How Various Sources of Content on Social Networking Sites Affect Millennials Attitudes

Toward a Brand

By
Katherine Campbell

Undergraduate honors thesis under the direction of

Dr. Hyojung Park
Department of Mass Communication
Submitted to the LSU Honors College in partial fulfillment of
the Upper Division Honors Program.
May 2016
Louisiana State University
& Agricultural and Mechanical College
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. METHOD

20

4. RESULTS

24

5. DISCUSSION

28

6. LIMITATIONS

31

REFERENCES

32

APPENDIX A: STIMULI
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL & INFORMED CONSENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank my thesis director, Dr. Hyojung Park,
for her guidance, dedication and support throughout my study. Her patience and immense
knowledge made this a very enjoyable experience and I could not have had a better advisor and
mentor. I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr. Jensen Moore and Dr.
Thomas Karam, for their insightful comments and positivity. Lastly, I would like to thank my
friends and family for their consistent support and encouragement.

ABSTRACT
User-generated content on platforms such as social networking sites has impacted brand
communication efforts since the creation of the World Wide Web. The purpose of this study was
to examine how different sources of online content affect millennials behaviors and attitudes
toward a brand. An online experiment was conducted with a sample of 181 college students.
Sources included corporate-generated, expert-generated and non-expert generated content. This
study measured source credibility, brand attitude, purchase intent and word-of-mouth intent as
dependent variables. The ANOVA results indicate that expert-generated content is more
effective in generating higher levels of source credibility when compared to corporate and nonexpert sources. Similar results were found for brand attitude, purchase intent and word-of-mouth
intent. Overall, expert-generated content appeared to have the most positive effect on
millennials attitudes toward a brand. These results helped identify the influence organizational
engagement efforts have on social media users and how to approach these consumers online
when promoting a brand.

Key words: Credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, brand attitude, purchase intent, word-ofmouth intent, millennials

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web in 1990, changing the
world of communication forever. The Internet contains social networking sites, which can be
defined as web-based services that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile
within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and
view their list of connections and those made by others (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Content on the
Internet is no longer limited to corporations and businesses but rather now includes a
phenomenon known as user-generated content. This user-generated content on platforms, such as
social networking sites, online reviews and blogs, has impacted brand communication efforts
within the last 25 years by transitioning the conversation from verbal to technological and as a
result, giving the power to the people through the messages they share on these social
networking sites.
A generation can be described as a group of people born during a specific time period
with shared experiences (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007). These shared experiences result in
shared values and behaviors across a generation. The millennial generation includes people who
were born in the 1980s-early 2000s. This group of individuals has developed alongside
technology, thus having a different approach to online conversation in relation to the baby
boomers. The early exposure to online conversation causes the millennial generation to have
higher expectations of brand efforts across multiple social media platforms. On average,
consumers devote almost one-third of their time to consumption of online social media (Laroche,
Habibi, Richard & Sankaranarayanan, 2012). A defining factor of the millennials character is
that they are the first to be immersed in the Internet for their entire lives. Considine, Horton, and

Moorman (2009) found that millennials are more likely to use technology as a means of
communicating with friends and peers.
Not only are millennials technologically advanced, but they also have great spending and
purchasing power. The millennial generation has a great influence over older generations and is
known as a trendsetter across several industries (Schawbel, 2015). These characteristics make it
hard for companies to identify how to market this powerful audience. Traditional methods of
advertising are becoming increasingly ineffective, therefore challenging corporations to utilize
social media (Schawbel, 2015).
With social media being such a recent phenomenon, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube,
Wikipedia and Twitter are all listed in the Top 15 websites, making up more than 11 percent of
global Internet traffic (Hennig-Thurau, Malthouse, Friege, Gensler, Lobschat, Rangaswamy, &
Skiera, 2010). Marketers have recently lost control over their brands and instead have been
challenged by participating in conversation about the brands on social platforms (Deighton &
Kornfield, 2009). The influence social media have on consumer behaviors is making it a crucial
part of public relations, because building relationships through online conversation can
determine the success or failure of a brand. Hayes and Carr (2015) found that by allowing
interactivity with the creator of content, there was an increase in the value of content. Likewise,
Park and Lee (2013) found that relationship building through social media relies on real-time
interactions and active conversations.
As a public relations practitioner, it is crucial to understand how the public responds to
organizational engagement efforts in order to effectively represent a client on the Internet. This
study examined how consumers online reviews as opposed to a companys messages influence
millennial attitudes and behaviors toward the brand. It also researched if the millennial

generation uses brand and corporate messages more so than user-generated content when
considering a product or company. The study viewed the millennial generation as consumers and
presented a large demographic with an online experiment, collecting data on their attitudes
toward organizational engagement efforts as well as unfiltered word-of-mouth messages from
other consumers.

Facebook is currently the most popular social networking service and

continues to grow, reporting more than 1 billion active users (Sung & Kim, 2014). Likewise,
Facebook began as a social network exclusive to college students and continues to be highly
popular among college students, with 85% penetration rate as early as September 2005
(Vorvoreanu, 2009). Because of the impact this platform has had on the millennial generation,
Facebook was used as the social networking platform in this study.
The Public Relations Society of America awarded three Silver Anvil Awards to public
relations campaigns that involved blogger relations in 2013 (Hayes & Carr, 2015). Public
relations practitioners are actively seeking relationships with social media influencers (SMIs) in
an effort to increase engagement, loyalty and involvement with consumers (Hayes & Carr,
2015). Identifying which source of content is the most effective in influencing the attitudes of
millennials can give a companys communication and marketing team special insight in knowing
what direction to focus on.
The first purpose of this study was to identify which source of content millennial
consumers deem most credible, whether it be non-expert, corporate or expert sources. The
findings from this study inform public relations practitioners about which source of content to
manipulate when they are attempting to build trust and loyalty with millennial consumers on
social networking sites.

The second purpose of this study focused on millennial brand attitude when presented
with messages from each source of content. This information educated professionals on how to
most effectively represent clients in online conversation. The data identified which specific
source of content is most successful at influencing millennial attitude toward a brand.
The third purpose of this study was to find how various sources affect purchase intent.
Purchase intent differs from brand attitude in that an individual can have a positive attitude
toward a brand while also having very little intent of purchasing the product. One of the
important goals of public relations is to build relationships between the brand and its consumers.
These relationships can be measured by any action taken as a result. This focus identified what
source is most effective in increasing millennial purchase intent of a product or brand.
The last purpose of this study was to identify how a source can influence a millennial to
share a message online. If a consumer has a positive attitude toward a brand and high purchase
intent, the likelihood of sharing messages on their social networking sites increases. The likes,
comments and shares can be described as word-of-mouth messages. This study researched how
willing people were to share messages and information on personal platforms, and what impacts
these decisions most effectively.
Overall, this study attempted to determine what sources of content are most influential
when building positive brand attitude and high purchase intent with consumers online. The data
from this study provide greater insight for public relations practitioners on how to create the
most effective messages. The findings of this study contribute to the literature on perceived
credibility, organizational engagement efforts and social networking sites. These findings also
help inform public relations and marketing practitioners as they continue to utilize online media
tools for effective brand management.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Source Credibility
Although critics believe the Internet to be a place far less credible because of the way any
individual can post information, the Facebook audience disagrees (Johnson & Kaye, 2004).
Multiple studies have found that information on the Internet is seen as more credible than
messages communicated through traditional media (Johnson & Kaye, 2004). Traditional media
are newspapers, radio, television, radio and others. One unique factor that contributes to the
credibility of user-generated content is the ability for peer review. Social media influencers
(SMIs) have the capability to point out mistakes that can be easily and prominently corrected on
networking sites. User and expert-generated sources can discuss issues that are not discussed on
corporate accounts because they are independent, whereas corporations must keep their best
interests in mind (Johnson & Kaye, 2004).
Studies have found that the more people go online, the more credible they rate the
information they find (Johnson & Kaye, 2004). Because the millennial generation has been
raised with a focus on communication technology, this generation gives companies greater
opportunities at building relationships through social networking sites. When Facebook began, it
was primarily a college-focused platform and continues to appeal to the millennial generation
today. Therefore, it is important to study this group of individuals and their perception of
credibility on social networking sites. Johnson and Kaye (2004) found that almost three-quarters
of blog readers view the information as moderately to very credible and only 3.5% rate them as
not very credible. Blogs in particular have been identified as a reliable and better form of
journalism because of their ability to contain opinionated and independent messages.

Credibility can be described as a perceptual variable addressing an information receivers

perception of information, and composed primarily of a receivers perceptions of the
trustworthiness and expertise of a source (Flanagin & Metzger, 2013). User-generated content is
considered highly credible and influential because the information shared does not originate from
a company or brand (Bickart & Schindler, 2001). Company-generated content is most commonly
perceived as less trustworthy because of the lack of socialness. Vorvoreanu (2009) conducted a
focus group with 35 participants and found that they had negative feelings about corporate
activities on Facebook. Individuals tend to perceive Facebook as personal space for
communicating with friends and family. Because this platform is used for personal interactions,
millennials do not see it as an appropriate medium for corporate communication regarding
businesses or brands (Vorvoreanu, 2009). In relation to this, Ho-Dac, Carson, and Moore (2013)
recognized that when confronted with reviews written by other users, consumers most likely find
the content to be highly credible information on product quality and performance. This study
showed that people process user-generated content more actively than company-generated
content because the information must be sought out and read (Ho-Dac et al., 2013).
Perceived expertise has been identified as one of the most viable factors of credibility
(Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey, 1998). Expertise can be defined as the perception of whether the
source is relaying valid messages on the content it is covering (Hayes & Carr, 2015). Overall,
research has found that higher levels of perceived expertise have positive impacts on attitude
change (Hayes & Carr, 2015). These findings support the idea that expert-generated content will
be identified as more credible than corporate-generated content and non-expert generated
content.

10

According to a study conducted by Flanagin and Metzger (2013), low information

volume favors experts whereas high information volume favors average users. Peoples
perceptions depend on available information, but if there is not sufficient information provided,
they rely on credentialed information (Flanagin & Metzger, 2013). For instance, when there are a
high number of reviews, user-generated content can have higher credibility than expert-generated
content (Flanagin & Metzger, 2013).
When trying to identify which source of content is most credible, Saxton and Waters
(2014) used focus groups to discover that social media users see platforms such as Facebook and
Twitter as personal space. Because of this, users prefer messages strictly from family, friends
and colleagues. When corporations invade this space, negative attitudes are formed and strategic
credibility is harmed (Saxton & Waters, 2014). Furthermore, Sung and Kim (2014) found that
the main reason people unlike or unsubscribe company profiles on social networking sites is
because of aggressive promotional marketing messages that are seen as an invasion of personal
space. A recent study conducted by Nielson revealed that 33% of respondents agreed that
promotional posts on social networking sites are more annoying than those on other online
platforms (Nielson, 2012).
Similar data were collected in a study conducted by Yan, Ogle, and Hyllegard (2010).
The study examined the impact of message appeal and message source on consumers attitudes
toward American Apparel. The findings suggest that when a message is communicated by a
third-party, it is perceived as more trustworthy and objective (Yan et al., 2010).
The studies mentioned above suggest that corporate-generated content is considered less
credible due to its promotional nature. Because there are fewer restrictions on what usergenerated content can contain, such as the room for opinion, social media users perceive the

11

messages to be trustworthy and non-biased (Sung & Kim, 2014). Perceived expertise is a strong
factor in credibility because of its ability to influence attitudes. Because user-generated content is
communicated by a third-party, the information is often perceived as more credible (Yan, Ogle,
& Hyllegard, 2010). These findings imply that millennials may not see corporate-generated
content as being credible. Likewise, Crisci and Kassinove (1973) found that the effect of the
perceived level of communicator expertise (Dr. versus Mr.) had a direct impact on the
perceived level of expertise and strength of advice. Thus, I propose the following hypothesis
(H1) regarding credibility levels among various sources of content:
H1: Social media users from the millennial generation perceive messages posted by
expert users to be more credible than those posted by corporations and non-expert users.

Brand Attitude
Brand attitude can be defined as an individuals internal evaluation of the brand
(Mitchell & Olson, 1981). It is commonly known that individuals are heavily influenced by the
opinions and actions of others. Hayes and Carr (2015) found that keeping a social blog through
enabling comments has a positive impact on brand attitude. Likewise, Johnson and Kaye (2004)
found that social media influencers (SMIs) have a strong impact on attitudes and behaviors
because they are perceived as being more credible than traditional media outlets, such as
television, magazines, and radio. In a similar study focused on consumers social media
behavior, Heinonen (2011) found that social connection activities facilitate a feeling of
belonging and bonding between members. Social connection activities can be referred to as
commenting, sharing content and experiencing something together. Studies show that consumers
are often influenced by user-generated information and tend to change their own opinions after

12

reading Internet discussions (Heinonen, 2011). Consumer-to-consumer communication has a

significant impact on outcomes for companies (Burmann & Arnhold, 2008). Schivinski and
Dabrowski (2014) found that consumer-generated communication has a greater effect on the
overall perception of a brand when compared to firm-generated communication. Likewise,
explained actions and reactions in online reviews tend to increase a readers ability to predict
their attitude toward a product (Moore, 2015). Individuals who are more certain of their attitudes
show higher attitude-behavior correlations (Moore, 2015).
Vorvoreanu

(2009)

found

that

engagement

interactions

other

than

personal

communication, such as shopping, customer service and advertising, are not viewed as a
Facebook users routine. Participants in Vorvoreanus focus groups emphasized that a
corporations presence on Facebook can be seen as inappropriate because it is not aligned with
Facebooks original use. Students perceive Facebook as personal space that they like to keep
separate from professional and business aspects (Vorvoreanu, 2009). Overall, the millennial
focus group participants agreed that they were suspicious of corporations motives and felt as
though companies were intruding in their personal territory (Vorvoreanu, 2009). These findings
support the prediction that corporate-generated content does not positively impact brand attitude
as heavily as expert and non-expert generated content. Saxton and Waters (2014) found while
researching how stakeholders respond to different messages that the public perceives dialogue
more favorably than information-focused messages. Content that encourages events and
purchases were found to be least favorable, therefore harming the readers brand attitude (Saxton
& Waters, 2014). According to Sung and Kim (2014), companies use Facebook primarily to
promote the brand and its products. These promotional tactics explain the negative attitude
toward corporate activities on social networking sites (Sung & Kim 2014).

13

In regard to expert and non-expert content, Ho-Dac, Carson, and Moore (2013) found that
a brands transition from weak to strong in relation to sales is highly related to the number of
positive online-consumer reviews. This finding suggests that an individuals attitude is strongly
influenced by user-generated content and reviews online. Informational social influence can be
defined as the tendency to accept information obtained from another as evidence about reality
(Flanagin & Metzger, 2013). In the absence of first-hand experience, consumers tend to rely on
others and, as a result, informational social influence can strongly affect a company or brand.
Flanagin and Metzger (2013) found the rate of adoption of user-created content online to be
particularly high in regard to friends, and social influence of others opinions online as guiding
individual expectations. Peoples perceptions tend to conform to the information that is readily
available, particularly in the absence of first-hand knowledge and when the source is viewed as
having expertise (Flanagin & Metzger, 2013).
Conversely, a key finding in Flanagin and Metzgers study was that low information
volume favors experts, whereas high information volume favors non-expert users. This means
that when there is a vast amount of reviews on a certain product or brand, readers are more
accepting of non-expert generated content. Peoples perceptions conform to available
information, but rely on credential information when all else is absent (Flanagin & Metzger,
2013).
In a study regarding how brand loyalty is affected by social media, the customer/other
customer relationship was found to have the highest coefficients, implying the significance of
user-generated content (Laroche, Habibi, Richard & Sankaranarayanan, 2012). The findings
supported the prediction that customer/other customer relationships have a direct positive effect
on brand trust (Laroche et al., 2012). This is consistent with the idea that user-generated content

14

has the greatest influence on brand attitude, and suggests that public relations practitioners
should focus on finding ways to enhance consumer relationships in order to increase brand
loyalty and trust (Laroche et al., 2012).
Overall, very few studies have researched how various sources of content affect brand
attitude. As a result, little is known about how millennials can be influenced by corporate, nonexpert user, and expert-user generated content on social networking sites. Although previous
studies have researched the impacts of message content, very few have tested the differences of
expert and non-expert generated content on brand attitude. By focusing on this area, this study
will give public relations practitioners insight on how to strategically be present on Facebook
while not intruding in personal space.
Hayes and Carr (2015) are one of the few who have researched whether non-expert or
expert-user generated content has the greatest positive influence on brand attitude. Results
indicated that credibility and expertise positively predict product attitude (Hayes & Carr, 2015).
This study will identify what source of content is most influential in positively impacting
millennial attitude toward a brand or product. Thus, I propose the following hypothesis (H2)
regarding the impact of content sources on millennial brand attitude:
H2: Expert-generated content generates a more positive brand attitude among millennial
social media users than content shared by non-expert and corporate users.

Purchase Intent
A study by Deloitte Touch USA revealed that 62% of United States consumers read
user-generated online reviews and 98% of them find the reviews to be reliable; 80% saying that
reading the reviews affected their purchase intent (Ioanas & Stoica, 2014). These findings

15

emphasize the influence user-generated content has on consumer intentions to purchase. The
consumer purchase process involves multiple stages that include information collection,
evaluation of alternatives and the purchase and post purchase evaluation (Jayawardhena, Wright,
& Dennis, 2007). A prior study found that prior purchase has a significant influence on purchase
intention, referring to the purchase of the same product prior to the consumers individual
decision (Jayawardhena et al., 2007). These findings imply that collecting positive information
from online reviews increases the intention to purchase.
In the previously mentioned American Apparel study (Yan et al., 2010), results revealed
that message source impacts consumers purchase intentions. Participants presented with a thirdparty video reported stronger purchase intentions than those who viewed a company ad. This
study suggests that user-generated content influences purchase intent greater than corporategenerated content. A noteworthy finding from the American Apparel study is that source
credibility had a direct effect upon brand attitude and subsequently influenced purchase intent
(Yan et al., 2010).
Because online consumers find content provided by other individuals to be credible and
trustworthy, user-generated content has an overall greater effect on brand perception than
corporate-generated content (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2014). A previous study analyzing the
effect of social media communication on consumer perceptions of brands confirmed that usergenerated content positively affected both brand equity and brand attitude, whereas corporategenerated content was only found to positively influence brand attitude. These results reveal that
corporate-generated content only serves to build awareness while user-generated content also
influences consumer perceptions of value (Schivinksi & Dabrowski, 2014). Other findings from
this study showed that both brand equity and brand attitude positively influenced purchase intent

16

(Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2014). Because user-generated content affects both of these factors
whereas corporate-generated content does not, one can assume that stronger purchase intent may
result from user-generated messages.
In a previous study researching celebrity endorsement influence, results showed that there
are significant positive correlations between expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness, and
these perceptions further influence intentions to purchase of a product (Ohanian, 1990). The role
of the celebrities in helping the image and sale of the product was identified as an expert-user
endorsement. The correlation between expertise and purchase intent found in Ohanians study
(1990) indicates that expert-generated content will create greater purchase intent than non-expert
and corporate-generated content.
An individuals intent of purchase has been found to be strongly affected by their
perceptions on the views of important others (Yan et al., 2010). This suggests that consumers are
most strongly influenced by individuals they perceive as having a high level of expertise and
trustworthiness. My study focuses on the information collection stage by identifying which
source of content most positively impacts millennial purchase intent. Thus, I propose the
following hypothesis (H3) regarding purchase intention among millennials:
H3: The purchase intent of millennials exposed to expert-generated messages will be
greater than those exposed to non-expert and corporate-generated content.

Word of Mouth
Consumers are increasingly making the shift from passive recipients of information to
active generators on social networking sites (Heinonen, 2011). Although a small number of
consumers create content, sharing messages, opinions and information on social networking sites

17

has resulted in one of the most influential channels of communication in the marketplace
(Allsop, Bassett & Hoskins, 2007). Studies have shown that consumers motives for using social
media are information, entertainment, social interaction, community development and selfexpression (Heinonen, 2011). All of these motives act as reasoning to share information through
virtual word-of-mouth messages on personal platforms. Social connection activities include
social surveillance, being up-to-date, staying in touch, social networking and collaborative
experiencing (Heinonen, 2011). This implies that consumers seek out information on their social
networking sites when they want to experience something together with friends and peers
(Heinonen, 2011). This form of consumer interaction is one of the most influential channels of
communication in the industry and serves as indirect public relations for corporations (Allsop et
al., 2007).
Word-of-mouth can be defined as informal communications directed at other consumers
about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their
sellers (Park & Lee, 2013, p. 267). Word-of-mouth can more casually be referred to as free
advertising and is ultimately beneficial for corporations, although users are less likely to share
corporate messages that involved promotions and sales (Saxton & Waters, 2014). This idea is
reiterated by previous research, which indicated that consumers have negative attitudes toward
the promotional intentions of companies on Facebook (Vorvoreanu, 2009). Vorvoreanu (2009)
pointed out that this might be because millennials on Facebook simply tolerate organizations and
prefer to not actively engage in calls to action. Sung and Kim (2014) identify the expectancy
violation theory as being the reason consumers negatively perceive corporations on Facebook.
The expectancy violation theory suggests that when a target negatively violates peoples
expectations, such negative violations tend to negatively influence their evaluations of the target

18

(Sung & Kim, 2014). In relation, corporate messages and advertisements that are targeted toward
individuals on Facebook can negatively affect individuals attitudes toward the brand. These
findings support the idea that consumers are less likely to share word-of-mouth messages
generated by corporations.
Laroche et al., (2012) found that when researching the customer relationships with the
product, brand, company and other customers, the customer/other customer relationship was
significantly higher. These results indicate that users are more likely to share messages generated
from other users than from a company or brand (Laroche et al., 2012). In a recent survey,
consumers in the United States identified expert-users as their source of information when
looking to purchase a personal computer (Allsop, et al., 2007). The heavy reliance on expertise
with larger purchases supports the idea that expert-generated content is most likely to be shared
by consumers. If a source of content manages to influence a consumer by having positive
credibility, brand attitude and purchase intent, the likelihood of the consumer sharing
information on the product or brand is high. Influence and credibility are identified as the two
key factors in determining the effectiveness of a word-of-mouth message and whether or not the
message will be passed along to others (Allsop et al., 2007). Thus I propose the following
hypothesis (H4) regarding word-of-mouth sharing of content from various sources:
H4: The intentions of sharing online messages are greater for millennials exposed to
expert-generated content when compared to non-expert and corporate-generated content.

19

CHAPTER 3: METHOD
Design
This study used a between-subjects post-test only experimental design, with type of
source as an independent variable. The independent variable (type of source) consisted of
corporate-generated content, expert-generated content and non-expert generated content.
Dependent variables were (a) source credibility, (b) brand attitude, (c) purchase intent and (d)
word-of-mouth. Millennial individuals over the age of 18 were recruited for the study. The
participants were asked to view one of the three sources and answer a series of questions
measuring the dependent variables. The demographics section included an additional seven
questions. This study was conducted over a three-week period by means of online access. A oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test each hypothesis.

Participants
A convenience sample of 181 participants was recruited through the Louisiana State
University Media Effects Lab Research Participation System. The millennial generation, which
includes anyone born from the 1980s-early 2000s, was chosen for this study because this
audience consists of young professionals who have been raised alongside technology (Considine,
Horton, & Moorman, 2009). The participants were compensated for the completion of the survey
in the form of course credit. Participants ranged from 18 to 26 in age with a mean age of 20.09
years, and 86.2% (n = 156) of them were female. The sample of participants who disclosed
ethnicity information was composed of White, non-Hispanic (83.4%, n = 151), AfricanAmerican (10.5%, n = 19), Hispanic (3.3%, n = 6), Asian-American (1.7%, n = 3), Native
American (0.6%, n = 1), and Mixed Race (0.6%, n = 1). The majority of participants (81.8%, n =

20

148) indicated that Instagram is the social networking platform they use most regularly (see
Figure 1 in Appendix B). The other platforms were Facebook (76.2%, n = 138), Snapchat
(70.2%, n = 127), Twitter (53.0%, n = 96), YouTube (n = 28.7%, 52), Pinterest (23.8%, n = 43),
LinkedIn (11.6%, n = 21), and Blogs (10.5%, n = 19); and seven participants indicated using
Periscope, Tumblr, Yik Yak and Reddit.

Development of Stimuli
The study contained three conditions: corporate, expert and non-expert. Stimuli were
posted using fictitious Facebook pages and characters. Stimuli were created to look like a
Facebook message that would be viewed from an individuals timeline. The posts contained no
likes or comments. The corporate-generated message was a fictitious company promoting a new
product. A fictitious company was used to avoid any preconceived attitudes. The content
consisted of a generic advertising message regarding a pair of running tennis shoes. Both the
expert and non-expert messages were in the form of testimonials, and both types of users were
portrayed using the same fictitious character in an attempt to keep data and results accurate. The
fictitious character was a Caucasian female and a generic name was used. These characteristics
were chosen as a key audience for the product. The expert character posted a message promoting
the product after having exercised for several years and tried many different tennis shoe brands.
The non-expert character posted a message communicating that she was a new runner who
enjoys the product with having little experience (see Appendix A for the stimuli). Both the expert
and non-expert stimuli consisted of parallel structures and similar content to ensure accurate
results. During the study, each participant was randomly assigned to one of these three
conditions. Participants were asked to identify what level of expertise they perceived the source

21

of the message as having. This item acted as a manipulation check to test whether the stimuli
accurately portrayed corporate, expert and non-expert sources. The manipulation check consisted
of a 7-point Likert-type scale, which ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree, to identify the sources level of expertise.

Procedure
After having logged onto the Qualtrics study questionnaire through the Media Effects
Lab, participants were presented with a consent page with detailed information and instructions.
Clicking forward through this page acted as the form of consent. Following this, participants
were randomly assigned to view one of the three Facebook posts explained above and were
asked to identify the source of the content as one of the following categories; corporategenerated, expert-generated or non-expert generated content. After the stimuli were shown,
participants completed a questionnaire measuring their perception of source credibility, brand
attitude, purchase intent and word-of-mouth intent. The questionnaire ended with questions
regarding social media use and demographics. Each participant took approximately 15 minutes
to complete the study.

Measures
Source Credibility
Kangs (2010) five-item measure was used to identify source credibility using a 7-point
Likert-type scale. Participants evaluated how knowledgeable, influential, passionate, transparent
and reliable the source was. A Cronbachs Alpha reliability analysis was conducted to test the

22

reliability of the scale used. The scale items were reliable ( = .921) and the mean of item scores
was used to create a composite measure of source credibility.
Brand Attitude
To measure a participants attitude toward the brand, Spears and Singhs (2004) five-item
scale was used. The participant was asked After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to
be ______. The semantic differential scale contained the following items: unlikeable/likeable,
bad brand/good brand, unpleasant/pleasant, unfavorable/favorable, and unlikeable/likeable. Each
item was measured on a 7-point scale. The scale items were found to be reliable ( = .951).
Purchase Intent
Coyle and Thorsons (2001) six-item measure was used to identify a participants
purchase intent after reading the message. The statements were answered with a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 1= very unlikely to 7= very likely. The purchase intent scale
demonstrated high reliability ( = .949) and the mean scores of the six items were used in data
analysis, indicating the higher the score the greater the purchase intent.
Word of Mouth
Word of mouth intentions were measured using Brown, et al.s (2005) nine-item measure
with a 7-point Likert scale varying from 1= very unlikely to 7= very likely. The items
included how likely the participant would recommend the product to a friend or family member;
share a message on Facebook; and speak positively about the product to friends, family or social
networking sites. The word of mouth measure showed high reliability ( = .960).

23

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Manipulation Check
For the manipulation check, the questionnaire asked participants if they found the source
of the content they viewed to have a high level of expertise in the area. According to OKeefe
(2003), messages that have no variance in the psychological state have no need for a message
manipulation check. The fact that the source of the corporate message is the company itself is a
message attribute that does not require a psychological process for participants to interpret the
corporate stimulus as intended. For this reason, the manipulation check was done only to see if
the expert condition differs from the non-expert condition regarding participants perceptions of
expertise.
Participants used a 7-point Likert-type scale, which ranged from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree, to identify the sources level of expertise. The study ran a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc tests to analyze whether there was a significant
difference between expert and non-expert sources. The ANOVA results revealed that the
perceived level of expertise was significantly different, F(2, 177) = 1.17, p < .001. The pairwise
comparisons revealed that when comparing expert (M = 4.84, SD = 1.23) and non-expert (M =
3.47, SD = 1.32) messages, expert sources are seen as having a significantly higher level of
expertise (Mdiff = 1.37, p < .05). There was also a significant difference between expert and
corporate (M = 3.97, SD = 1.43) messages (Mdiff = .87, p < .05). In relation to this, results showed
that there was not a significant difference when comparing corporate and non-expert sources
(Mdiff = .49, p = .12). Overall, this revealed that when exposed to expert-generated content,
participants viewed the source as having the highest level of expertise when compared to
corporate-generated and non-expert generated messages.

24

Hypothesis Testing
H1: The Effect of Source on Perceived Credibility
The concept of source credibility guided H1, predicting that messages perceived as being
posted by expert users are more credible than those posted by corporations and non-expert users.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine if the type of content
source has a significant effect on source credibility. The independent variable, the source,
included three levels: corporate, expert and non-expert content. The dependent variable was the
perceived credibility of each source. The effect of the source on credibility was significant, F(2,
178) = 15.92, p < .001. Expert users (M = 4.89, SD = .98) are seen as being more credible than
corporations (M = 3.94, SD = 1.01) and non-expert users (M = 4.41, SD = .87). The pairwise
comparisons revealed that when compared to corporate content, expert messages have a
significant mean difference (Mdiff = .95, p < .05). Expert messages were also found to have a
significant mean difference when compared to non-expert content (Mdiff =. 48, p < .05). Nonexpert content was found to have a higher level of credibility than corporate messages (Mdiff =
.47, p < .05). The results of the one-way ANOVA supported H1.

H2: The Effect of Source on Brand Attitude of Millennial Social Media Users
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate whether the source
of content affects brand attitude. The independent variable was the source of content (corporate,
expert or non-expert) and the dependent variable was the participants attitude toward the brand
that was mentioned in the posted content. The effect of source on brand attitude was significant,
F(2, 178) = 14.89, p < .001. Expert users (M =5.28, SD =1.19) were more effective in increasing
favorable attitudes toward the brand among millennials than were corporations (M = 4.27, SD =

25

1.01) and non-expert users (M = 5.12, SD = 1.11). The pairwise comparisons revealed that there
is a significant mean difference when comparing an expert source to a corporate source (Mdiff =
1.01, p < .05). Participants who saw the expert content also had a more positive brand attitude
than those exposed to the non-expert content (Mdiff = .17, p < .05). In relation, non-expert users
generated a more favorable brand attitude than corporate users (Mdiff = .84, p < .05). The results
of the one-way ANOVA supported H2.

H3: The Effect of Source on Purchase Intent of Millennials

A one-way ANOVA was used to examine if the source type (corporate, expert or nonexpert) makes a difference in purchase intent. The independent variable was the source of
content and the dependent variable was the purchase intent levels. The effect of source on
purchase intent was significant, F(2, 178) = 16.38, p < .001. Expert users (M = 4.36, SD = 1.31)
were found to have a more positive purchase intent when compared to corporate users (M = 3.06,
SD = 1.47) and non-expert users (M = 4.20, SD = 1.35). The pairwise comparisons revealed that
the expert content resulted in more positive intentions to purchase the product when compared to
corporate (Mdiff = 1.30, p < .05) and non-expert content (Mdiff = .16, p = .99). Non-expert users
were found to have higher purchase intent than corporate users (Mdiff = 1.14, p < .05). The results
of the one-way ANOVA supported H3.

H4: The Effect of Source on Intentions of Sharing Online Messages

The concept of word-of-mouth messages guided H4, predicting that the intent of sharing
messages is greater for those exposed to expert messages than those exposed to corporate or nonexpert messages. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test the effect of source on

26

the intent of sharing information with the source presented in the stimuli. The independent
variable was the source, and the dependent variable was the word-of-mouth intent. The ANOVA
was significant, F(2, 178) = 10.09, p < .001. Expert-generated content (M = 3.87, SD = 1.32) was
more likely to lead participants to engage in word-of-mouth communication for the brand than
corporate-generated content (M = 2.88, SD = 1.38) and non-expert generated content (M = 3.77,
SD = 1.36). The pairwise comparisons revealed expert sources to have a more positive influence
on participants to engage in word-of-mouth messages when compared to the corporate (Mdiff
=.99, p < .05) and non-expert sources (Mdiff = .09, p = .99). When comparing corporate and nonexpert users, word-of-mouth intent for the non-expert content was significantly stronger than the
corporate content (Mdiff = .89, p < .05). The results of the one-way ANOVA supported H4.

27

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
By experimentally testing how millennials respond to various sources on Facebook, this
study helps public relations practitioners in their search for the best way to communicate with
consumers on social networking sites while also facilitating a greater understanding of why
expert-generated content has such a strong influence overall. Managing customer relationships
has become a greater challenge with the rise of social media and corporations must identify how
to manage and build a reputation online (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
Because Facebook is seen as a personal platform meant for communicating with family
and friends (Vorvoreanu, 2009), corporations must strategize how to approach consumers
without overstepping into personal territory. This study found that content created and shared by
consumers is more influential in impacting another consumers view of credibility, attitude
toward a brand, purchase intent, and intent to share information. The results revealed that
Facebook messages created by individuals perceived as experts have the strongest ability to
influence a millennials attitude toward a brand. This studys findings benefit companies by
directing them to the most effective sources on social networking sites.
As expected, the results indicate that expert-user and non-expert user sources have higher
levels of credibility when compared to corporations (H1). This may be because consumers trust
the opinion of those who have prior experience in the area. In relation to this, the results revealed
a significant difference between expert and non-expert credibility levels. Likewise, the findings
from Yan, Ogle & Hyllegard (2010) revealed that third-party messages have a greater level of
perceived credibility. When comparing expert and non-expert, Crisci and Kassinove (1973)
found using Dr. versus Mr. to have a direct impact on the levels of perceived expertise.
Overall, expert-generated content is perceived by millennials as having the highest level of

28

credibility and expertise. A possible reasoning behind these findings may be that a non-expert
user lacks experience and insight when compared to an expert user. This indicates to public
relations practitioners that it is crucial for the communicator to have experience in whatever the
message content contains.
Another important finding is that when a source is perceived as having expert knowledge
on a brand or product there is an increase in brand attitude (H2). The study results support the
idea of ones attitude being most strongly influenced by a message written by an expert. This
may be because an individual is more likely to change an attitude when the source is perceived
as being credible. Likewise, Hayes and Carr (2015) found that higher levels of expertise have
positive impacts on attitude change. Flanagin and Metzger (2013) also found that peoples
perceptions tend to conform to the information that is readily available, especially when there is
an absence of first-hand knowledge and the source is perceived as having expertise in the area.
The study also indicated a positive increase in purchase intent when an individual is
exposed to expert-generated content (H3). These findings imply that content shared by an
individual who has expertise in a product has a greater effect on the purchase intent of another
individual. Jaywardhena, Wright and Dennis (2007) found similar results that indicated that prior
purchase positively influences purchase intention. Ohanians study (1990), which researched
celebrity endorsement influence, found the correlation between expertise and the purchase of a
product to be significant. These findings suggest that if one individual is happy with a purchase
and expresses their experience as an expert in the topic, another individual will be more likely to
purchase the same product.
Expert-generated content was found to have a significantly higher level of word-ofmouth intent when compared to corporate and non-expert generated content (H4). The findings

29

support the idea that millennials are more likely to share a message they find to be credible and
helpful. In relation to this, consumers in the United States have identified expert users as being
their source of information when considering the purchase of online computers (Allsop, et al.
2007). This heavy reliance on expert content when making large purchases indicates a higher
level of word-of-mouth intent. Sung and Kim (2014) found that messages targeting individuals
can result in a negative reaction.
Public relations professionals can use this study to identify how to effectively represent a
client or company online. The positive effect of expert-generated content on perceived
credibility, brand attitude, purchase intent and word-of-mouth intent indicates the importance of
building relationships with online experts, otherwise known as social media influencers (SMIs).
The findings from this study allow public relations professionals the insight on how to most
effectively utilize social media for a brand or product to see the greatest results. Some
suggestions from this study would be to seek out experts and build relationships in an effort to
promote positive conversation on social networking sites. Blogger fly-ins and mailing products
to social media influencers are two ways to build mutually beneficial relationships. Working
alongside expert users can benefit a company and result in more effective public relations.

30

CHAPTER 7: LIMITATIONS
Despite the important findings of this study, there were some limitations. Although the
millennial generation includes young adults born in the 1980s-2000s, this research was limited to
using a student sample. The sampling may not have represented key publics with such a high
female percentage (86.2%). While the use of fictitious companies and characters may have
avoided preconceived attitudes, the unfamiliarity may have altered a participants ability to view
a source as being trustworthy. Future studies should consider using multiple manipulation checks
to ensure that the stimuli are effective and the most accurate data is collected. Likewise, they
should consider implementing multiple social media platforms other than just Facebook. Lastly,
they should attempt to recruit a larger sample within the millennial generation that includes
students as well as adults.

31

REFERENCES
Allsop, D. T., Bassett, B. R., & Hoskins, J. A. (2007). Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and
Applications. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 398-411.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Burmann, C., and Arnhold, U. 2008. User Generated Branding: State of the Art of Research.
Munster, DE: LIT Verlag.
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and Reaching the Millennial
Generation Through Media Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471481.
Crisci, R., & Kassinove, H. (1973). Effect of Perceived Expertise, Strength of Advice, and
Environmental Setting on Parental Compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 89(2),
245-250.
Deighton, J., & Kornfeld, L. (2009). Interactivity's Unanticipated Consequences for Marketers
and Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 4-10.
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. (2007). Welcoming a New Generation to College: The
Millennial Students. Journal of College Admission.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2013). Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings online:
The role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(4), 1626-1634.

32

Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Hayes, R. A., & Carr, C. T. (2015). Does Being Social Matter? Effects of Enabled Commenting
on Credibility and Brand Attitude in Social Media. Journal of Promotion Management,
21(3), 371-390.
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers'
social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour J. Consumer Behav., 10(6), 356364.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., &
Skiera, B. (2010). The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 311-330.
Ho-Dac, N. N., Carson, S. J., & Moore, W. L. (2013). The Effects of Positive and Negative
Online Customer Reviews: Do Brand Strength and Category Maturity Matter? Journal of
Marketing, 77(6), 37-53.
Ioanas, E., & Stoica, I. (2014). Social Media and its Impact on Consumers Behavior.
International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 4, 2nd ser.
Jayawardhena, C., Wright, L. T., & Dennis, C. (2007). Consumers online: Intentions,
orientations and segmentation. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(6), 515526.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the
Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs Among Blog Users. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.

33

Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of social
media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices,
brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1755-1767.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Olson, Jerry C. (1981), Are Product Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effect on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August),
318-32.
Moore, S. G. (2015). Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of
Explained Actions and Reactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 30-44.
Nielsen. (2012). State of the media: The Social Media report 2012. Retrieved January 27, 2013,
from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/2012/
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers'
Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3),
39-52.
Park, H., & Lee, H. (2013). Show Us You Are Real: The Effect of Human-VersusOrganizational Presence on Online Relationship Building Through Social Networking
Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 265-271.
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook? Examining
Public Reactions to Nonprofit Organizations Informational, Promotional, and
Community-Building Messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280-299.
Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2014). The effect of social media communication on consumer
perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1-26.

34

Schawbel, D. (2015, January 20). 10 New Findings About The Millennial Consumer. Retrieved
March 28, 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2015/01/20/10newfindings-about-themillennial-consumer/#2121dd1028a8
Sung, K., & 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.
Vorvoreanu, M. (2009). Perceptions of Corporations on Facebook: An Analysis of Facebook
Social Norms. Journal of New Communications Research, IV(1).
Yan, R., Ogle, J. P., & Hyllegard, K. H. (2010). The impact of message appeal and message
source on Gen Y consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions toward American Apparel.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 203-224.

35

APPENDIX A: STIMULI
A. Corporate-generated stimuli material

B. Expert-generated stimuli material

C. Non-expert generated stimuli material

36

APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

160
140
120
100
80

148

60

138

127
96

40

52

20

43
21

Instagram Facebook Snapchat Twitter YouTube Pinterest LinkedIn

19

Blogs

Other

Figure 1. Social Media Platforms Participants Indicated as Using Most Regularly

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables

Corporate
Mean

Expert

SD

Mean

SD

Non-Expert
Mean

SD

Source credibility

3.94

(1.01)

4.89

(.98)

4.41

(.87)

Brand attitude

4.27

(1.01)

5.28

(1.19)

5.12

(1.11)

Purchase intent

3.06

(1.47)

4.36

(1.31)

4.2

(1.35)

Word of mouth

2.88

(1.38)

3.87

(1.32)

3.77

(1.36)

37

Credibility
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2

4.89
3.94

4.4

1.5
1
0.5
0
Corporate

Expert

Non-Expert

Figure 2. Means of Credibility for Independent Variables

Brand Attitude
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2

5.28

5.12

Expert

Non-Expert

4.27

1.5
1
0.5
0
Corporate

Figure 3. Means of Brand Attitude for Independent Variables

38

Purchase Intent
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

4.36

4.20

Expert

Non-Expert

3.06

1
0.5
0
Corporate

Figure 4. Means of Purchase Intent for Independent Variables

Word of Mouth
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

3.87

3.77

Expert

Non-Expert

2.89

1
0.5
0
Corporate

Figure 5. Means of Word-of-Mouth Intent for Independent Variables

39

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE
Please read the following Facebook status very closely. Pay attention to the source of the content
that is being shared and how the message makes you feel. Once you have finished, click
continue.
Message Stimuli 1:

Message Stimuli 2:

Message Stimuli 3:

40

1. Which one of the following would you consider to be the source of this content?
Corporate-generated content
Expert-generated content
Non-expert generated content
2. I found the source of the message to be knowledgeable.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

3. I found the source of the message to be influential.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

4. I found the source of the message to be passionate.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

5. I found the source of the message to be transparent.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
41

6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

6. I found the source of the message to be reliable.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

7. After reading the message, I found the source to have a high level of knowledge.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

8. After reading the message, I found the source to have a high level of competence.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

9. I found the source to have a high level of intelligence.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
42

5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

10. I found the source to have a high level of credibility.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

11. I found the source to have a high level of likability.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

12. I found the source to have a high level of expertise in the area.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

13. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be unappealing.

1 Strongly disagree

43

2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

14. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be appealing.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

15. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be a good brand.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

16. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be a bad brand.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

17. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be unpleasant.

44

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

18. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be pleasant.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

19. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be unfavorable.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

20. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be favorable.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

45

21. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be unlikeable.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree
22. After reading the message, I found the Speed 5.0 to be likable.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

23. How likely is it that you will buy this brand?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

24. How likely will you purchase the Speed 5.0 the next time you need tennis shoes?
1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

25. How likely are you to definitely try the Speed 5.0?
1 Very likely
2 Likely
46

3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

26. Suppose that a friend called you last night to get your advice in his/her search for tennis
shoes. How likely are you to recommend him/her to buy the Speed 5.0?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

27. How likely are you to consider these tennis shoes an excellent product?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

28. How likely would use these tennis shoes for exercise?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

47

29. How likely is it that you would recommend these tennis shoes to a friend?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

30. How likely are you to do more research on this brand after reading the message?
1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

31. How likely are you to visit the Speed 5.0 website after seeing the message?
1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely
32. If a friend were shopping for tennis shoes, how likely is it that you would recommend
the Speed 5.0 after reading the message?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

48

33. If you were helping a close relative make a decision on what brand to choose for tennis
shoes, how likely is it that you would recommend the Speed 5.0?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

34. How likely are you to mention on your Facebook that you support Speed 5.0?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

35. How likely are you to make sure that others know that you support Speed 5.0?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

36. Would you speak positively about Speed 5.0 to employee(s) to others?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely

49

7 Very unlikely

37. Would you recommend Speed 5.0 to family members?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

38. Would you speak positively on social networks about Speed 5.0?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely

39. Would you recommend Speed 5.0 to acquaintances?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely
7 Very unlikely
40. Would you recommend Speed 5.0 to close personal friends?

1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 Somewhat likely
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat unlikely
6 Unlikely

50

7 Very unlikely

Demographics:
Please provide information about yourself by checking the space provided before each item that
best describes you.
a) Are you a graduate or undergraduate student?
___Undergraduate
___Graduate
b) What college does your field of specialization/major fall under?
___College of Agriculture
___College of Art & Design
___E. J. Ourso College of Business
___School of the Coast & Environment
___College of Engineering
___College of Human Sciences & Education
___College of Humanities & Social Sciences
___Manship School of Mass Communication
___College of Music & Dramatic Arts
___College of Science
___University College
c) What is your sex?
___Male
___Female

51

d) What is your age today (in years)?

___________
e) What is your race?
____African-American
____Asian-American
____Asian-Pacific Islander
____Hispanic
____Native American
____White, non-Hispanic
____Other (please specify) ________
f) How often are you on social networking sites?
___Never
___A few times a year
___4-5 times a month
___4-5 times a week
___Daily
g) Which social media do you use regularly?
___Facebook
___LinkedIn
___Twitter
___Snapchat
___YouTube
___Instagram

52

___Blogs
___Pinterest
___Other (please specify: ______________________________)

53

APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL & INFORMED CONSENT

ACTION ON EXEMPTION APPROVAL REQUEST

Institutional Review Board

Dr. Dennis Landin, Chair
130 David Boyd Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
P: 225.578.8692
F: 225.578.5983
irb@lsu.edu | lsu.edu/irb

TO:

Katherine Campbell
Mass Communication

FROM:

Dennis Landin
Chair, Institutional Review Board

DATE:

November 9, 2015

RE:

IRB# E9648

TITLE:

How Various Sources of Content on Social Networking Sites Influence Millennial Attitude
Toward a Brand

New Protocol/Modification/Continuation: New Protocol

Review Date: 11/9/2015
Approved

Disapproved__________

Approval Date: 11/9/2015

Approval Expiration Date: 11/8/2018

Exemption Category/Paragraph: 2a
Signed Consent Waived?: Yes
Re-review frequency: (three years unless otherwise stated)
LSU Proposal Number (if applicable):
Protocol Matches Scope of Work in Grant proposal: (if applicable)
By: Dennis Landin, Chairman
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
Continuing approval is CONDITIONAL on:
1. Adherence to the approved protocol, familiarity with, and adherence to the ethical standards of the Belmont Report,
and LSU's Assurance of Compliance with DHHS regulations for the protection of human subjects*
2. Prior approval of a change in protocol, including revision of the consent documents or an increase in the number of
subjects over that approved.
3. Obtaining renewed approval (or submittal of a termination report), prior to the approval expiration date, upon request
by the IRB office (irrespective of when the project actually begins); notification of project termination.
4. Retention of documentation of informed consent and study records for at least 3 years after the study ends.
5. Continuing attention to the physical and psychological well-being and informed consent of the individual participants,
including notification of new information that might affect consent.
6. A prompt report to the IRB of any adverse event affecting a participant potentially arising from the study.
7. Notification of the IRB of a serious compliance failure.
8. SPECIAL NOTE:
*All investigators and support staff have access to copies of the Belmont Report, LSU's Assurance with DHHS, DHHS
(45 CFR 46) and FDA regulations governing use of human subjects, and other relevant documents in print in this
office or on our World Wide Web site at http://www.lsu.edu/irb

54

Consent Form
Informed Consent
Study Title: How Various Sources of Content on Social Networking Sites
Influence Millennial Attitude Toward a Brand
Performance Sites: Online Experiment
Contacts: Hyojung Park, Ph.D., (225) 578-2426, hjpark6@lsu.edu, Katherine
Campbell, (214) 384-0594, kcamp34@lsu.edu
Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to identify which source of content
has the greatest influence on millennial attitude toward a brand or product.
Subjects: Louisiana State University undergraduate and graduate students
Number of subjects: Approximately 200
Study Procedures: Participants will log onto the survey through the Media Effects
Lab. The first page of the survey will ask for consent. Following informed consent,
demographic and psychographic questions will be asked. After this participants
will view message stimuli that involve a shared message on a Facebook page. They
will then be asked to reflect on the content and answer questions regarding source
credibility, attitude toward the brand, intent to purchase and intent to share the
message. No follow up interviews will be conducted. Experiment is anticipated to
last approximately 15 minutes.
Benefits: Public relations professionals could use the results to identify how to
approach millennials on social networking sites when representing a brand.
Risks and Discomforts: There are no risks to participation, as all experiment
information will be kept strictly confidential. Names will not be collected and only
researchers will have access to computer IP address data.
Right to Refuse: If at any time during the experiment you wish to discontinue
please do so. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at
any time without consequence.

55

Privacy: Experiment participant responses will be kept confidential by the

researchers. At no time will data be released unless legally compelled.
Compensation: Compensation will be provided in the form of course credit.
The study has been discussed with me and all my questions have been answered. I
may direct additional questions regarding study specifics to the investigators. If I
have questions about subjects rights or other concerns, I can contact Dr. Dennis
Landin, Chairman, LSU Institutional Review Board, (225) 578-8692, irb@lsu.edu,
www.lsu.edu/irb.
I agree that I am 18 years old and am willing to participate in the study described
above by clicking on the button below.

56