Extrovert and engaged? Exploring the connection between personality and involvement of stakeholders and the perceived relationship investment of nonprofit organizations

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Full Length Article

Extrovert and engaged? Exploring the connection between personality and involvement of stakeholders and the perceived relationship investment of nonprofit organizations Moonhee Choa, Giselle A. Augerb, a b

⁎

University of Tennessee, 476 Communications Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States Rhode Island College, 600 Mount Pleasant Ave., Providence, RI, United States

AR TI CLE I NF O

AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Big 5 personality traits Perceived relationship investment Nonprofit organizations Engagement Involvement Micro-targeting

This study explored the relationship between the big five personality traits – agreeableness, intellect, conscientiousness, emotion, and extroversion – and the involvement, engagement, and perceived relationship investment (PRI) of participants with nonprofit organizations. The role of personality is important because it reflects fundamental qualities that may influence an individual’s behavior. Results demonstrated significant correlation between each trait and involvement, passive engagement, and PRI. Four were also positively correlated to active engagement of participants.

1. Introduction There are nearly 1 million 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations in the U.S. – enough to suit a variety of individual interests and passions (McKeever & Pettijohn, 2014) and with the ease of communicating via social media, most people receive messages from nonprofits several times each day. These messages are usually received in individuals’ various social media feeds because they have previously indicated interest in the organization by ‘liking’ or ‘friending’ or having ‘shared,’ ‘tweeted’ or ‘retweeted’ information provided by that organization. This type of behavior indicates involvement with the organization, a form of relationship defined by Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) in the social media context as that “which reflects a consumer’s level of interest in and personal relevance of a brand” (p. 149). Such relevance may be initiated by stakeholder’s perceptions of brand personality wherein characteristics normally attributed to humans are applied to a brand and where the relevance of the brand deepens the more it helps stakeholders express their concept of self (Malar, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011). Interestingly, though many have studied aspects of brand personality (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Geuens, Weijters, & de Wulf, 2009; Malar et al., 2011; Sung, 2014) and despite the close ties between perceived brand personality and the personality of the stakeholder, none have investigated implications of individual stakeholder’s personality in the organization-public relationship. However, the potential importance of personality has recently become of interest in the related area of political communication where political campaigns have been exploring the role of individual personality and voting behavior in an effort to craft “specific messages tailored not to [voters’] age, race or gender—but to their fundamental natures” (Goodwin, 2015, para. 5). The purpose of this exploratory study was therefore to investigate the potential ties among stakeholder personality and involvement with a nonprofit organizational brand, their social media behavior, and the perceived relationship investment of that

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Cho), [email protected] (G.A. Auger).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.008 Received 22 December 2016; Received in revised form 21 June 2017; Accepted 25 July 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Cho, M., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.008

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

organization. The research is important because differences in personality may account for differences in the extent of involvement and engagement of stakeholders for example, the likelihood of volunteering or providing monetary donations, or simply the likelihood of sharing information provided by the organization via social media. This study is also significant in that it investigates characteristics of stakeholders and their perception of organizational investment in the organization-public relationship rather than characteristics of organizational behavior and will explore these characteristics and relationship in the nonprofit organization context. 2. Literature review 2.1. Personality According to Gill (2011), personality refers to “a person’s fundamental qualities that influence his or her behavior” (p. 250). Among the most widely used personality assessment tools is that of the International Personality Inventory Pool (IPIP) a measure defined by Goldberg (1999) as “a broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models” (p. 7). Frequently described as ‘the big five,’ the IPIP measures the extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability or neuroticism, and openness characteristics of personality. The IPIP has been used in more than 80 published articles and scale items have been translated into more than 25 languages (Goldberg et al., 2006). The five factors can be described as follows. Characteristics of extroversion include cheerfulness and optimism. People who are high in extroversion tend to be sociable, talkative, active, and experience positive emotions (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Moore & McElroy, 2012). Agreeableness describes those who are trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative, as well as flexible, kind, and forgiving. Moore and McElroy (2012) argued that “agreeableness is said to favorably influence social interactions and their perceived quality” (p. 269). Those with lesser levels of emotional stability are characterized as neurotic, a personality state defined by negative attributes such as distrustful, sad, anxious, easily embarrassed, and those who have difficulty managing stress. Research has demonstrated that those high in neuroticism traits spend more time on social media sites than more emotionally stable people (Moore & McElroy, 2012). Of the remaining two personality types, intellect or openness to experience has been defined as “an individual’s willingness to consider alternative approaches, be intellectually curious, and enjoy artistic pursuits” (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzkey, 2010, p. 1290). Conscientiousness, on the other hand, refers to those who exhibit reliability, responsibility, selfdiscipline, and who are diligent, responsible, and scrupulous. 2.2. Personality and social media Although the big five personality factors have been extensively used to forecast individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in the management and psychology disciplines (Moore & McElroy, 2012), only recently have researchers begun to examine the role of personality and social networking sites (SNS). For the most part, these exploratory studies have focused on investigating personality traits associated with individuals’ participation on SNS—in other words who is using SNS and participating in activities such as posting photos or information, the number of friends with whom they have engaged, and the number of groups to which they belong, rather than investigating individuals’ interactions with specific types of organizations or individuals on social media. For example, Correa, Hinsley, and Zuniga (2010) found that those with high extroversion traits reported being more likely to post information and photos on Facebook and to interact with friends on this social networking sites (SNS) than those with lower levels of those traits. Moreover, among the more mature segment of their sample, ‘being open to new experiences’ was an important personality predictor of social media use. Additional studies have demonstrated that those with higher levels of neuroticism were more likely to post photos on their profile pages on Facebook than those with lesser levels of those traits (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzkey, 2010) and those with higher agreeableness characteristics were more likely to express “higher levels of regret about inappropriate content they may have posted on Facebook” (Moore & McElroy, 2012, p. 271). The latter study also found that conscientious people expressed greater regret than less conscientious people and that they also posted significantly fewer posts about either themselves or others. Interestingly, personality was not significantly related to an individual’s sensational, or unusually violent, interests as displayed on Facebook (Hagger-Johnson, Egan, & Stillwell, 2011). Unfortunately, there is a dearth of studies that indicate individual personality characteristics and the individual’s relationships with organizations. That said Moore and McElroy (2012) identified the importance of personality studies to organizational communication when they noted: Many businesses are changing the way they conduct their marketing activities through the use of Facebook as an advertising vehicle, distribution channel, and to foster word-of-mouth referrals. The degree to which we can ferret out the relationship between personality and Facebook offers companies valuable insight into the nature of who is likely to comment on company Facebook sites about things such as product usage and quality and the extent of potential word of mouth advertising conveyed through personal Facebook pages. (p. 273) 2.3. Involvement and social media engagement The concepts of involvement and engagement are closely related and, depending on the definition, have been used interchangeably or to describe varying depths of the other; for example, engagement meaning a more in-depth or active level of 2

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

involvement. Studies of each have stressed the importance of emotion and cognition, passive and active participation, or contributing or consuming behaviors (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Smith & Gallicano, 2015; Tsai & Men, 2013; Zaichowsky, 1994). For example, a study by Hollebeek et al. (2014) investigated consumer brand involvement with regard to interactive brandrelated dynamics in a social media context. According to the researchers, involvement in consumer/brand relationships is defined as that “which reflects a consumer’s level of interest in and personal relevance of a brand” (p. 149). Once consumers actively interact with organizations through social media, the passive but interested state of involvement becomes the active, engaged state of engagement, which is turn leads to positive outcomes such as brand commitment. As Tsai and Men (2013) explain, “Because SNSs are relationship centric and inherently participatory, engagement with SNS pages – including those of a brand – naturally leads to the cultivation of meaningful relationships” (p. 77). Passive and active engagement are described as a continuum of engagement levels by Tsai and Men (2013) wherein passive engagement is least involved with the organizational relationship. Behaviors associated with this level are what the authors describe as consuming behaviors such as “viewing videos and pictures, reading product reviews, and downloading brand widgets” (p. 77). At the next level of engagement users become moderately active by contributing to an organization’s SNS page content such as participating in polls, responding to content posted by others, or commenting on videos, photos or other items. At the final level of engagement users are considered most active when they create and provide user-generated content such as photos, videos, reviews, or other contributions to the organization’s SNS page (Tsai & Men, 2013). Similarly, Men and Tsai (2013) measured participants’ levels and types of engagement with corporate social media in what they defined as proactive ‘contributing’ or reactive ‘consuming’ behavior. Results of the study found the participants were more reactive than proactive in their social media engagement, using the medium for gathering information rather than for uploading user-generated content. Such behavior, however, was consistent with the “collectivist, cultural orientation” of the country in which the study was conducted (p. 268). More recently, Smith and Gallicano (2015) suggested that engagement in social media “is conceptually distinct, and involves cognitive and emotional immersion that may not characterize all social media usage” (p. 82). The authors contended one must interact on social media to be engaged yet interacting on social media does not necessarily mean that the person is engaged – to be engaged one must be cognitively immersed and absorbed in the interaction. These arguments are similar to those used more than two decades earlier by Zaichkowsky (1994) in developing the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII), which also considered the role of cognition and emotion. According to this study, an individual’s feelings and emotions contributed to what they described as affective involvement, while cognitive involvement stressed the individual’s information processing. Moreover, three antecedent factors—characteristics of the person, characteristics of the stimulus, and characteristics of the situation are key to understanding involvement. According to the study, these factors alone or combined, could affect the level of involvement with products, advertisements, or purchase situations. Because antecedent variables can cause the level of involvement to change, the researcher developed a context-free 20 item scale that measures the state of involvement rather than involvement as a stable trait. This semantic differential scale measures the range between pairs of words such as interesting and uninteresting, fascinating and mundane, and worthless versus valuable. Given the lack of studies regarding personality, involvement, and engagement with specific types of organizations on SNS, particularly nonprofit organizations, we pose the following research questions: RQ1: What is the relationship of personality to individuals’ involvement with the nonprofit organization as indicated through the PII measure? RQ2: What is the relationship of personality to individuals’ engagement with nonprofit organizations as demonstrated through volunteer hours, donations, and length of affiliation with the organization? 2.4. Perceived relationship investment (PRI) Studies, such as those discussed above that have investigated involvement and engagement of stakeholders on SNS (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Smith & Gallicano, 2015; Tsai & Men, 2013) have done so with regard to their effect on the organization-public relationship outcomes such as trust, commitment, and satisfaction. As yet, however, no studies have explored the relationship of personality to perceived relationship investment (PRI), which is defined as “a consumer’s perception of the extent to which a retailer devotes resources, efforts, and attention aimed at maintaining or enhancing relationships with regular customers that do not have outside value and cannot be recovered if these relationships are terminated” (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroder, & Iacobucci, 2001, p. 35). Adopted from the marketing literature, the construct has recently become of interest in the strategic communication literature (Cho & Auger, 2013; Sung, 2014; Sung & Kim, 2014) and suggests that actions taken by the organization to strengthen or build relationships with their stakeholders are valuable only within that relationship and are determined by the perceived commitment of the organization to the relationship by the stakeholders (De Wulf et al., 2001; De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroder, & Van Kenhove, 2003). The majority of studies investigating PRI have also explored its outcomes, particularly with regard to relationship quality between the organization and its stakeholders (De Wulf et al., 2001; Sung, 2014; Yoon, Cho, & Sohn, 2008). Among the studies that investigated relationship quality indicators are those that investigated stakeholder satisfaction (Brown, Barry, Dacin & Gunst, 2005; Hong & Yang, 2009), trust in the organization (Auger, 2014; Hong & Yang, 2009) and commitment to the relationship (Sargeant & Lee, 2004). These three relationship quality indicators were influenced by PRI in a study by Sung (2014) and also found to be highly correlated to PRI in an investigation by Cho and Auger (2013) which also included control mutuality. Additional studies such as those by De Wulf et al. (2001, 2003) and Yoon et al. (2008) have extended the investigation of relationship quality indicators to consider their role as mediators in the relationship between PRI and loyalty or behavioral outcomes. 3

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

2.5. Nonprofit organizations and social media The use of social media for communication and development of relationships by organizations is of keen interest to researchers. No longer are investigations merely querying which organizations are using social media and to what extent, they are now investigating the implications and outcomes of such behavior (Men & Tsai, 2013; Sung & Kim, 2014). For example, Men and Tsai (2013) and Tsai and Men (2013) recognized the importance of stakeholder engagement and motivation to perceptions of the organizational behavior. Unfortunately, none of these investigations has involved the nonprofit organizational context, even though nonprofit organizations outperform profit entities, in terms of adoption and use of social media (Barnes & Andonian, 2011). Studies have, however, investigated nonprofit organizations’ use of social media. For example, Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) demonstrating that Twitter is used by such organizations in three broad functional areas of building community, providing information, and requesting action, however, a subsequent study found little evidence of relationship-building activity, interactivity, conversation or community-building by nonprofits on Twitter (Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012). Moreover, while many studies have demonstrated the predominant use of one-way communication by nonprofits on social media (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Cho & Schweickart, 2015; Lovejoy et al., 2012), others have demonstrated substantive and valuable use of two-way communication by these organizations (Auger, 2013; Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011; Cho, Schweickart, & Haase, 2014). Although social media has provided an inexpensive and valuable avenue for communication with stakeholders, there are a dearth of studies that investigate the effects of such communication on the perceptions of stakeholders in the nonprofit context. Yet, given the need for positive behavioral intentions from stakeholders, particularly in the nonprofit sector where donations and volunteers are key to survival, such information is of great importance, potentially providing direction for more effective communication and positive outcomes. As such, the following research questions are posed: RQ3: Is there a relationship between personality and perceived relationship investment of the nonprofit organization? RQ4: Is there a relationship between involvement and perceived relationship investment of the nonprofit organization? 3. Method 3.1. Sample and data collection procedure An online survey with a national sample was conducted to answer the research questions aforementioned. A professional panel recruitment company was obtained by the researchers to recruit a sample of adults aged 18 or older. US residents who were registered at the panel company were invited to participate in the survey, by clicking the study website which was directed to the Qualtrics survey platform. Participants were screened for appropriateness by asking them whether they were actively following or friending a nonprofit organization on social media. They were also asked to indicate approximately how many such organizations they were following or friending. Since relationships with nonprofit organizations on social media are central to the study, participants that indicated a lack of such relationships were thanked for their time and asked to exit the study before any further data were collected. Participants who passed the screening questions were then asked to write in the name of the nonprofit organization with which they engaged most often on social media. Software coding then inserted the name of the organization into subsequent questions in the survey, where applicable. 3.2. Survey instrument An Internet based survey platform was used to develop the survey instrument. Prior academic research into personality, involvement, perceived relationship investment, and organizational relationships were used to develop the questions. Participants were asked a variety of questions about their relationship as a donor and/or volunteer for nonprofit organizations, such as, “approximate volunteer time in hours spent in the last year” or “approximate number of organizations I volunteer for each year” and were asked to indicate the organization with which they had the strongest relationship. Participants were then asked to elucidate their relationship with the selected organization, by indicating the number of years they had been involved with that organization and whether they could be characterized as a donor, volunteer, or donor and volunteer. They were also asked to indicate the various social media with which they interacted with nonprofits, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat. 3.3. Measures To measure personality, Goldberg’s (1992) IPIP big-five factor markers were used. Stated earlier, the big-five factors represent the extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability or neuroticism, and openness characteristics of personality. Having 10 items to measure each factor, a total of 50 items was adopted. As shown in Table 1, the reliability of the measures for all five factors was satisfactory, ranging from .83 (conscientiousness) to .92 (emotional). PRI was measured with three items developed by De Wulf et al. (2001). Given that the original scales of PRI were to describe the relationship between a retailor store customers, the measures were modified slightly to best capture relationships between nonprofit organizations and their publics on social media. The Cronbach’s alpha was .91. Both IPIP and PRI items were answered on a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = neutral to 7 = strongly agree. Involvement was measured with Zaichkowsky’s (1994) Personal Involvement Inventory (PII), which is composed of the 10 item semantic differential scale. The specific items are as follows: unimportant/important, boring/interesting, irrelevant/relevant, 4

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

Table 1 The measures of Variables Tested. Variables and Items

Cronbach’s α

M (SD)

Personality Factor—Extroversion I am the life of the party. I feel comfortable around people. I start conversations. I talk to a lot of different people at parties. I don't mind being the center of attention. I don't talk a lot. (R) I keep in the background. (R) I have little to say. (R) I don't like to draw attention to myself. (R) I am quiet around strangers. (R) Personality Factor—Agreeableness I am interested in people. I sympathize with others' feelings. I have a soft heart. I take time out for others. I feel others' emotions. I make people feel at ease. I am not really interested in others. (R) I insult people. (R) I am not interested in other people's problems. (R) I feel little concern for others. (R) Personality Factor— Conscientiousness I am always prepared. I pay attention to details. I get chores done right away. I like order. I follow a schedule. I am exacting in my work. I leave my belongs around. (R) I make a mess of things. (R) I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (R) I shirk my duties. (R) Personality Factor— Emotional I am relaxed most of the time. I seldom feel blue. I get stressed out easily. I worry about things. I am easily disturbed. (R) I get upset easily. (R) I change my mood a lot. (R) I have frequent mood swings. (R) I get irritated easily. (R) I often feel blue. (R) Personality Factor— Intellect I have a rich vocabulary. I have a vivid imagination. I have excellent ideas. I am quick to understand things. I use difficult words. I spend time reflecting on things. I am full of ideas. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (R) I am not interested in abstract ideas. (R) I do not have a good imagination. (R) PRI (NPO) makes efforts to increase loyalty of their social media followers/friends like me. (NPO) makes various efforts to improve its tie with social media followers/friends like me. (NPO) really cares about keeping relationships with social media followers/friends like me. Involvement Unimportant/Important Boring/Interesting Irrelevant/Relevant Unexciting/Exciting Means nothing to me/Means a lot to me Unappealing/Appealing Mundane/Fascinating Worthless/Valuable

.91

4.57 (1.25)

.86

5.76 (.95)

.83

5.26 (.96)

.92

4.5 (1.32)

.84

5.33 (.93)

.91

5.78 (1.07)

.94

6.42 (.77)

(continued on next page)

5

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

Table 1 (continued) Variables and Items Uninvolving/Involving Not needed/Needed Engagement—Consuming Watching videos on the nonprofit organization’s social media sites Viewing pictures on he nonprofit organization’s social media sites Reading the nonprofit organization’s posts, user comments, or other information on social media sites Liking/joining the nonprofit organization’s social media sites Engagement—Contributing Engaging in conversations on the nonprofit organization’s social media sites (e.g., commenting, asking, and answering questions) Sharing the nonprofit organization’s social media posts on my own social media sites/pages (e.g., video, audio, pictures, texts) Recommending the nonprofit organization’s social media sites to my social media contacts Uploading video, audio, pictures, or images relevant to the nonprofit organization

Cronbach’s α

M (SD)

.84

5.98 (.89)

.83

5.63 (1.09)

unexciting/exciting, means nothing to me/means a lot to me, unappealing/appealing, mundane/fascinating, worthless/valuable, uninvolving/involving, and not needed/needed (α = .94). To measure individuals’ engagement with the nonprofit organization of their choice on social media, the study adopted Men and Tsai’s (2013) measures, modifying them into the nonprofit settings. Four items for each type of engagement (passive/consuming and active/contributing), respectively, were used. Therefore, a total of 8 items of engagement on social media were measured. The reliability for consuming engagement was .84 whereas the alpha value for contributing engagement was .83. 4. Results 4.1. Participants’ demographic information A total of 535 respondents who passed two screening questions participated in the survey. The majority of survey participants were female (n = 347 or 64.9%), Caucasian (n = 385 or 72.0%) and full-time employed (n = 295 or 55.1%). The average age was 38.44 (SD = 12.95). In terms of the relationships with nonprofit organizations of their choice, 197 (36.8%) participants identified themselves as donors and 82 (15.3%) of them described themselves as volunteers. More than a quarter of the participants (n = 148 or 27.7%) identified as both donors and volunteers, whereas about 20% of them (n = 108) followed or friended nonprofit organizations’ social media even though they are neither donors nor volunteers. The average donation dollars contributed to the nonprofit organization in the last year was $344.51 (SD = 1278.58) and the average time spent volunteering was 94.03 h (SD = 915.91). The mean for the years with the chosen organization was 5.55 (SD = 6.09). In addition, among various types of social media, the participants reported that Facebook (n = 506 or 94.6%) was the most frequently used to communicate with the nonprofit organizations, Twitter (n = 172 or 32.1%) was second in popularity followed by YouTube (n = 86 or 16.1%), Instagram (n = 84 or 15.7%), and Pinterest (n = 50 or 9.3%). Some of them also used other types of social media, such as Tumblr, Snapchat, Google+, or LinkedIn. 4.2. Answers to research questions The first research question explored the relationship between personality and involvement. Based on a series of correlation tests, all five personality factors were significantly positively associated with involvement at p = .01 level. Looking more closely, of 5 personality factors, agreeableness had the strongest correlation (r = .29), followed by conscientiousness (r = .24), Intellect (r = .20), extraversion (r = .16), and emotional (r = .12). To answer RQ2 which addressed possible association between personality and engagement on social media, the study employed a series of correlation tests for both passive consuming and active contributing engagement types. Overall, all five personality factors were significantly correlated with passive engagement at p = .01 level and four of the five were significantly correlated with active engagement, except for the emotional personality factor. Agreeableness provided the strongest correlation in both types of engagement. More specifically, in terms of passive engagement on social media (i.e., consuming), agreeableness had the strongest correlation (r = .32), followed by intellect (r = .30), conscientiousness (r = .24), extraversion (r = .18), and emotional (r = .13). On the other hand, the results of correlation between personality and the active social media engagement (i.e., contributing) were slightly different from those found for passive engagement, where agreeableness again had the strongest correlation (r = .25), followed by extraversion (r = .23), intellect (r = .23), and conscientiousness (r = .22). However, emotional characteristics (r = .08) were not correlated with active social media engagement. Answering RQ3 that explored to what extent personality factors are linked with PRI, the correlation results showed that all personality characteristics are significantly related to PRI at p = .01. Of the 5 personality characteristics, agreeableness had the strongest correlation (r = .21), followed by conscientiousness (r = .20), intellect (r = .19), extraversion (r = .14), and emotional (r = .13). Results of correlation testing relating to RQ4, which sought a relationship between involvement and PRI, demonstrated a 6

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

significantly positive association between the two variables (r = .40, p < .01). In addition, the study explored potential linkages between PRI and engagement, the correlation results for which showed that PRI was statistically significantly associated with both passive (r = .46) and active (r = .36) engagement on social media at p = .01. 5. Discussion This study sought to determine the relationships among a variety of factors that may contribute to a deeper understanding of the intricacies of organizational public relationships in a social media context. Specifically, the researchers were interested in determining some of the underlying characteristics of individuals that could be antecedent to the level of involvement and engagement these individuals exhibit with nonprofit organizations on SNS. Results of the research questions indicate that the ‘Big 5′ personality traits are significantly correlated with individuals’ perception of organizational investment (PRI) in the relationship, with the extent to which these individuals are involved with the organization, and how actively or passively engaged they are with the organization’s SNS. This could have some interesting implications for organization-public relationships in a social media context. Research has considered antecedent factors and outcomes of the organization-public relationship such as trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality (Hon & Grunig, 1999), transparency (Rawlins, 2008), enhanced organizational reputation (Yang & Grunig, 2005) and behavior (Bruning, 2002) among many others, however these studies have focused on the antecedent conditions of the organization to interact rather than antecedent conditions of the individual in the relationship. As such, this study adds to theory-building in public relations by investigating the ‘Big 5′ personality traits as antecedent conditions of publics involvement and engagement in online OPR. For example, the study indicates that extroverted people are more willing to actively engage with both the nonprofits and their publics on social media by participating in social media conversations, sharing nonprofits’ information on their own social media sites, or creating content relevant to the nonprofit organizations they follow or friend on social media. This supports results of Correa et al.’s (2010) study and also indicates an antecedent characteristic of the individual – that of extroversion – which has an effect on the contributing, active behavior of the individual in support of the organization’s SNS. Overall, agreeableness was the antecedent personality trait most important to all of the factors examined in this study. Moore and McElroy (2012) argued that “agreeableness is said to favorably influence social interactions and their perceived quality” (p. 269) and results of this study confirm this assertion and provide fodder for theory-building in areas of public relations research such as crisis communication, and issue management. Since agreeableness describes those who are trusting, sympathetic, and cooperative, as well as flexible, kind, and forgiving, research could investigate the extent to which carefully crafted, targeted messages aimed at bolstering these aspects of publics, could moderate the development of crises or recovery from crisis. For example, creating messages that bring out the sympathetic, cooperative, and forgiving aspects of agreeableness could potentially assist organizations that find themselves in trouble. On a more general but important note, nonprofit organizations rely on donors and volunteers to ensure the sustainability of their programs and services. As such, nonprofit organizations could use information such as that found in this study regarding the characteristics shared by those both passively and actively engaged and use this information to develop messages designed to microtarget these publics on SNS. Micro-targeting has been used in political campaigns for more than a decade (Goodwin, 2015) and could be used by nonprofits with similar effect. Research such as that discussed here, provides greater understanding of the personality characteristics of nonprofit supporters and can help them in developing specific messages that resonate with subsets of their supporters, much like the techniques used by recent political campaigns. As Goodwin (2015) notes: Republicans, led by Karl Rove, pioneered the technique of political microtargeting in a presidential election in 2004, to get out the vote for George W. Bush. But Barak Obama’s campaign perfected the strategy in 2008 and 2012, with Republicans falling behind in their microtargeting prowess. (para. 5) Future studies could examine the trait of agreeableness in greater depth as it relates to specific messages, imagery and storytelling used by nonprofits to engender support. Moreover, the personality trait of intellect was also consistently high in correlation to active and passive engagement, involvement, and perceived relationship quality. Since the correlations were high, future research should explore in greater depth how and why such characteristics intersect with the desire to engage and be involved with nonprofit organizations. Qualitative study of this relationship would likely provide great resources for nonprofit organizations as they embrace the relationship-building potential of SNS, which has moved far beyond the initial conceptualization of the dialogic relationship suggested by Kent and Taylor (1998) to a much more dynamic dialogic relationship where stakeholders not only provide feedback but also create and add user-generated content in an actively contributing process to the organization’s SNS’s pages. Overall, the insights provided by this study are important as nonprofits struggle to remain viable in an increasingly crowded philanthropic environment where private individuals can develop crowdfunding campaigns to provide financial support for medical bills or entrepreneurship ideas. De Wulf et al. (2003) suggested that customized campaigns to make people feel special would lead customers to perceive a greater level of investment in the relationship by organizations. Using personality and other individual characteristics to micro-target stakeholders could similarly affect nonprofit supporters, leading to increased loyalty to the organization, satisfaction in the relationship, and commitment to the relationship. Bortree (2011) and Men and Tsai (2013) found that greater involvement or engagement with an organization led to a more satisfactory relationship with that organization, while Men and Tsai (2013) discovered that participants who were engaged were also more receptive to messages. Given that certain personality traits such as agreeableness, intellect, and conscientiousness were most strongly aligned with involvement, passive and active engagement, and PRI, it would seem likely that such stakeholders would also be receptive to micro7

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

targeted messages aimed at strengthening the relationships between specific nonprofits and their supporters. Future research should certainly examine this possibility. 6. Limitations Results of the study are limited in generalizability by the gender, age, and employment status of the participants. The majority of participants were female, employed, and near to middle age with an average age of 38 and a half years old. Thus, we cannot assume those younger or recently entering the job market, or those older and retired from the job market would interact and engage with nonprofits in the same manner. Moreover, the participants self-reported the extent of their involvement with the nonprofit organization of their choice as well as their volunteering and donor behaviors and may have over- or under- represent themselves. 7. Conclusion The big five personality traits of agreeableness, intellect, conscientiousness, emotional stability or neuroticism, and extroverted versus introverted characteristics have been used to micro-target voters in recent political elections and, according to Goodwin (2015) vast databases of data pertaining to individuals, including their personality types, are being developed to provide for even tighter analyses. Such detailed information can be helpful not only to politicians, but also to businesses and nonprofits who must get their messages to penetrate through a vast and ever-increasing marketplace of ideas and information. Personality is important because it reflects fundamental qualities that may influence an individual’s behavior (Gill, 2011). This study demonstrated significant correlation between each of the five personality traits and several variables. For example, the relationship between the big five personality traits and the involvement of stakeholders with nonprofit organizations of their choice was significant as were the ties between these personality traits and passive engagement. Four of the five were also positively correlated to active engagement of participants with nonprofits on social media. Moreover, all five traits were positively related to the perceived relationship investment of the nonprofits to their stakeholders. Having demonstrated the relationship between personality and stakeholders’ involvement and engagement on social media, future research should examine the intimacy of the constructs in greater depth, exploring why and what specific personality attributes affect online relationships with nonprofits and how those attributes can be used to greater effect by the organizations to build and maintain support. References Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2010.03.018. Auger, G. A. (2013). Fostering democracy through social media: Evaluating diametrically opposed nonprofit organizations’ use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for advocacy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 369–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.013. Auger, G. A. (2014). Trust me, trust me not: An experimental analysis of the effect of transparency on organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4), 325–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2014.908722. Barnes, N. G., & Andonian, J. (2011). The 2011 fortune 500 and social media adoption: Have America’s largest companies reached social media plateau? Center for Marketing Research [Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=Barns+N.G.+and+Andonian+J.%2C+The+2011+fortune+500&ie=utf-8&oe= utf-8]. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002. Bortree, D. (2011). Mediating the power of antecedents in public relationships: A pilot study? Public Relations Review, 37(1), 44–49. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68. Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37–43. Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 33(2), 123–138. Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 39–48. Cho, M., & Auger, G. A. (2013). Exploring determinants of relationship quality between students and their academic department: Perceived relationship investment, student empowerment, and student–faculty interaction. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 68(3), 250–263. Cho, M., & Schweickart, T. L. (2015). Nonprofits’ use of Facebook: An examination of organizational message. In R. Waters (Ed.), Public relations in the nonprofit sector: Theory and practice (pp. 281–295). Routledge. Cho, M., Schweickart, T. L., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008. Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 267–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investment in consumer relationship: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65, 33–50. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Van Kenhove, P. (2003). Investments in consumer relaionships: A critical reassessment and model extension. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13(3), 245–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0959396032000101354. Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & de Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107. Gill, A. J. (2011). Personality and language in computer-mediated communication. Information Design Journal, 19(3), 250–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/idj.19.3. 06gil. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwith, public-domain, personality invesntory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Vol. Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Vol. 7, (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Goodwin, L. (2015). Neurotic? Extroverted? Disagreeable? Political campaigns have an ad for you. Yahoo Politics [retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/politics/

8

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Cho, G.A. Auger

neurotic-extroverted-disagreeable-political-campaigns-1291656824504374.html]. Hagger-Johnson, G., Egan, V., & Stillwell, D. (2011). Are social networking profiles reliable indicators of sensational interests? Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 71–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.013. Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 149–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customer-company identification on positive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(4), 381–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260902966433. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationship through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ s0363-8111(99)80143-x. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337–353. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005. Malar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75, 35–52. McKeever, B. S., & Pettijohn, S. L. (2014). The nonprofit sector in brief: Public charities, giving, and volunteering. Urban Institute: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy1–17. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. (2013). Toward an integrated model of public engagement on corporate social networking sites: Antecedents, the process, and relational outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7, 257–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2013.822373. Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 267–274. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009. Rawlins, B. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organization transparency and trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 425–439. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 185–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764004263321. Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015). Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement with organizations through social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 82–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.060. Sung, K.-H., & Kim, S. (2014). I want to be your friend: The effects of organizations’ interpersonal approaches on social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 235–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908718. Sung, K. (2014). The effect of interactivity and conversational tone on organizations’ personification and relationship investment. Paper presented to the public relations division of international communication association. Tsai, W.-H., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2013.826549. Yang, S., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). The effects of organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organization and overall evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 305–325. Yoon, D., Choi, S. M., & Sohn, D. (2008). Building customer relationships in an electronic age: The role of interactivity of e-commerce web sites. Psychology & Marketing, 25(7), 602–618. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.

9