility that
helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and co-workers.” (Anon
(a) 2009). Facebook is the ninth most popular brand on the internet globally and is visited by
47% of British people (Nielsen 2009).
Statistics published by Facebook state that globally: there are currently more than 175 million
active Facebook users; that there are more than 28 million pieces of content shared each month;
that there are more than 25 million active user groups on the site and that more than four
million users become fans of Pages each day (Anon (b) 2009). Although, it is posited that
Facebook is mainly used to manage relationships instigated offline (Hart et al 2008).
A 2009 Nielsen report states that: “Fan sites or sponsored groups are, perhaps, one of the most
successful examples of social network marketing.”(p6). When this is considered alongside the
figures presented earlier, it could be concluded that Facebook groups are a powerful tool in the
PR arsenal, however if participants feel exploited they will move away from such groups
(Typaldos 2002).
This study is intended as an exploratory piece of research into how aware consumers are of PR
conducted through Facebook. This is partly motivated by the personal belief of the author that
for PR to be truly effective consumers and audiences should not be aware of its presence within
any communications. The main reason, however, the author has for conducting this research is
a personal desire to explore how SNS have changed the way in which PR is conducted online
and how the public feels about the use of SNS to target them as consumers.
Nathan Wooding 2
e9502498
Subsequently, this research aims to explore the following:
• To ascertain what reasons’ Facebook users have for joining Facebook groups or Fan
Pages.
• To identify whether or not Facebook users are active within Facebook Groups or Fan
Pages.
• To identify whether or not Facebook users trust a Facebook group’s reason for being
active.
• To ascertain whether or not Facebook users recognise PR in Facebook groups and Fan
Pages.
• To identify how Facebook users feel when they know a Facebook group is set up for PR
purposes.
Nathan Wooding 3
e9502498
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Nathan Wooding 4
e9502498
To accurately place this study within current PR research and to demonstrate how it builds on
previous research, this dissertation will critically review academic and industry research in the
areas of Social Media and PR. Literature around Trust and Privacy will also be reviewed
because although the topic of this dissertation does not focus on these areas explicitly, these
subject areas are pertinent to the study of SNS.
Alongside the body of academic research, this dissertation will also use the blogs of industry
professionals’ to provide insight and definitions where the academic world does not.
2.1 A brief introduction to Social Media
There appears to be a lack of a coherent, conclusive definition of Social Media. Weblogs from
industry professional offer an up-to-date understanding of how Social Media can be defined.
The most complete definition comes from Brian Solis who, on his blog, defines Social Media as
“the online tools that people use to share content, profiles, opinions, insights, experiences,
perspectives and media itself, thus facilitating conversations and interaction online between
groups of people. These tools include blogs, message boards, podcasts, micro blogs, lifestreams,
bookmarks, networks, communities, wikis, and vlogs.” (2007). This definition describes many of
the constituent elements of Social Media and how they are used to create user generated
content. It focuses on how the sharing of content is used to instigate communication between
users. This concept can be seen as the core philosophy of Social Media.
In summary, Social Media is the term used to group all the resources that an internet user has at
their disposal to communicate and share information with other internet users. These resources
are hosted on a variety of websites.
2.2 SNS
SNS have been a part of the internet for around ten years. It is in the last few years however,
that they have achieved mass popularity (Boyd and Ellison, 2008). They can be considered one
of the greatest successes of Web 2.0 and Social Media (Hart et al 2008). Boyd (2007) states that
SNS are the new mediated publics, creating a place where publics can gather and debate.
It is argued that the rapid rise of Social Media and SNS in particular is not a fashionable trend
but a significant shift in the way the public uses the Internet (Advertising Age 2008; Nielsen
2009).
Nathan Wooding 5
e9502498
However, the exponential growth of SNS and, in particular, Facebook could also be attributed
to the Network Effect – whereby, the more people connected to a network, the more useful or
valuable it becomes (Typaldos 2002). There is also evidence pointing to the relevance of Blumler
and Katz’s (1974 cited Chan and Fang 2007) Use’s and Gratifications theory which assumes that
media users are goals orientated and that the media they choose best fulfils their needs.
There are some issues surrounding the definition of SNS. The main problem being that there are
so many terms being used to describe so many applications there is no clarity (Beer 2008).
Boyd & Ellison (2008, p211) define SNS as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1)
construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other
users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system.”.
Most SNS have a similar structure - users generate a personal profile containing information
about their age, gender, location, interests, a photograph and information about their friends.
(Boyd 2007b) This personalisation of space is central to SNS, although it is often a source of
differentiation between different SNS. Boyd (2007b) states that people are judged by their
profile, friends, groups and associations.
There are many SNS open to the public such as Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Linkedln, and
Second Life. Some are formed around niche interest markets whilst others are generic
communities open to the public. Facebook is one such ‘open-community’ and this lack of
specialisation is hailed as part of its rapid up-take by consumers from around the world. The
main reason why people join Facebook is for fun and pleasure (Hart et al 2008).
Facebook can be classed as a many-to-many or Group Forming Network (Typaldos 2002). It has
been suggested that the value of these networks is governed by Reed’s Law, which states that
the number of possible groups within a network is 2n, therefore the value of a Group Forming
Network increases in proportion to 2n.
Nathan Wooding 6
e9502498
2.3 Online/Offline PR
Figure 1: Four Models of PR (Grunig and Grunig, 1989)
Figure 1 (cited McMillan 2002, p275) shows the different functions that traditional PR can take
and, indeed, most offline communications do fall within one of these descriptions. The one-way
models are indicative of the mass-media (Television, Radio and the Press) and can be described
as a monologue concerned with manipulating the public (Grunig and Grunig in Grunig 2002).
The two-way models can be seen as being more conversational; approaching a ‘many-to-many’
style of communication where an organisation is concerned with gathering information about
its audience and using it to promote better understanding rather than to persuade (Grunig and
Grunig in Grunig 2002). Grunig has argued that the two-way symmetrical model is the most
ideal.
The Internet has changed the way in which communication takes place (Holtz 1999, Ross and
Middleburg (cited Hurme 2001) and Kirdar and Demir 2006), effectively revolutionising the
practice of PR; shifting it from a top-down monologue towards a more conversational, or
dialogic, model (Holtz 1999). Cilliers et al (2004) state that if the Internet is used strategically, it
will contribute towards communications excellence.
Before the advent of the Internet, advertising was the only way to send controlled message to
the public (Kirdar and Demir 2006). PR using offline media to transmit a message had to
contend with Media Gatekeepers, who set the press agenda and had total control over the
messages featured within it. Kirdar and Demir (2006) state that the Internet allows controlled
messages to be sent to a mass audience bypassing Media Gatekeepers. Hurme (2001) concurs
with this, going on to state that it is because the Internet is largely unregulated and anybody can
say anything.
Nathan Wooding 7
e9502498
Wilson and Lu (2008) state that the online communications media are being used more
frequently to persuade message receivers because messages that are being sent to one-to-many
can be customised to imitate the appearance and interactivity of interpersonal conversation.
Although it is argued that the Internet, and the communications tools it offers, are centred
around the principle of delivering value and not merely the communication of messages
(Cilliers et al 2004).
Holtz (1999) outlines several new communications models, two of which are relevant today.
The first is ‘Many-to-Many’; where beforehand an individual had little or no opportunity to

engage with an organisation about its messages or to come together with other audience
members to discuss an organisation, the internet has provided a platform for anybody to talk
about anything with anyone. This morass of conversation has forced a change in the way in
which organisations communicate with their online publics. In this model a communicator’s
credibility is based on the value of the information that they supply, with the credibility being
assessed by individuals who read it and tested in discussions.
Holtz’s second model is ‘Receiver-Driven Communications’. Working on the premise of
individuals demanding ‘I want what I want when I want it’, this model is a response to the
information overload that faces internet users and their coping strategy of picking and
choosing, also known as ‘pulling’, the information that is relevant to them and then dismissing
everything that isn’t. Each individual expects to get the exact information they require at any
given point and it states that the role of the communicator is not to provide mass audiences
with potentially irrelevant information but to provide direction towards information for those
publics who may be interested.
Holtz’s work, conducted a decade ago, concurs with a synthesis of PR research conducted by
Botan and Taylor (2004) and represents a shift in the dominant paradigm of PR; from pushing
information to a mass audience without knowing how many will receive the message to a
model of signposting relevant information, with embedded messages, and allowing relevant
audiences to pull the information that they want. Hurme (2001) infers that the new generation
of Internet users are too ‘savvy’ an audience for conventional PR to be an effective
communications tool (Larsson 2007). They prefer ‘pulling’ information rather than having it
thrust upon them and as such PR Practitioners will need to outsmart them in order to
communicate with them.
Nathan Wooding 8
e9502498
The internet has a massive potential to be used as a medium for dialogic communication (Kent
and Taylor 1998, Pitt et all 2002, Kirdar and Demir 2006, Hsu et al 2007). Hurme (2001) states
that although the Internet creates an opportunity for many-to-many and one-to-one
communication they are not mutually exclusive and should be used together, and that the
optimal method of transmitting messages is to integrate both online and offline PR tactics.
Dialogue has its roots in the concept of intersubjectivity, whereby both parties in a relationship
attempt to understand and appreciate the views and values of the other (Kent and Taylor 2002),
it rests on the willingness of both parties to continue a conversation not for persuasion but for
understanding.
Kent and Taylor (1998) offer five practical principles towards creating dialogic PR: Dialogic
Loop – This offers publics the opportunity to query an organisation’s messages and gives
organisations the tools with which to respond. Response is the major factor in this concept,
organisations must commit to the close monitoring of public query and respond accordingly.
They update this by saying that the commitment of organisational resources is what makes the
Internet dialogic (Kent and Taylor 2002).
The second principle is the Usefulness of Information – Kent and Taylor (1998) state that publics
should come to look upon an organisations online presence as a source of useful and
trustworthy information. This publication of information is the first step to developing useful
relationships. They go on to say that relationships should not have PR motives but that they
should also answer the public’s needs. This is augmented by the argument presented by Cilliers
et al (2004) that it is no longer enough to present information to stakeholders; organisations

must match the needs of their stakeholders.
The third principle is Generation of Return Visits – Kent and Taylor (1998) posit that
organisational websites that contain regularly updated and changing information appear more
credible and confer a sense of responsibility. Organisations must create spaces where publics
can engage with humans and not be diverted to overtly sales-focussed areas (Kent and Taylor
2002).
The fourth and fifth principles are: Ease of the Interface – whereby the information provided by
the organisation should be the focus of the online presence rather than the technical competence
of the website’s designers. This ties closely with Kent and Taylor’s (1998) fifth principle:
Conservation of Visitors – which states that an organisation should provide relevant external
Nathan Wooding 9
e9502498
information for its publics but that publics should not be led astray with superfluous links to
irrelevant websites as it is only possible to instigate a conversation with a public if they are
present.
This model provides a practical outline of how an organisation can go about conducting
dialogic PR in an online environment, although there are dissenting arguments that maintain
that dialogic PR is not practical or even possible (Van der Meiden 1993) because as stated by
Kent and Taylor (2002) it can be used to manipulate or even exploit an organisation. Although a
study by Huang (2004) found that symmetrical communication can actually benefit an
organisation.
Dialogic PR is rooted in ethical PR, although there is no empirical evidence proving that it is
more ethically sound (Kent and Taylor 2002). Huang (2004) found that it is nearly impossible to
distinguish ethical PR from two-way communications. Kent and Taylor (2002) believe this is
because dialogic PR gives everybody a voice and is based on the principles of honesty and trust.
Pitt at al (2002) concurs with this, stating that it rebalances the power relationship in favour of
the public because it allows them to discover their voice. It also makes organisations more
transparent.
Macmillan (2002) agrees with previous literature in stating that two-way communication is the
most beneficial to an organisation. McMillan goes on to propose a model that moves the
concepts discussed by Grunig and Grunig into an online setting (See figure 2).
Figure 2: Four-part model of Cyber-Interactivity (McMillan 2002) p.276
Nathan Wooding 10
e9502498
Mutual discourse is where communications flows back and forth, with either party capable of
being the message sender or receiver. Responsive dialogue is when an organisation retains
control over the messages it sends but allows and listens to discourse regarding those messages.
Dialogic PR is a blend of both elements.
2.4 SNS and PR
SNS provide Communications professionals with an increasingly powerful tool to facilitate
communications with their publics. “Public Relations has a permanent place. The most
powerful social media campaigns work in concert with media outlets, rather than separately.”
(Public Relations Tactics 2008)
A study of ‘Social Media Power Users’ found that less than one third of Communications
professionals admitted that Social Media played a significant role in their strategy for
communications (Gillin 2007). Gillin also found that fifty-seven percent of respondents stated
that “social media tools are becoming more valuable to their activities as more customers and
influencers use them.” (2007, p7). Blogs, online video sharing and SNS are stated as the most
valuable tools.
SNS and Social Media offer unique challenges to Communications professionals. It has been
suggested that PR conducted through SNS can be likened to the more traditional forms of
Media Relations with PR professionals now required to build and maintain mutually beneficial
relationships because receivers are being more careful and selective when they are choosing
their sources of information (Wright 2005).
This is strengthened by Garment’s assertion that “Communications will need to build brand
relationships among various consumer groups, each absorbed in their own personal media
networks, each expecting content and messaging to align with their common interests,
preferences and lifestyles.” (Advertising Age 2008, p15).
This leads to questions about the visibility of PR. Demetrious (2008) argues that to be successful
PR should be effectively unseen. It is this invisibility, however, that propagates Public

Relation’s negative reputation.
Nathan Wooding 11
e9502498
2.5 Privacy and Trust Entwined
The Oxford English Dictionary defines trust as the “firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or
strength of someone or something or the acceptance of the truth of a statement without
evidence or investigation.” The tenets that make up trust are: Risk, Vulnerability, Expectation,
Confidence and Exploitation (Corritore et al 2003).
Dwyer et al (2007) found that it not well understood how trust and concerns for privacy
influence social interactions within SNS. They found, however, that members of Facebook trust
both the website itself and other Facebook members substantially more than users of other SNS
(Dwyer et al 2007).
Corritore et al (2003) state that trust is the key concept to success in the online environment, but
that trust is only crucial in situations of vulnerability and risk. Conversely, Dwyer et al (2007)
found that online relationships can develop on websites where perceived trust is low and
protection of privacy is minimal.
Trust can be seen as a form of social capital that makes coordination and cooperation between
people possible (Putnam 1995, and Misztal 1996 cited Corritore et al 2003).
Benkert (1998) outlines three degrees of trust; ‘Basic trust’ is the underlying form of trust that is
a necessity for social interaction. ‘Guarded trust’ is trust that is protected by formal agreements,
contracts or promises. The third degree of trust is ‘Extended trust’ which is trust based on
openness between all the parties involved. This concept can be related to the idea of dialogic PR
linking to intersubjectivity as put forward by Kent and Taylor (2002).
Trust in human-website interaction is crucial to the success of the interaction. It is doubtful that
a durable online environment would be possible without trust (Corritore et al 2003). Fogel and
Nehmad (2009) found that Facebook is perceived to be a trustworthy Social Networking Site.
The success of Facebook could be partly contributed to this idea.
Corritore et al (2003) propose a model of online trust that can be applied to all human-website
interactions (see Figure 3).
Nathan Wooding 12
e9502498
Figure 3: A causal model of online trust (Corritore et al 2003, p749)
The model consists of two parts and it is the relationship between all the internal and external
factors that highlights how trust develops in human-website interaction (Corritore et al 2003).
The first part is: ‘External factors’, which exist implicitly or explicitly in the trust concept. These
are the individual’s experience of the Internet, their previous experiences with similar situations
and their personal position on trust. The second factor is website’s navigation, its design, the
accuracy of content and any external endorsements the website may hold (Corritore et al 2003).
They argue that trust is a perceptual experience and as such outline three perceived, or internal,
factors that go towards creating trust. These are: ‘Credibility’ which is characterised by
‘Honesty’, ‘Expertise’, ‘Reputation’, and ‘Predictability’. Fogg and Tseng (1999) concur by
arguing that credibility is an important factor in user’s perceptions of online environments.

They go on to state that credibility and believability are synonymous (Fogg and Tseng 1999).
Chen and Xie (2008) also find that credibility is positively related to trustworthiness. However
credibility provides a reason to trust but it is not trust in and of itself (Corritore et al 2003).
The second factor is ‘Ease of Use’ which is an extension of Davis’s Ease of Use construct, which
focuses on how easily a user can achieve their goals using a computer. This concurs with the
five principles of dialogic PR proposed by Kent and Taylor (1998).
The third factor is ‘Risk’ which is the likelihood of an undesirable outcome. By relinquishing
control of their personal information, Facebook users are risking attracting unwanted attention
from people looking to exploit them (Boyd 2007a). This is because humans are biologically
programmed to believe that if personal information is being shared that it signifies trust (Boyd
2008).
Nathan Wooding 13
e9502498
The concept of risk is bound to the notion of control and as such is linked to privacy. Privacy is
the right to control your own body, living space, personal identity, and the right to control
personal information about yourself (Ellis Smith 1979 cited McLean 1995, Boyd 2008). Although,
Dwyer et al (2007) found that Facebook users had little concern about sharing information and
that they showed a willingness to disclose more personal information than users of other SNS.
Boyd (2008) states that Facebook is blurring the line between public and private.
Privacy is difficult to define. It represents subjective values and as such can not be precise in its
meaning (McLean 1995). Margulis defines privacy as:
‘‘Privacy, as a whole or in part, represents the control of transactions between person(s) and other(s), the
ultimate aim of which is to enhance autonomy and/or to minimize vulnerability.’’
(Margulis 1977 cited McLean 1995, p49)
Westin (1967 cited McLean 1995) outlines four functions of privacy. These are ‘Personal
Autonomy’, ‘Emotional Release’, ‘Self-Evaluation’, and ‘Limited and Protected Communication’
which fits with the concept of dialogic PR as open communication between trusting parties
(Holtz 1999).
The structure of SNS leads to every action taken by a user being broadcast to their peers. This
means that users must consider their actions and choose what they want to hide not want they
want to share (Boyd 2008). This broadcasting disrupts the social dynamic which is important for
trust to develop. Boyd (2007b) also states that this also leads to ‘social voyeurism’.
A 2006 study by Acquisti and Gross found that even if a potential Facebook user has concerns
about privacy whilst using a Social Networking Site, they will rely upon their own ability to
control their personal information and join Facebook anyway.
2.6 PR and Trust
Larsson (2007) found that public trust towards the PR industry was very low. He argues that
this is because PR professionals are seen as being intrinsically involved with propaganda and
manipulation.
Fawkes (2007) argues that because the PR industry refuses to accept that PR is sometimes
synonymous with propaganda it has yet to evolve an industry specific ethical code. However,
this conflicts with the earlier assertion that dialogic PR is ethical PR (Huang 2004, Kent and
Taylor 2002).
Nathan Wooding 14
e9502498
People in online communities place more credibility in information created by other users
(Chen and Xie 2008). They go on to say that people are more likely to believe and trust
information about a product if it is created or supplied by another consumer rather than as part
of a company’s communication strategy.
Chen and Xie (2008) suggest that consumer created information could allow companies to
implement strategies that would otherwise not be credible.
2.7 Conclusion and rationale for further research
The literature focuses on the implications of the internet for the future of PR. There has been
much discussion about the way in which PR should be conducted both on- and offline. The
underlying conclusion of the reviewed literature is that two-way or dialogic PR is the ideal
model to follow and that the Internet is a medium that will allow the transitional.
Trust, in its most basic form, is about information. It is about who is telling us what, how it will
impact on our lives and whether or not the information should be believed. This links with
privacy because the way in which users communicate online through.
Privacy is a fluid concept when applied to SNS such as Facebook. It can refer to either the
security of your personal information to strangers or the assumption that the website will not
exploit your information. But even if there are privacy concerns raised abut a Social Networking
Site it only stops a relatively small number of people from joining (Acquisti and Gross 2005,
Dwyer et al 2007, Boyd 2008). There is little research into the implications of these factors on the
implementation of PR.
Much of the research into Facebook is centred on uses and gratifications and the implications
that SNS have for advertising, marketing and social science. There is little research into how
SNS can be used to conduct PR. Similarly there is no research into the effectiveness of PR
conducted through SNS. With this in mind this study aims to be an exploration of Facebook
users experiences of PR conducted through SNS. It will fill a gap in the literature that will
identify further areas of research that will aid the PR industry to achieve excellence and provide
an insight into how PR is currently being received on Facebook.
Nathan Wooding 15
e9502498
Chapter 3: Methodology
Nathan Wooding 16
e9502498
3.1 Introduction
This chapter will outline the methodological framework that the author has used to guide the
primary research. This research can be classed as following the Interpretivist framework as it
seeks to understand the reality working behind an observed situation (Saunders et al 2003).
This study intends to collect empirical data using online questionnaires because this will allow
the author to conduct Inductive research which Blaikie (2000) states starts with the collection of
data and then moves to obtain answers to the research questions through inductive reasoning.
See Appendix I.
The Inductive approach is also suited to small samples (Saunders et al 2003). The questionnaire
was distributed online, using non-probability sampling. See Appendix II.
The methodology that this study follows should be interpreted as a variation of an exploratory
study as it seeks to explore an area in which there is not much research currently (Saunders et al
2003). It seeks to clarify an area that the PR industry is currently moving into and highlight
potential areas for critical research.
3.2 Research Questions
The research objectives outlined in Chapter 1 allowed the author to devise the following
research questions. Research questions act as lenses to focus the primary research so that it can
be used to provide clear conclusions (Saunders et al 2003).
RQ1: What type of groups do Facebook users join and why?
RQ2: What do Facebook users think about Facebook Groups?
RQ3: Do Facebook users care about Facebook Groups being used for PR?
RQ4: What do Facebook users think about their use of Facebook?
3.3 Data Collection
3.3.1 Online questionnaires
This study will gather primary data using self-completion questionnaires that will be hosted
and distributed online, via Qualtrics.com. There are several advantages to using online survey
Nathan Wooding 17
e9502498
software, including ease of reaching respondents and automated data collection (Wright 2005).
To view a sample questionnaire, please see Appendix III.
Online questionnaires will be used because the main subject matter of research is SNS and
several questions require direct reference to a respondent’s Facebook profile.
Online questionnaires are non-intrusive and can be completed whenever it is suitable for a
respondent (Malhotra and Birks 1999).
3.3.2 Questionnaire Design
Saunders et al (2003) state that the design of a questionnaire will affect the response rate and the
reliability and validity of any data recorded.
Bourque and Clark (1994, cited Saunders et al 2003) state that there three ways of designing
questions. These are; adopt questions that have already been used; adapt questions that have
already been used or develop original questions. The author decided to develop original
questions.
Dillman (2000, cited Saunders et al 2003) states that there are three types of data that can be
collected using a questionnaire. These are: Opinion, which records how respondents feel or
what they think or believe; Behaviour, which records current, past or future actions; Attribute,
which are characteristics that the respondents may exhibit. These include age, sex and
education (Saunders et al 2003). This study uses questions which gather all three forms of data.
The questionnaire consisted of three types of question. The first question type was List
Questions, where respondents were shown a list of options and asked to pick any options
relevant to them (Saunders et al 2003).
The second question type was Scale questions, where respondents are asked to rate how
strongly they agree or disagree with a series of statements on a rating scale (Saunders et al
2003). The final survey used Semantic Differential scales, which can be used to assess
underlying attitudes. They are bipolar scales with opposite adjectives at each end, there is no
need to semantically identify points along the scale (Brace 2004), which allows people to
consider both ends of the scale.
Nathan Wooding 18
e9502498
The third type of question used was open-ended. These can give in-depth answers. However, in
this study it was used to help respondents state information about their Facebook profile that
would be relevant to later questions. Hence, data obtained from this question will not be
considered as relevant to the findings.
3.3.3 Distribution
The questionnaire was distributed via private message on Facebook to a randomly stratified
sample from the author’s friend list. This stratification was to identify the initial seed for a
Snowball sample. To see this message please see Appendix IV.
This method was chosen as it allows direct access to valid respondents.
3.3.4 Sample
Due to time and financial constraints it is not possible to conduct a census of Facebook users.
Sampling techniques provide a range of methods that reduces the amount of data that the
researcher needs to collect (Saunders at al 2003). Sampling techniques fall into two broad
categories – probability or non-probability (Walliman 2005).
The author proposes a variation of the non-probability sampling technique snowballing which
is a mix of both probability and non-probability techniques.
An initial seed will be chosen using a stratified random technique. These respondents will be
asked to forward the survey on to their peers and so on until the sample quota has been
achieved.
The initial seed was worked thusly: The author has 529 friends on Facebook. For simplicity the
square route of this was chosen as n (n=23). The survey was distributed to every 23rd friend.
The initial sample size was 23 respondents, which was the basis for the snowball sample.
Because this sampling technique requires the creation of a viral loop and an initial seed the
author will refer to it as ‘viral sampling’. The author posits that this blend of sampling
techniques lends itself to recording data about members of SNS because it mimics the
distribution methods of other elements of Social Media. This sampling technique shares
attributes with both snowball and convenience sampling and as such should be considered a
non-probability sampling technique.
Nathan Wooding 19
e9502498
Data collected through non-probability samples will enable the author to deduce answers to the
research questions but they can not be based on statistical inferences (Saunders et al 2003).
3.3.5 Piloting
Brace (2004) states that failure to pilot a questionnaire can seriously impede its success at
gathering valid data. The purpose of piloting is to refine the questionnaire so that it is easy for
respondents to answer (Saunders et al 2003).
The author conducted an extensive pilot of the survey. An online, self-completion questionnaire
was created that composed of entirely open questions. This served a dual purpose – it allowed
the author to determine if the questions being asked were eliciting valid responses from
respondents and it also provided semantic groups which the author used to define the
responses available in list questions in the final survey.
The pilot survey was created using Zoomerang.com and was distributed using a convenience
sample taken from the authors Facebook profile. It received 83 visits with a completion rate of
45% (n=37). To view the pilot questionnaire, see Appendix V.
After reviewing the data received in the pilot, the author decided to add further questions to
gather data that would allow conclusions to be made for all of the research questions.
The final survey was piloted to a convenience sample obtained from Facebook. There were no
further changes made to the questionnaire design after this pilot.
3.4 Data analysis
As stated previously this research will use Inductive reasoning to provide answers to the
research questions. This will allow the author to infer general truths in partial support of the
conclusions from specific data (Walliman 2005). Namely, primary and secondary research.
3.4.1 Cross-tabulation
Cross-tabulation allows the author to examine the interdependence of variables (Saunders et al

2003). It will also allow the author to conduct the Chi Square test of independence which
calculates how likely it is that two variables are related (Saunders et al 2003). An ‘Asymp Sig.’
value of less than 0.5 is statistically significant.
Nathan Wooding 20
e9502498
3.4.2 Triangulation.
Triangulation is the use of several methods of data collection in one study to ensure that any
inferences made from the collected data are true (Saunders et al 2003). This study is using
primary data collected through questionnaires and secondary data to arrive at valid
conclusions.
3.5 Credibility
Credibility refers to the precautions taken to preserve the reliability and validity of the research
(Saunders et al 2003).
Reliability can be assessed by asking the following questions:
• Will the measures yield the same results on other occasions?

• Will similar observations be reached by other observers?
• Is there transparency in how sense was made from the raw data?
Easterby-Smith et al 2002, cited Saunders et al 2003, p101.
Participant bias is the main threat to reliability faced by this research. Measurement bias is the
variation between the data required and the actual data recorded (Grossnickle 2001). This
research is analysing attitudinal and behavioural data by looking at the attitudes and feelings
about, and a respondent’s awareness of, PR conducted through Facebook.
Attitudinal and behavioural data is seen by respondents as personal data and as such sensitive.
Respondents are likely to provide answers that reflect well on themselves (Grossnickle 2001). To
counter this, the author is stating unequivocally that respondents are completely anonymous
and that their data will only be analysed in aggregate form.
Walliman (2005) states that bias can never be totally removed from a study, however an
awareness of its existence is essential.
Validity is concerned with whether or not the findings actually represent what it is they appear
to represent (Saunders et al 2003). To maintain validity in this study the author will use cross-
tabulation with associated Chi Square tests to ascertain the probability of given correlations
being caused by chance. The author will also use triangulation with secondary data to arrive at
valid assumptions.
Nathan Wooding 21
e9502498
3.5.3 Generalisability
Generalisability is concerned with the extent to which the conclusions drawn from the data can
be applied to other studies (Saunders et al 2003). This study has a small sample and therefore
probably is not generalisable, however, it is intended as an exploration of the study area and as
such the conclusions do not need to be generalised. They are merely identifying areas that
would benefit from further research.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Saunders et al (2003, p105) state that research is ethical if it ‘does not subject the search
population to embarrassment or any other material disadvantage.’ The author considers this
research to be ethical because respondents are not being observed unawares, respondents are
not being asked to submit any sensitive information, and participation is free and will not affect
the respondent’s experience of Facebook in any way.
Nathan Wooding 22
e9502498
Chapter 4: Findings
Nathan Wooding 23
e9502498
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of the qualitative research findings. Please see Appendix
VI for Chi Square data tables.
4.2 Describing the Sample
The questionnaire was distributed online between April 7 2009 and April 21 2009. 114 and
responses were recorded, of these 114 responses 68% (n=77) were valid for analysis.
Of the 77 valid responses, 1% (n=1) of the sample were under 18 years of age. 63% (n=48) were
aged between 18 and 24 years old. 24% (n=19) were between 25 and 34 years old and 2% (n=2)
were aged 45 and over. The sample had a bias towards female respondents with 67% (n=52) of
respondents classifying themselves as female and 33% (n=25) classifying themselves as male.
Sex
Male Female Total
Age 18 - 24 17 31 48
25 - 34 1 17 18
35 - 44 5 2 7
45 -54 0 1 1
55 or older 1 1 2
Under 18 1 0 1
Total 25 52 77
Table 1: Age by Sex
Table 1 shows a cross-tabulation breaking down respondent’s age by their sex.
The mean and mode age group was 18-24 years old, with a standard deviation of 0.96.
Respondents were asked to provide their job title or the area in which they work. 4% (n=3)
classified themselves as Teachers or Lecturers. 40% (n=31) classified themselves as Students.
22% (n=17) classified their area of work as Marketing or PR. 17% (n=13) classified their area of
work as Sales. 5% (n=4) classified themselves as Nurses. 8% (n=6) of respondents classified

themselves as Non-professional workers i.e. “Full time Mum or Paper Boy”. 1% (n=1) typified
themselves as Consultants.
4.2.2 Level of Awareness of PR
Respondents were asked to state how aware of PR they thought they were.
Nathan Wooding 24
e9502498
Figure 4: How Aware of PR Do You Think You Are?
Figure 4 shows that 46% (n=35) of respondents thought that they were very aware of PR. 33%
(n=25) of respondents thought that they were slightly aware of PR. 12% (n=9) of respondents
don’t care about being able to notice PR. 8% (n=6) of respondents though that they were slightly
unaware of PR and that 1% (n=1) of respondents thought that they were very unaware of PR.
The mean response was ‘very aware’, with a standard deviation of 1.00.
Very aware Slightly aware I don't notice or care Slightly unaware Very unaware Total
Sex Male 11 5 4 5 0 25
Female 24 19 6 2 1 52
Total 35 24 10 6 1 77
Table 2: Cross-tabulation Sex by Awareness of PR
When subjected to the Chi Square test for independence χ=9.250, p=0.055.
4.3 Login Frequency
When asked how often they logged in to their Facebook profiles, 69% (n=53) of respondents
stated that they accessed their account daily. 24% (n=19) logged in two or three times a week.
3% (n=2) logged in once a week. 3% (n=2) logged in two or three times a month. 1% (n=1) logged
in less than once a month.
The mean and mode login frequency category was daily, with a standard deviation of 0.85.
Nathan Wooding 25
e9502498
4.3.1 Login Frequency by Sex
Less than
Daily 2-3 Times a Week Once a Week 2-3 Times a Month Once a Month Once a Month Total
Sex Male 16 6 0 1 1 1 25
Female 37 12 2 1 0 0 52
Total 53 18 2 2 1 1 77
Table 3: Login Frequency by Sex
Table 3 shows how Login Frequency is broken down by sex. It shows that females are more
likely to access their Facebook accounts more often than males.
When subjected to the Chi Square test for independence, χ=5.534, p=0.354.
4.3.2 Login Frequency by Age
Login Frequency
2-3 Times a Once a 2-3 Times a Once a Less than Once
Daily Week Week Month Month a Month Total
Age. Please choose 18 - 24 38 10 0 0 0 0 48
one answer
25 - 34 11 4 2 1 0 0 18
35 - 44 4 1 0 1 0 1 7
45 -54 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
55 or
0 1 0 0 1 0 2
older
Under
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
18
Total 53 18 2 2 1 1 77
Table 4: Login Frequency by Age
Table 4 shows a cross-tabulation of login frequency by a respondent’s age. It shows that the
younger respondents log into Facebook with a greater frequency than older participants.
When subjected to the Chi Square test of independence, χ=13.823, p=0.017.
4.4 RQ1: What type of groups do Facebook users join and why?
The following analysis reveals data pertinent to RQ1.
4.4.2 Categories of Groups
Respondents were asked to list the last five Facebook fan pages or groups they had joined. They
were then asked to choose which categories these and other groups they have previously joined
fell into.
Nathan Wooding 26
e9502498
Figure 5: Frequency of Group Category
Figure 5 shows that 87% (n=67) of respondents stated that they join groups based around
socialising. 25% (n=19) of respondents stated that they join local interest groups. 23% (n=18) of
respondents states that they join music interest groups. 13% (n=10) of respondent said that they
join TV interest groups. 6% (n=5) of respondents stated that they join movie interest groups.
13% (n=10) of respondents stated that they join groups related to celebrities. 23% (n=18) of
respondent stated that they join charity related groups. 18% (n=14) of respondents stated that
they join product or brand related groups. 29% (n=22) of respondents stated that they join work
related groups.
4.4.3 Frequency of Group Activity
Respondents were asked to state how active they are within the groups that they have joined.
Figure 6: Frequency of Group Activity
Nathan Wooding 27
e9502498
Figure 6 shows that 3% (n=2) of respondents are active daily. 4% (n=3) of respondents are active
more than once a week. 12% (n=9) of respondents are active less than once a week. 40% (n=31)
of respondents are active less than once a month and that 42% (n=32) of respondents are never
active within the Facebook groups that they have joined.
4.4.4 Explanation of Group Activity
Respondents were then asked to explain the answer that they gave for the previous question.
Figure 7: Explanation of Group Activity
Figure 7 shows that 54% (n=42) of respondents were not active within the Facebook groups that
they had joined because of a lack of time. 51% (n=40) of respondents were not active because of
uninteresting content. 3% (n=2) of respondents were not active because group content appeared
too commercial. 9% (n=7) of respondents are active when it is for a good cause. 9% (n=7) of
respondents are active because the group’s content interested them. 4% (n=3) of respondents
were only active within the Facebook groups that they administrate.
4.4.5 Reasons for Joining Groups
Respondents were asked to select the reasons they have for joining Facebook groups or fan
pages.
Figure 8: Reason for Joining Groups

Nathan Wooding 28
e9502498
Figure 8 shows that 82% (n=63) of respondents stated that they joined Facebook groups because
they were invited by their friends. 32% (n=25) of respondents joined Facebook groups because
they were relevant to their job or education. 29% (n=22) of respondents joined Facebook groups
because they wanted to support a cause. 34% (n=26)of respondents joined a group because they
wanted to stay up to date with specific information. 29% (n=22) of respondents joined a group
because it looked fun. 18% (n=14) of respondents joined groups out of a sense of boredom and
22% (n=17) of respondents joined a group because they like to be affiliated with certain brands
or products.
4.4.6 Reasons for not Joining Groups
Respondents were then asked whether or not any of the reasons given in the last question
would discourage them from joining a Facebook group or fan page.
Figure 9: Reasons for not Joining Facebook Groups
Figure 9 shows that 65% (n=50) of respondents would not join a Facebook group if it was
created to advertise something. 16% (n=12) of respondents would not join a Facebook group if it
was created for the purpose of meeting new people. 4% (n=3) of respondents would not join a
Facebook group if it was created to discuss shared interests. 21% (n=16) of respondents would
not join a Facebook group if was created to promote something. 12% (n=9) of respondents
would not join a Facebook group if it was created for somebody to voice their opinions. 9%
(n=7) of respondents would not join a Facebook group if it was created solely for the purpose of
sharing information and 14% (n=11) of respondents would not join a Facebook group if it was
created to network.
Nathan Wooding 29
e9502498
4.5 RQ2: What do Facebook users think about Facebook Groups?
4.5.2 Reasons for Creating Groups
Respondents were asked to select the reasons that they thought people had for setting-up
Facebook groups and fan pages.
Figure 10: Reasons for Setting-up Facebook Groups
Figure 10 shows that 65% (n=50) of respondents thought that people set-up groups to advertise
something. 23% (n=18) of respondents thought that people set-up groups to meet new people.
66% (n=51) of respondents thought that people set-up groups to discuss shared interests. 74%
(n=57) of respondents though that people set-up groups to promote something. 45% (n=35) of
respondents thought that people set-up groups to voice their opinions. 62% (n=48) of
respondents thought that people set-up groups to share information. 38% (n=29) of respondents
thought that people set-up groups to network. No respondents supplied other reasons why
people might set-up a Facebook group.
Nathan Wooding 30
e9502498
4.5.3 Believability of Information in Groups
Respondents were asked to rate how believable they thought the information contained within
Facebook groups is.
Figure 11: How Believable Do You Find the Information within Groups to Be?
Figure 11 shows that 10% (n=8) of respondents thought that the information within Facebook is
believable. 43 % (n=33) thought that the information within Facebook groups is somewhat
believable. 34% (n=26) of respondents were not sure whether information within Facebook
groups is believable or not. 9% (n=3) of respondents thought that information within Facebook
groups is somewhat unbelievable and that 4% (n=3) of respondents thought that information
within Facebook groups is unbelievable.
The mean response was ‘somewhat believable’, with a standard deviation of 0.94.
Believable Somewhat Believable Not Sure Somewhat Unbelievable Unbelievable Total

Sex Male 2 13 4 3 3 25
Female 6 20 21 4 1 52
Total 8 33 25 7 4 77
Table 5: Cross-tabulation Sex by Believability
4.6 RQ3: Do Facebook users care about Facebook Groups being used for PR?
The following analysis reveals data pertinent to RQ3. Respondents were asked a series of
questions about how they perceived and felt about Facebook groups being used to conduct PR
4.6.2 Dubious Practice
Respondents were asked how they would feel if they joined an apparently unofficial Facebook
group only to later find out that it has been set-up by a company.
Nathan Wooding 31
e9502498
Figure 12: Respondent Feelings towards Dishonest Facebook Groups
Figure 12 shows that only 9% (n=7) of respondents were happy about joining a commercial
Facebook group disguised as an unofficial fan group. 60% (n=46) of respondents were neither
happy nor unhappy about joining a commercial Facebook group disguised as an unofficial fan
group and that 31% (n=24) of respondents were unhappy about joining a commercial Facebook
group disguised as an unofficial fan group.
The mean response was ‘neither happy nor unhappy’, with a standard deviation of 0.60.
Happy Neither Happy nor Unhappy Unhappy Total

Sex Male 3 15 7 25
Female 4 31 17 52
Total 7 46 24 77
Table 6: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Dishonest PR Group
When subjected to the Chi Squared test of independence, χ=0.464, p=0.793.
Nathan Wooding 32
e9502498
4.6.3 Observing Whether or Not a Group has been Set-up to Conduct PR
Respondents were asked whether or not they could tell if a Facebook group had been set-up to
conduct PR.
Figure 13: Can You Tell Whether a Group had been Set-up for PR?
Figure 13 shows that 44% (n=34) of respondents believe that they can tell whether a Facebook
group has been set-up to conduct PR. 39% (n=30) of respondents believe that they can
sometimes tell whether a Facebook group has been set-up to conduct PR. 9% (n=7) of
respondents believe that they can not tell whether a Facebook group has been set-up to conduct
PR and 8% (n=6) of respondents do not care whether a Facebook group has been set-up to
conduct PR.
The mean response was ‘yes’, with a standard deviation of 0.90.
Yes Sometimes No I don't care Total

Sex Male 10 9 2 4 25
Female 24 21 4 3 52
Total 34 30 6 7 77
Table 7: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Awareness of PR
Nathan Wooding 33
e9502498
4.6.4 Does PR Make You Feel Differently Towards Facebook Groups?
Respondents were asked whether they felt differently about Facebook groups that they thought
had been set-up to conduct PR.
Figure 14: Do You Feel Differently Towards a Group Set-up for PR?
Figure 14 shows that 23% (n=18) of respondents do feel differently towards a Facebook group
that they think has been set-up to conduct PR. 38% (n=29) of respondents sometimes feel
differently towards Facebook groups that they think have been set-up to conduct PR. 17%
(n=13) of respondents do not feel differently towards Facebook groups that they think have
been set-up to conduct PR and 22% (n=17) of respondents stated that they are not bothered by
Facebook groups set-up to conduct PR.
The mean response was ‘sometimes’, with a standard deviation of 1.08.
Yes Sometimes No It doesn't bother me Total

Sex Male 8 10 3 4 25
Female 11 18 10 13 52
Total 19 28 13 17 77
Table 8: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Changed Feelings
When subjected to the Chi Squared test of independence, χ=2.082, p=0.556.
Respondents were next asked to rate how they feel about companies using Facebook groups
and fan pages for PR on a five-point Semantic Differential Scale.
Nathan Wooding 34
e9502498
4.6.5 Happy – Unhappy
Frequency Percent
Valid Happy 10 13.0
Fairly Happy 20 26.0
Neither Happy nor Unhappy 28 36.4
Fairly Unhappy 14 18.2
Unhappy 5 6.5
Total 77 100.0
Table 9: Semantic Differential Scale - Happy: Unhappy
Table 9 shows that cumulatively 39% (n=30) of respondent are happy about companies using
Facebook groups for PR. Conversely, 24.7% (n=19) of respondents were unhappy about
companies using Facebook groups for PR.
The mean response was ‘fairly happy’, with a standard deviation of 1.06.
Happy Fairly Happy Neither Happy nor Unhappy Fairly Unhappy Unhappy Total
Sex Male 3 6 8 5 3 25
Female 7 14 20 9 2 52
Total 10 20 28 14 5 77
Table 10: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Happy: Unhappy
4.6.6 Angry – Ambivalent
Frequency Percent
Valid Fairy Angry 11 14.3
Neither Angry nor Ambivalent 22 28.6
Fairly Ambivalent 27 35.1
Ambivalent 17 22.1
Total 77 100.0
Table 11: Semantic Differential Scale - Angry: Ambivalent
Table 11 shows that only 14.3% (n=11) of respondents stated any form of anger about companies
using Facebook groups for PR. Conversely, 57.2% (n=44) of respondents stated that they were
ambivalent towards companies using Facebook groups for PR.
The mean response was ‘neither angry nor ambivalent’, with a standard deviation of 0.97.
Nathan Wooding 35
e9502498
Fairy Angry Neither Angry nor Ambivalent Fairly Ambivalent Ambivalent Total
Sex Male 6 6 6 7 25
Female 5 16 21 10 52
Total 11 22 27 17 77
Table 12: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Angry: Ambivalent
4.6.7 It is Wrong – It is Right
Frequency Percent
Valid It's Wrong 2 2.6
It Could be Wrong 7 9.1
It's Neither Wrong nor Right 44 57.1
It Could be Right 16 20.8
It's Right 8 10.4
Total 77 100.0
Table 13: Semantic Differential Scale - It is Wrong: It is Right
Table 13 shows that 11.7% (n=9) of respondents disagreed with companies using Facebook
groups for PR. Conversely, 31.2% (n=24) of respondents thought that companies using Facebook
groups for PR was right. 57.1% (n=44) of respondents stated that companies using Facebook
groups for PR was neither right nor wrong.
The mean response was ‘it is neither wrong nor right’, with a standard deviation of 0.86.
It's Wrong It Could be Wrong It's Neither Wrong nor Right It Could be Right It's Right Total
Sex Male 1 2 15 4 3 25
Female 1 5 29 12 5 52
Total 2 7 44 16 8 77
Table 14: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Right: Wrong
4.6.8 I Care – I do not Care
Frequency Percent
Valid I Care 1 1.3
I Care a Little 11 14.3
I am Neutral 26 33.8
I Care Little 21 27.3
I Don't Care 18 23.4
Total 77 100.0
Table 15: Semantic Differential Scale - I Care: I Do Not Care
Nathan Wooding 36
e9502498
Table 15 shows that only 15.6% (n=12) of respondents care about companies using Facebook
groups for PR. Conversely, 50.7% (n=39) of respondents do not care about companies using
Facebook for PR.
The mean response was ‘I am neutral’, with a standard deviation of 1.04.
I Care I Care a Little I am Neutral I Care Little I Don't Care Total

Sex Male 0 2 5 9 9 25
Female 1 9 21 12 9 52
Total 1 11 26 21 18 77
Table 16: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Care: Don't Care
When subjected to a Chi Square test of independence, χ=7.140, p=0.129.
4.7 RQ4: What do Facebook users think about their use of Facebook?
4.7.2 Facebook Groups and Trust
Respondents were next asked whether or not they trust Facebook.
Figure 15: Do You Trust Facebook Groups?
Figure 15 shows that 23% (n=18) of respondents trust Facebook groups. 66% (n=51) of
respondents sometimes trust Facebook groups and that 10% (n=8) of respondents do not trust
Facebook groups.
The mean response was ‘yes’, with a standard deviation of 0.57.
Yes Sometimes No Total

Sex Male 5 16 4 25
Female 13 34 5 52
Total 18 50 9 77
Table 17: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Trust
Nathan Wooding 37
e9502498
Participants were asked to rate how they felt about their use of Facebook on a five-point
Semantic Differential Scale.
4.7.3 Trusting – Untrusting
Frequency Percent
Valid Trusting 2 2.6
Somewhat Trusting 34 44.2
Neutral 25 32.5
Somewhat Untrusting 14 18.2
Untrusting 2 2.6
Total 77 100.0
Table 18: Semantic Differential Scale -Trusting: Untrusting
Table 18 shows how respondents answered when asked whether they felt their use of Facebook
was trusting or untrusting. Cumulatively, we can see that 46.8% (n=36) of respondents stated
that are trusting when using Facebook. Overall, 20.8% (n=16) stated that they were untrusting.
The mean response was ‘somewhat trusting’, with a standard deviation of 0.84.
Trusting Somewhat Trusting Neutral Somewhat Untrusting Untrusting Total

Sex Male 0 14 4 6 1 25
Female 2 20 21 8 1 52
Total 2 34 25 14 2 77
Table 19: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Trusting: Untrusting
4.7.4 Active – Passive
Frequency Percent
Valid Active 13 16.9
Fairly Active 41 53.2
Neither Active nor Passive 20 26.0
Fairly Passive 2 2.6
Passive 1 1.3
Total 77 100.0
Table 20: Semantic Differential Scale - Active: Passive
was active or passive. Cumulatively, 70.1% (n=54) of respondents felt that they were active
when using Facebook. Conversely, only 3.9% (n=3) of respondents felt that their use was
passive.
Nathan Wooding 38
e9502498
The mean response was ‘fairly active’, with a standard deviation of 0.52.
Active Fairly Active Neither Active nor Passive Fairly Passive Passive Total
Sex Male 3 16 4 1 1 25
Female 10 25 16 1 0 52
Total 13 41 20 2 1 77
Table 21: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Active: Passive
4.7.5 Means a Little – Means a Lot
Frequency Percent
Valid Means a Little 6 7.8
Means Something 21 27.3
Means Neither Little nor A lot 25 32.5
Means Quite A lot 23 29.9
Means A lot 2 2.6
Total 77 100.0
Table 22: Semantic Differential Scale - Means a Little: Means a Lot
meant a little or meant a lot to them. Cumulatively, 32.5% (n=25) stated that their use of
Facebook meant a lot to them. 35.1% (n=27) of respondents in total replied that their use of
Facebook means little to them.
The mean response was ‘means neither little nor a lot’, with a standard deviation of 0.98.
Means a Means Means Neither Little nor Means Quite Means

Little Something Alot Alot Alot Total
Sex Male 6 10 5 4 0 25
Female 0 11 20 19 2 52
Total 6 21 25 23 2 77
Table 23: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Means Little: Means a Lot
When subjected to the Chi Squared test of independence, χ=19, p=0.001.
4.7.6 Exciting – Boring
Frequency Percent
Valid Exciting 3 3.9
Somewhat Exciting 22 28.6
Neither Exciting nor Boring 40 51.9
Somewhat Boring 12 15.6
Total 77 100.0
Table 24: Semantic Differential Scale - Exciting: Boring
Nathan Wooding 39
e9502498
was exciting or boring. Cumulatively, 32.5% (n=25) respondents felt that their use of Facebook
was exciting. Only 15.6% of respondents thought that their use of Facebook was boring.
Interestingly, 51.6% (n=40) answered that Facebook was neither exciting nor boring.
The mean response was ‘somewhat exciting’, with a standard deviation of 0.76.
Exciting Somewhat Exciting Neither Exciting nor Boring Somewhat Boring Total
Sex Male 1 10 10 4 25
Female 2 12 30 8 52
Total 3 22 40 12 77
Table 25: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Exciting: Boring
4.7.7 Serious – Playful
Frequency Percent
Valid Serious 1 1.3
Fairly Serious 7 9.1
Neither Serious nor Playful 17 22.1
Fairly Playful 34 44.2
Playful 18 23.4
Total 77 100.0
Table 26: Semantic Differential Scale - Serious: Playful
was serious or playful. In total, only 10.4% (n=8) of respondents answered that their use of
Facebook was serious. On the contrary, 67.8% (n=52) of respondents felt that their use of
Facebook was playful.
The mean response however was ‘neither serious nor playful’, with a standard deviation of
0.96.
Serious Fairly Serious Neither Serious nor Playful Fairly Playful Playful Total
Sex Male 0 2 6 13 4 25
Female 1 5 11 21 14 52
Total 1 7 17 34 18 77
Table 27: Cross-Tabulation: Sex by Serious: Playful
Nathan Wooding 40
e9502498
4.7.8 Useful – Useless
Frequency Percent
Valid Useful 18 23.4
Fairly Useful 34 44.2
Neither Useful or Useless 15 19.5
Fairly Useless 9 11.7
Useless 1 1.3
Total 77 100.0
Table 28: Semantic Differential Scale - Useful: Useless
was useful or useless. 67.6% (n=52) of respondents felt that their use of Facebook was useful to
them in some way. Conversely, only 13% (n=10) of respondents answered that their use of
Facebook was useless for them.
The mean response was ‘fairly useful’, with a standard deviation of 0.96.
Useful Fairly Useful Neither Usefull or Useless Fairly Useless Useless Total
Sex Male 7 12 2 3 1 25
Female 11 22 13 6 0 52
Total 18 34 15 9 1 77
Table 29: Cross-tabulation: Sex by Useful: Useless
Nathan Wooding 41
e9502498
Chapter 5: Discussion
Nathan Wooding 42
e9502498
5.1 Introduction
This chapter will discuss the findings presented in Chapter 4, with reference to key industry
literature from Chapter 2. The discussion will be related to each Research Question.
5.1.1 Discussing the participants
The sample population was mainly comprised of people aged 18-24 years old (63%). This
concurs with the assertion made by Chan and Fang (2007) that people aged between 15-24 years
old would rather use the internet than any other form of media. The fact that next mode
population sub-group was people aged 25-34 years old echoes the Nielsen (2009) report stating
that Facebook’s audience is shifting towards an older demographic. The sample had a bias
towards female respondents with 67% (n=52) of respondents classifying themselves as female
and 33% (n=25) classifying themselves as male.
The fact that 40% of the population identified themselves as students could be rooted in the fact
that Facebook was initially a service for students (Nielsen 2009). However, because the sample
was started with a seed taken from the authors Facebook friends group, this could be a bias
inherent to the sampling method.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when asked to self-report their level of awareness of PR 79% of
respondents stated that they were aware of PR. This presents problems to those who subscribe
to Demetrious’ (2008) view that effective PR is invisible. It does however agree with Hurme’s
(2001) assertion that Internet users are becoming increasingly savvy for conventional PR to be
effective. However, this question is likely to be affected by participant/measurement bias.
69% of participants log into their Facebook account everyday. This is slightly more than the
official figure of 50% (Anon (C) 2009). This could be explained by the fact that the population is
weighted towards the younger demographic (18-24) and that this demographic uses the internet
for pleasure with greater frequency than older demographics (Chan and Fang 2007). This is
supported by a p=.017 score when subjected to a Chi Square test.
5.2 RQ1: What type of group do Facebook users join, and why?
The following section will discuss the results pertaining to RQ1.
100% of respondents stated that they joined Facebook groups. This is to be expected because
Facebook is classified as a Group Forming Network (Typaldos 2002) and group forming makes
a community more useful. 87% stated that they joined groups based on some aspect of
Nathan Wooding 43
e9502498
socialising. The membership rates of other types of groups was relatively low, this could be
explained by the fact that pleasure and fun are the main reasons people join and use Facebook
(Hart et al 2008).
When asked why they joined Facebook groups 82% of respondents answered they joined
because their friends were already involved. This concurs with Hart et al’s (2008) assertion that
Facebook is used to manage offline relationships. However, 22% of respondents answered that
they joined because they like to be associated with certain products\brands. This could be
explained by the fact that, online, people are judged by their associations (Boyd 2007b) and
often want to present an image of themselves that they think is more acceptable to their peers.
When asked what reasons they had for not joining groups, the majority of people (65%) stated
that they would not join a group if was set up to advertise something and 21% of respondents
would not join if it was set-up to promote something. This concurs with the idea that group
members who feel exploited will leave the group (Typaldos 2002).
When asked how active they were within Facebook groups 82% of respondents stated that they
were rarely or never active within groups which presents problems as this activity is key to any
dialogic PR conducted through a group. Boyd (2007b) however states that a high level of social
voyeurism takes place on Facebook. This is borne out by the fact that people join social-based
groups and then do not participate.
Respondent s were asked why they were not active within the groups they had joined, and
apart from the small number who administrate groups, the majority of respondents (54%)
stated that that they didn’t have the time to participate this could be explained by the fact that
the majority of respondents are students. Interestingly, 51% of respondents stated the content
was uninteresting to them this could explain their lack of participation when compared to
Blumler and Katz's (1974 cited Chan and Fang 2007) Use’s and Gratifications theory which
posits that that participants use only media which best fulfils their individual needs.
5.3 RQ2: What do Facebook users think about Facebook Groups?
This section will discuss the results pertaining to RQ2.
Respondents thought that there were many reasons why Facebook groups were set-up. With
74% of respondents reporting that they though groups were set-up to promote something. This
concurs with the assertion that online media are being used to conduct PR more frequently
Nathan Wooding 44
e9502498
(Wilson and Lu 2008). The other significant finding was that 66% of respondents thought that
groups were set-up to discuss shared interests; this supports Boyd’s (2007b) idea of SNS as
mediated publics.
53% of respondents stated that they believed the information contained within groups. This
concurs with the findings of Dwyer et al (2007) that Facebook members are more trusting of
each other than members of other SNS. This might offer PR practitioners conducting PR
through groups an opening to be exploited, because trustworthiness is positively related to
credibility (Chen and Xie 2008). This holds significance because as Wright (2005) states; publics
are being more careful about selecting their information sources.
5.4 RQ3: Do Facebook users care about Facebook Groups being used for PR?
When asked whether or not they could tell if a group had been set-up to conduct PR, 44% of
respondents stated that they thought they could. This agrees with Hurme’s (2008) earlier notion
of the PR savvy Internet user, although it may be due to participant bias. It does however pose
problems for subscribers to Demetrious’s (2008) concept of invisible PR. Respondents stated
mixed reactions to groups that had been set-up to conduct PR with the majority (38%) stating
that they only sometimes felt differently about them. Conversely, 22% of respondents stated
that they did not care. This could link to the Use’s and Gratifications theory because users are
only interested in information relevant to themselves. This links to this study’s finding that
people do not care if they are misled by groups. These findings link to the fluid concept of
trust/credibility online (Corritore et al 2003).
39% of respondents were happy that PR professionals were using groups to conduct PR, 57% of
respondents were ambivalent towards PR conducted through groups. 57% stated that they
thought PR professional using groups to conduct PR was neither wrong nor right and 51%
stated that they did not care that groups were being used to conduct PR. This is surprising
because of Larsson’s (2007) findings that the public do not trust PR professionals and view them
as being fundamentally involved with manipulation and exploitation.
Nathan Wooding 45
e9502498
5.5 RQ4: What do Facebook users think about their use of Facebook?
When asked if they trust Facebook groups the majority of respondents (66%) trust Facebook
groups only sometimes. This conflicts with the earlier assertion that Facebook members trust
other members. It runs parallel to the earlier finding that respondents believe the majority of
information within groups and supports Corritore et al’s (2003) assumption that credibility is a
reason to trust but is not trust itself.
The majority of respondents (47%) stated that they though their use was trusting, this agrees
with Fogel and Nehmad (2009) who state that Facebook is perceived as very trustworthy.
Females were more trusting than males. When asked about their use, 70.1% of respondents
thought that they were active users. This correlates with figures from Nielsen (2009). However
this contrasts the earlier finding that people are not active within groups.
68% of respondents thought that their use of Facebook was playful, this concurs with the
assertion that pleasure is a major factor in the repeat use of Facebook (Hart et al 2008). 33% of
respondents thought that Facebook means a lot to them, this is echoed Joinson’s (2008) assertion
that users derive many gratifications from Facebook. 68% of respondents thought that their use
of Facebook was useful to them in someway. This concurs with the Usage and Gratifications
Theory (Blumler and Katz 1974 cited Chan and Fang 2007) as it proves that Facebook users feel
that it offers them something in return for their invested time.
Nathan Wooding 46
e9502498
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
Nathan Wooding 47
e9502498
6.1 Introduction
This chapter will use the discussion in Chapter 5 to provide possible answers to the research
questions and offer recommendations for further areas of research.
6.2 Answering RQ1: What type of group do Facebook users join, and why?
Membership of groups can be seen as an integral part of Facebook. There are a myriad of
different groups available to join but the majority of people are joining social-based groups.
It can be concluded that the main reason why people join Facebook groups is because they are
invited to join by friends. This membership however does not preclude any form of activity
within these groups. This poses a problem for PR professional who seek to use Facebook groups
to conduct PR because as stated previously the most effective form of PR conducted online is
dialogic, which requires an almost equal input from the public being communicated to. It can be
inferred that Facebook groups are an unsuitable medium with which to conduct dialogic PR.
The data seems to indicate that a significant reason for not being active is a lack of time; this
seems counterintuitive because of the reported level of time spent on Facebook everyday.
However, another significantly reported reason for not using groups is uninteresting content;
this could mean that if a PR professional can provide additional value they would be more
likely to engage the public in meaningful communications, however, the data indicates people
do not like to be exploited. The users would not join a group if it was overtly marketing based
(Avertising, Promotion). This could mean that there is a poor understanding of how dialogic PR
offers the public an opportunity for communication without exploitation. This bears out data
about the poor reputation that PR has.
It can be inferred from the data that Facebook groups are, partially, empty spaces which do not
conform to the idea of SNS as mediated publics. Thus, it could also be inferred that people don’t
join groups to connect with other like-minded people to engage them in meaningful debate but
rather join them to construct an image of themselves that is more socially acceptable.
6.3 Answering RQ2: What do Facebook users think about Facebook Groups?
It can be concluded there is some confusion amongst Facebook users where groups are
concerned. A majority perceives them as forums for the discussion of shared interests but as
already stated very few people actually use them as such. The same majority also views them a
tools used by organisations to exploit them. This perception of exploitation could be the
Nathan Wooding 48
e9502498
underlying reasons for the relative inactivity and would have to be overcome if effective PR
were to be conducted.
Despite seeing groups as tools to be used for their exploitation, over half of respondents stated
that they believed the information contained within them. This could mean that users just
accept groups for their surface level of information. This is related to levels of trust online so it
could be concluded from this that there is much confusion about the concept of trust on
Facebook, with users believing information that they know is being offered in return for them
receiving a message. This has implications for PR professionals because it means that trust can
be seen as an ambiguous concept online and without explicit trust dialogic PR is hard to
instigate and maintain.
6.4 Answering RQ3: Do Facebook users care about Facebook Groups being used for PR?
The author expected the notion of PR professionals using Facebook groups to conduct PR to be
contentious and, indeed, it appears that users are increasingly aware of efforts to conduct PR
through Facebook However; respondents overwhelmingly reported that they had no strong
feelings towards it or just did not care about it. This could be seen as inferring that the public no
longer associates PR with manipulation and that they are accepting it as an inherent part of
SNS.
It could be concluded that Facebook users do not care about Facebook groups being used for
PR. This has implications for PR professionals because it could mean that PR is gaining
mainstream acceptance and that the public, as information-seekers, recognises it as a way of
getting accurate, credible information with few drawbacks.
6.5 Answering RQ4: What do Facebook users think about their use of Facebook?
It can be concluded that Facebook users trust other users but not groups. Despite their lack of
activity in groups they report that they are active on Facebook in general. As stated earlier
respondents believe a lot of the information available in groups but they do not trust it. This
could be because the majority of them believe that the groups are set-up to exploit them.
It can also be concluded that for the majority of respondents their use of Facebook centres on
fun and play. This could present challenges for PR professionals because any PR conducted
through Facebook would have to compete with a user’s desire for gratification. This centring on
fun could also provide a reason as to why there is little activity within Facebook groups.
Nathan Wooding 49
e9502498
Facebook users’ consider themselves to be a fairly open and trusting group, in theory this
should make it easier to communicate with them. However, in reality it could be argued that
they are too interested with superficial, self-gratification to pay any attention to concerted
attempts to communicate with them.
6.6 Summary
Overall, this study finds that whilst Facebook users are willing to join Facebook groups about
nearly anything, they are extremely aware of attempts to exploit them. This awareness is likely
borne out of wariness and would make it difficult to establish two-way communications with
them because whilst they believe the majority of information presented to them they do not
trust it.
This study concludes by saying that theoretically Facebook groups are a possible PR tool that
could shift the way in which PR is conducted. However, there are several issues that will need
to be addressed before an effective framework is developed.
Finally, whilst it is possible for a Facebook group to have many hundreds of thousands of
members, the appearance of activity is the result of lots of little actions by the majority and
more frequent activity by their administrators. Figuratively speaking, they are the empty spaces
mentioned in the title of this study.
6.7 Limitations
This is a small scale study focussing on general PR practice within one Social Networking Site.
Preferably, more than Social Networking site would be used. This study also uses only one
method of gathering primary data, the questionnaire, and as such has a very small sample of a
staggeringly large population. A more rigorous, probability sample would also increase the
validity of the results and make the findings more generalisable.
6.8 Recommendations for Further Research
This study was very limited however the author feels that it identifies areas that require further
research as:
• A larger study into how PR is conducted through SNS.
• A study into public perceptions and awareness of online PR.
• A longitudinal study into the uses’ of Facebook groups.
• A causal model of online PR should be developed.
Nathan Wooding 50
e9502498
Chapter 7: References and Bibliography
Nathan Wooding 51
e9502498
Acquisti, A., and Gross, R. 2006. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and
privacy on the Facebook. In 6thWorkshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET).

Anon (a)., 2009. Facebook Factsheet. Palo Alto, USA. Available from:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/press/info.php?factsheet [Accessed 4 April 2009].

Anon (b)., 2009. Facebook Statistics. Palo Alto, USA. Available from:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/press/info.php?statistics [Accessed 4 April

2009].
Anon (C)., 2009. Facebook Factsheet. Palo Alto, USA. Available from:
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics [Accessed 24 April 2009].

Armano, D., (2008) Innovation v Litigation: Leveraging Social Media. Advertising Age, October
27, 40 (73), p16
Beer, D., (2008). Social network(ing) sites. Revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd
& Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, pp 516-529
Blaikie, N., 2000. Designing Social Research. UK: Polity Press.
Botan, C., H., and Taylor, M., 2004. Public Relations: State of the Field. Journal of Communication.
Pp 645-661.
Boyd, d., and Ellison, N. B. 2008. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Boyd d., 2007. Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What?. Knowledge Tree. 13. a
Boyd, d., 2007b. Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in
Teenage Social Life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and
Digital Media Volume,
Boyd, D., 2008b. Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, Invasion, and Social Convergence.
Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 14(1) pp 13-
20.
Brace, I. 2004.Questionnaire Design.London, , GBR: Kogan Page, Limited,
Brenkert, G.G., 1998. Trust, morality and international business. Business Ethics Quarterly 8 (2)
pp 293–317.
Chan, K. and Fang, W., 2007. Use of the internet and traditional media amongst young people.
Young Consumers. 8(4) pp244-256.
Chen, Y., and Xie, J., 2008. Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of
Marketing Communication Mix. Management Science. 58(3) pp477-491.
Cilliers, B., Steyn, B., and Grobler, A., 2004. The Internet: A Technology in Search of a Strategy.
11th International Public Relations Research Symposium, 2-4 July 2004 Lake Bled
Corritore, C., L., Kracher, B., and Wiedenbeck, S., 2003. On-line trust: concepts, evolving
themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 58 pp 737-758.
Nathan Wooding 52
e9502498
Demetrious, K., 2008. Secrecy and illusion: Second Life and the construction of unreality,
Australian Journal of Communication, 35 (1), pp. 1-13
Dwyer, C., Passerini, K., and Hiltz, S., R., 2007.Trust and privacy concern within social
networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. 13th Americas Conference on
Information Systems, 9-12 August 2007 Colorado.
Fogel, J., and Nehmad, E., 2009. Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust and
privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behaviour. 25 pp153-160.
Fogg, B.J., Tseng, H., 1999. The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceedings of the CHI ’99
New York. pp. 80–87.

Garment, J., 2008. The Need for Partnership at a Time of Fragmentation. Advertising Age, March
21, 79 (28), p15
Gillin, P., 2007. New Media, New Influencers and Implications for the Public Relations
Profession. Journal of New Communications Research, vol. Ii/issue 2
Grossnickle, J., 2001, Handbook of Online Marketing Research USA: McGraw-Hill.
Grunig, J., E., and Grunig, L., A., Models of Public Relations and Communications, in Grunig, J.,
E., (ed), 1992, Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management. NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., and Dix, A., 2008. Exploring the Facebook Experience: A
New Approach to Usability. In: Proceedings NordiCHI 18-20 October2008 Sweden.
Holtz, S., 1999, Public Relations on the Net. USA: AMACOM.
Hearn, A., 2008. ‘Meat, Mask, Burden’ Probing the contours of the branded ‘self’. Journal of
Consumer Culture.8 pp 197-217.
Huang. Y., 2004. Is Symmetrical Communication Ethical and Effective? Journal of Business Ethics.
53. pp333-352
Hurme, P., 2001. Online PR: Emerging Organisational Practice. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal. 6 (2) Pp71-75.
Hsu, M-H., Ju, T., L., Yen, C-H., and Chang, C-M., 2007. Knowledge Sharing Behaviour in
Virtual Communities: The Relationship between Trust, Self-Efficacy and Outcome

Expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 65 pp 153-169.
Joinson, A., N., 2008. ‘Looking at’, ‘Looking up’ or ‘Keeping up with’ People? Motives an Uses
of Facebook. In: Proceedings of the CHI ’08 5-10 April 2008 Florence. pp 1027-1036.
Kent, M., L., and Taylor, M., 1998. Building Dialogic Relationships Through the World Wide
Web. Public Relations Review. 24 (3) pp321-334.
Kent, L., M., and Taylor, M., 2002. Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations
Review. 28. pp 21-37
Nathan Wooding 53
e9502498
Kirdar, Y., and Demir, F., O., 2006. The World Wide Web as Media for Public Relations: A Case
Study of Organizations’ use of the Internet in Turkey. Review of Social, Economic &
Business Studies. 7/8. pp135-150

Larsson, L., 2007. Public Trust in the PR Industry and its Actors. Journal of Communication
Management. 11(3) pp222-234.

Malhotra, N., K., 1999, Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Pearman
Education
Mateas, M., 2008, Understanding Social Media. Public Relations Tactics, November, p4.
McMillan, D., W., and Chavis, D., M., 1986. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.
Journal of Community Psychology. 14 pp6-23
McMillan, S., J., 2002. A Four Part Model of Cyber Interactivity. New Media &Society. 4 (2)
pp271-291.
Nielsen Company, The., 9 March 2009. Global Faces and Networked Places. Available from:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/social-networking-new-global-footprint/
[Accessed 15 March 2009].

Pitt, L., F., Berthon, P., L., Watson, R., T., and Zinkhan, G., M., 2002. The Internet and the birth
of real consumer power. Business Horizons. July-August. Pp 7-14.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 2007., Research Methods for Business Students [online].
3rd edition. Pearson Education UK. Available from:

http://www.myilibrary.com/Browse/open.asp?ID=177101&loc=120 23 April 2009
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 2003., Research Methods for Business Students. 3rd
edition. Pearson Education UK.

Solis, B., 29 June 2007. The Definition of Social Media. Webpronews.
http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/. [Accessed 14 February 2009]

Typaldos, C., 2002. The 12 Principles of Civilisation: A better way to define and encourage web
communities. Available from:
http://www.typaldos.com/word.documents//12principles/12principles.pdf [Accessed 1
April 2009.
Van der Meiden, A., 1993. Public Relations and “Other” Modalities of Professional
Communication: Asymmetric Presuppositions for a New Theoretical Discussion.

International Public Relations Review. 16 (3) pp8-11.
Walliman, N., 2005. Your Research Project. 2nd Ed. UK: Sage.
Wilson, E., V., and Lu, Y., 2008. Communication Goals and Online Persuasion: An empirical
examination. Computers in Human Behaviour. 24 pp 2554-2577.
Nathan Wooding 54
e9502498
Wright, D. K., 2005. An Analysis of the Increasing Importance of the Role of the Receiver in the
Communication Process. 8th International Public Relations Research Conference, 10-13
March 2005.
Wright, K. B. 2005. Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), article 11.
Nathan Wooding 55
e9502498
Chapter 8: Appendices
Nathan Wooding 56
e9502498
Appendix I
Figure 16: The Major Differences between Deductive and Inductive Research. Adapted from
Saunders et al (2007), p120
Nathan Wooding Appendix I

e9502498
Appendix II
Figure 17: Choosing a Non-Probability Sampling Method. Adapted from Saunders et al
(2007), p228
Nathan Wooding Appendix II

e9502498
Appendix III
Available from: http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_3QmdZjJeLWjeFI8&SVID=Prod
Nathan Wooding Appendix III

e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix IV
e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix V
e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix VI
e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix VII
e9502498
Appendix IV
Nathan Wooding Appendix VIII

e9502498
Appendix V
Available from: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB228PKCF52TL
Nathan Wooding Appendix IX

e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix X
e9502498
Nathan Wooding Appendix XI
e9502498
Appendix VI
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.250a 4 .055
Likelihood Ratio 9.277 4 .055
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.306 1 .129
N of Valid Cases 77
a. 5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .33.
Equation 1: Chi Square for 4.2.2
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
N of Valid Cases 77

Equation 2 Chi Square for 4.3.1
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 13.823 5 .017
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)

Nathan Wooding Appendix XII
e9502498
Linear-by-Linear Association .570 1 .450
N of Valid Cases 77

expected count is 1.30.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .464 2 .793
Likelihood Ratio .451 2 .798
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
N of Valid Cases 77

Nathan Wooding Appendix XIII

e9502498
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .881a 4 .927
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Nathan Wooding Appendix XIV

e9502498
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .774a 2 .679
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
N of Valid Cases 77

Nathan Wooding Appendix XV

e9502498
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
N of Valid Cases 77

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Nathan Wooding Appendix XVI

e9502498
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
N of Valid Cases 77

Nathan Wooding Appendix XVII

e9502498
-END-
Nathan Wooding Appendix XVIII

e9502498

Empty Spaces: Understanding A Facebook User's Experiences of Social Networking Sites

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Empty Spaces: Understanding A Facebook User's Experiences of Social Networking Sites

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

[Empty Spaces]

BA (Hons) Public Relations

A dissertation of 11,632 words

[Empty Spaces]: Understanding a Facebook User’s Experiences of Public Relations conducted

through Social Networks.

A dissertation submitted by Nathan Wooding in partial completion of the award BA (Hons)

in the United Kingdom or overseas.’

identifies several areas that would benefit from further research.

Nathan Wooding iii

distracting me and GS who wouldn’t let me settle.

This dissertation is complete because of your support.

I’ll name no names.

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

- Sir Isaac Newton

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 4

2.1 A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL MEDIA ................................................................................... 5

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................17

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................24

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................43

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................47

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................48

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................51

Nathan Wooding viii

47% of British people (Nielsen 2009).

Facebook is mainly used to manage relationships instigated offline (Hart et al 2008).

subject areas are pertinent to the study of SNS.

2.1 A brief introduction to Social Media

are hosted on a variety of websites.

and those made by others within the system.”.

profile, friends, groups and associations.

Network increases in proportion to 2n.

Figure 1: Four Models of PR (Grunig and Grunig, 1989)

will contribute towards communications excellence.

The first is ‘Many-to-Many’; where beforehand an individual had little or no opportunity to

assessed by individuals who read it and tested in discussions.

Holtz’s second model is ‘Receiver-Driven Communications’. Working on the premise of

publics who may be interested.

communicate with them.

et al (2004) that it is no longer enough to present information to stakeholders; organisations

Figure 2: Four-part model of Cyber-Interactivity (McMillan 2002) p.276

Dialogic PR is a blend of both elements.

2.4 SNS and PR

SNS provide Communications professionals with an increasingly powerful tool to facilitate

their sources of information (Wright 2005).

preferences and lifestyles.” (Advertising Age 2008, p15).

PR should be effectively unseen. It is this invisibility, however, that propagates Public

Confidence and Exploitation (Corritore et al 2003).

protection of privacy is minimal.

linking to intersubjectivity as put forward by Kent and Taylor (2002).

interactions (see Figure 3).

arguing that credibility is an important factor in user’s perceptions of online environments.

five principles of dialogic PR proposed by Kent and Taylor (1998).

Autonomy’, ‘Emotional Release’, ‘Self-Evaluation’, and ‘Limited and Protected Communication’

control their personal information and join Facebook anyway.

2.6 PR and Trust

of a company’s communication strategy.

2.7 Conclusion and rationale for further research

privacy because the way in which users communicate online through.

3.2 Research Questions

be used to provide clear conclusions (Saunders et al 2003).

RQ1: What type of groups do Facebook users join and why?

RQ2: What do Facebook users think about Facebook Groups?