SOCIAL IMPACT, CAPITAL, AND CONNECTIONS IN SOCIAL MEDIA ADVERTISING by ALEC C ...

150 Pages·2017·6.23 MB·English

YOUR FRIENDS LIKE OUR BRAND: SOCIAL IMPACT, CAPITAL, AND
CONNECTIONS IN SOCIAL MEDIA ADVERTISING

by

ALEC C. TEFERTILLER

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the School of Journalism and Communication
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

September 2017
DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE

Student: Alec C. Tefertiller

Title: Your Friends Like Our Brand: Social Impact, Capital, and Connections in Social
Media Advertising

This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the School of Journalism and
Communication by:

Kim Sheehan Chairperson
Nicole Dahmen Core Member
Autumn Shafer Core Member
Troy Campbell Institutional Representative

and

Sara D. Hodges Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School.

Degree awarded September 2017

ii
© 2017 Alec C. Tefertiller

iii
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

Alec C. Tefertiller

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Journalism and Communication

September 2017

Title: Your Friends Like Our Brand: Social Impact, Capital, and Connections in Social
Media Advertising

Social media networks such as Facebook enable advertisers to embed social
connection information within advertisements. The purpose of this study was to better
understand how social cues in social media advertising contribute to consumers’ brand
attitudes and purchase intentions. Two theoretical constructs guided the study: social
impact theory and social capital theory. Social impact theory suggests that the number,
relational strength, and immediacy of individuals exerting social influence determine its
effectiveness. Social capital theory posits that our social networks are a product of the
relational capital we have invested in them, with two forms of social capital: bonding and
bridging. Bonding is associated with our intimate, “strong ties,” and bridging is
associated with our larger circle of acquaintances, or “weak ties.” Using an experiment
(N = 211), it was determined that while social context cues included in social media
advertisements did influence brand attitudes, the strength and intensity of cues did not
have an effect. Furthermore, bridging, strong-tie social capital positively moderated the
relation between advertisement attitude and social media sharing of the advertisement as
well as the relation between brand attitude and purchase intentions.
iv
CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME OF AUTHOR: Alec C. Tefertiller

GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:

University of Oregon, Eugene
University of Houston
Florida State University, Tallahassee

DEGREES AWARDED:

Doctor of Philosophy, Media Studies, 2017, University of Oregon
Master of Arts, Communication – Mass Communication Studies, 2014, University
of Houston
Bachelor of Fine Arts, Motion Picture, Television, and Recording Arts, 2000,
Florida State University

AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:

New Media Technology
Marketing and Social Psychology

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Graduate Employee, School of Journalism and Communication, University of
Oregon, 2014-2017

Teaching Assistant, Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of
Houston, 2012-2014

Sole Proprietor, Deep Dish Studios, 2010-2014

Strategic Partner, Acumen Web Solutions, 2011-2012

Director of Technology, SchoolHeart, Inc., 2007-2010

Summer Film Coordinator, Rocketown, 2006

Media and Resource Coordinator, Campus Renewal Ministries, 2004-2005

v
Information Resource Coordinator and Admissions Officer, Office of Admissions
and Records, Florida State University, 2000-2003

GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS:

Guido Stempel Award, Top Student Paper, Graduate Student Interest Group,
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2016

First Place Paper, Public Relations Teaching Division, Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2016

Second Place Faculty Paper, Mass Communication & Society Division,
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, 2016

Graduate Teaching Fellowship, School of Journalism and Communication,
University of Oregon, 2014-2017

Columbia Scholarship, School of Journalism and Communication, University of
Oregon, 2014-2017

Doctoral Student Teaching Fellowship, Jack J. Valenti School of Communication,
University of Houston, 2012-2014

Magna Cum Laude, School of Motion Picture, Television, and Recording Arts,
Florida State University, 2000

PUBLICATIONS:

Tefertiller, A.C. (in press). Media substitution in cable cord-cutting: The adoption
of web-streaming television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.

Tatone, J., Gallicano, T.D., & Tefertiller, A.C. (2017). I love tweeting in class,
but … A qualitative study of student perceptions of the impact of Twitter
in large lecture classes. Journal of Public Relations Education, 3(1), 1-13.

Pittman, M. & Tefertiller, A.C. (2015). With or without you: Connected viewing
and co-viewing Twitter activity for traditional appointment and
asynchronous broadcast models. First Monday, 20(7).

vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It goes without saying that this dissertation would not be possible without the
contributions of my outstanding committee: Nicole Dahmen, Autumn Shafer, Troy
Campbell, and Kim Sheehan. Beyond asking tough questions and helping me come up
with great solutions to the particular challenges of this experiment, they kept me sane
throughout the process. Special thanks are in order for Troy Campbell for allowing me to
access the Marketing Research Pool, and to Autumn Shafer and Kyle McDaniel for
allowing me to access student participants in their classes. I am most grateful for the
mentorship, guidance, instruction, emotional support, and friendship of my advisor and
committee chair, Dr. Sheehan. I thank God every day that you were my guide for this
journey. It has been an honor.
None of this would have happened without the support of my family, especially
my parents, who are always good for needed advice, merry maid service, meals on
wheels, and some quality proofreading. Of course, the true hero is my wonderful wife,
Bethany. She was strong when I didn’t have anything left in the tank. I could not have
survived this journey – literally – without her by my side. I’ll save the biggest thank you
for McKenzie, who gets credit for being cute, curious, and courageous, and for being a
good sleeper at a time when sleep was a precious and valued commodity.
Finally, I must acknowledge the indirect assistance of Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi,
Netflix, the Villard Boys, and UNC.

vii
For Bethany and McKenzie

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................. 7
Social Influence, Social Norms, and Reciprocity ................................................. 7
Social Impact Theory ............................................................................................ 10
Social Impact in Online Networks .................................................................. 14
Social Capital ........................................................................................................ 19
Social Capital and Media Use ......................................................................... 21
Uses and Gratifications and Social Capital ............................................... 22
Social Capital in Online Networks ................................................................. 26
Facebook and Social Capital ..................................................................... 28
Attitudes, Advertising, and Brands ....................................................................... 31
Social Norms ................................................................................................... 34
Hypotheses and Research Questions .................................................................... 35
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 38

III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 39
Participants ............................................................................................................ 40
Procedure .............................................................................................................. 42
Pretest .................................................................................................................... 44
Measures ............................................................................................................... 47
ix
Chapter Page

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 50

IV. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 51
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 51
Sample ................................................................................................................... 52
Measures ............................................................................................................... 54
Social Impact ........................................................................................................ 56
Advertising, Brand, and Purchase Attitudes ......................................................... 59
Social Capital ........................................................................................................ 63
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 65

V. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 67
Theoretical Implications ....................................................................................... 67
Social Impact .................................................................................................. 67
Social Capital .................................................................................................. 72
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 77

VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 78
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................... 78
Implications for Facebook .............................................................................. 81
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................... 82
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 86
x