CAN YOU SEE MY ACTION ON
FACEBOOK?
Interaction on Facebook advocacy pages and offline soft activism
DIGNA VAN LINT
Master thesis
Department of Communication and Information Science
October 2014
CAN YOU SEE MY ACTION ON FACEBOOK?
Interaction on Facebook advocacy pages and offline soft activism
Digna van Lint
Anr 1248237
Master’s thesis
Communication and Information science
Business Communication & Digital Media
Faculty of Humanities
Tilburg University, Tilburg
Supervisor: Dr. S. Milan
Second reader: Dr. A. Schouten
Oktober 2014
2
Preface
To writ this thesis has been an exploration of myself. When I started my Master of
Business Communication and Digital Media I expected that the writing process of a thesis
would be the hardest part of my journey towards graduation, and it was. It took blood, sweat,
and tears, firm words and loads of patience from supervisors at the Tilburg University and from
people who are close to me. Special thanks goes out to Dr. S. Milan for her patience and
encouraging words. Her enthusiasm about the subject of research has given me great inspiration
to finish this thesis. Fai
In completing this thesis I have overcome the battle of converting the knowledge and
findings I have uncovered into a flowing academic paper– a task which I found to be a
challenge. Altogether, I am proud that I have had the persistence needed to complete my thesis,
despite also experiencing some personal challenges in the past year. When working on this
thesis I kept busy by setting up my own company and worked on two other large projects. While
this did not necessarily benefit my thesis, it helped me keep some focus during difficult times.
Collecting and reading literature and thinking about which articles either support or
contradict my theories about online mobilization for social movements, was the most interesting
part for me. In the final year of writing this thesis, I was able to overcome my insecurity of not
performing well enough and being overly critical of my work. Now that the thesis is finished, I
will focus on building my businesses and developing the rest of my entrepreneurial career.
Digna van Lint
October 2014
3
Table of contents
Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Using social media for discussing advanced issues ......................................................... 7
1.2. Problem statement ......................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Scientific relevance ........................................................................................................ 13
1.4 Practical Relevance ........................................................................................................ 13
1.5. Chapter overview........................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................ 14
2.1 What is a social movement? ........................................................................................... 14
2.2. Social movements - the gradient up until now .............................................................. 16
2.3. The behavior of people online ....................................................................................... 17
2.4 Online Interaction transformed....................................................................................... 17
2.5. Towards a framework for motives to engage in Facebook activism ............................. 19
2.6. Motives to engage in Facebook advocacy pages ........................................................... 20
2.6.1. Group identification................................................................................................ 20
2.6.2. Perception of effect................................................................................................. 20
2.6.3. Social motives ........................................................................................................ 21
2.6.4. Attitude ................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.5. Presentation success ............................................................................................... 22
2.7 Is using social media for discussing political, societal or environmental issues useful . 22
2.8 Research question ........................................................................................................... 24
2.9 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3. Method .................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Case study....................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1. Wakker Dier ........................................................................................................... 27
3.1.2. Fairtrade Nederland ................................................................................................ 28
3.1.3. Rank a Brand .......................................................................................................... 29
3.2. Measures and survey description................................................................................... 30
3.3 Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 31
3.4 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 4. Results ..................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Descriptions of calculations ........................................................................................... 33
4.1.1. Liking of the advocacy page................................................................................... 33
4.1.2. Degree of activity ................................................................................................... 34
4.1.3. Offline soft activist behavior and Donation Behavior ............................................ 35
4
4.1.4. Offline soft activist behavior .................................................................................. 35
4.2. Descriptions of results ................................................................................................. 36
Chapter 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 44
5.1.1. Areas for further research ....................................................................................... 47
Chapter 6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 49
Appendix A; Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 55
5
Abstract
With this study we refer to the discussion among academics about the relatively new
phenomenon of people using social media sites such as Facebook to discuss environmental,
social or political issues. Academics argue about whether this interaction on Facebook advocacy
pages is undertaken simply to impress peers or does it lead to something more significant? This
study indicates a link between liking a Facebook advocacy page and offline “soft” activist
behavior such as donating money and moral buying behavior. Respondents for the online survey
were gathered on the Facebook pages of Wakker Dier and Fairtrade Nederland. The outcome
of this study shows that people who like the Wakker Dier page appear to have a stronger offline
link than people who do not like this page. For the Fairtrade Nederland page, we did not find
significant results to link online interaction to offline behavior. This means that online
mobilization on Facebook advocacy pages can be linked to offline soft activist behavior if the
organization has a good online strategy.
6
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Using social media for discussing advanced issues
Facebook is often considered as a great opportunity for non-profit organizations (NPOs)
to connect to their target group (Harlow & Harp, 2012). With their Facebook advocacy pages,
these NPOs seek to inform Facebook users about their goals (Wakker Dier, 2014; Fairtrade
Nederland, 2014), and achieve a high audience reach for relatively little money since the target
group can easily engage for little cost (Skoric, 2012). According to Skoric, the use of social
media for creating awareness of social, political or environmental issues has caused debate
amongst academics, particularly because people can engage very easily in apparent support of
a cause without exerting any effort other than clicking on a Facebook page.
According to Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2007) the average Facebook user spends
twenty minutes per day on the social network site (SNS). Facebook enables its users to present
themselves with an online profile. Some academics consider Facebook as a tool to present the
“better” self (Donath & boyd, 2004; Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011; Zhao, Grasmuck, &
Martin, 2008) meaning that because a user is in control of the content that “friends” see, this
content can easily be manipulated to project a certain desired image. The magnitude of the
Facebook social media phenomenon can be derived from the following statistics; in the
beginning of October 2012 the SNS had reached a number of one billion users. In the beginning
of 2013, the network led to a trillion connections among people all over the world and users
have uploaded 240 billion photos since the SNS began in 2004 (Zeevi 2013). According to
Zeevi, between 2010 and 2013 there was almost an equal devision of male and females using
the SNS. The average age of Facebook users was 30,1 in the first part of 2013 (Allen, 2013).
Not only private users are trying to connect to friends via SNS, in 2006 corporate pages
were introduced and only one year later, 22.000 companies were profiling themselves on
Facebook (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). On the Facebook advocacy page of the Dutch
7
NPO Wakker Dier (Awake Animal) the organization stands up for the rights of animals in the
livestock industry 1 . Currently, Wakker Dier has about 48.500 likes. Fairtrade Nederland,
another advocacy organization on Facebook, has around 14.150 users who “like” the page. We
can read on the page that the organization strives for more products in the consumer market that
are produced under honest circumstances with fair wages for farmers in developing countries,
otherwise known as “fair trade” products2.
Some academics see the positive side of interaction about social, political and
environmental issues on social media. For example, Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) state that
the profiling of non-profit organizations on social media has led to more donations to good
causes. However, in their study the academics do not come up with any thorough proof for their
statement.
On the other side of this debate, Morozov (2009) reasons that social media platforms
are not the place for NPOs to discuss environmental, political or societal issues. He states that
the emphasis on these platforms lies on social interaction and self-presentation of the users.
According to the critical scientist Morozov, people use social media to discuss issues so they
can leave a good impression with their online peers and not to reach the goal of a NPO. In
addition, Morozov points out that clicking and liking on a social media site cannot serve any
environmental, political or societal goal. Furthermore, to our knowledge there is no other
research that proves that NPOs actually receive more money because of their presence on social
media or in particular the Facebook platform. Therefore, this study seeks to dive into this gap
and look at the specific platform of Facebook, and question if interacting on Facebook advocacy
pages does increase donations from Facebook users to the advocacy organizations.
1
2
(https://www.facebook.com/WakkerDier/info)
(https://www.facebook.com/fairtradenederland/info)
8
Another study that is important for the current thesis is the research of Brunsting and
Postmes (2002). These researchers pointed out certain predictors or motives to engage in online
and offline “collective action” among environmental activists. In addition they call these
motives the “predictors to be active”. To begin with, they compared various degrees of
environmental activism in people taking part in offline and online action. The researchers
looked at their motives to be active. Their conclusion is that people who engage in online action
are more driven by the perception of effect when acting, and less by affective factors such as
identification with the group compared to offline activists. Their study is an interesting feed for
the motives that people have to interact on Facebook pages. Yet, their study is not
comprehensive enough to describe this interaction on Facebook advocacy pages. When we take
Morozov's (2009a) argument into account that there is a great deal of impressing peers and
social facets in interaction on social media, we have reason to add some other basic motives to
interact with Facebook advocacy pages, which will be explained in paragraph 2.6.
Related to this study, Harlow & Harp (2012) focused on people’s perception of the
usefulness of online activism in comparison with offline activism. They concluded that activists
have a positive view on using SNS to achieve a social, political or environmental goal.
Furthermore, the researchers state that online media compounds offline actions rather than
substitutes offline groups. This positive outcome for online activism contradicts Morozov's
(2009a) statements that discussing advanced issues on social media only serves the user's
purpose of presenting the better self.
In this current study, we will look deeper into the relatively new phenomenon of
discussing advanced issues on social media. In our reasoning, this is the softer kind of online
action, if we may call it “action” at all. Nevertheless, the purpose is not to classify the gathering
and interacting on social media as soft or hard online activism. In this study we will give no
9
value judgment but we look at whether or not interacting on advocacy pages can be linked
towards offline donation and consumer behavior like Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) state.
We will first explain what we mean with protest, action and social movement. In this
current study, various terms for people engaging in protest will be used. Della Porta and Diani
(2006) write that “social movements are a distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms
through which actors engaged in collective action: are involved in conflictual relations with
clearly identified opponents; are linked by dense informal networks; share a distinct collective
identity” (Diani & Della Porta, 2006, p. 20). Other researchers (Ackland & O’Neil, 2011; Diani,
2000) add that social movements produce practical, cultural and symbolic resources and these
symbols are forwarded in unofficial systems (Ackland & O’Neil, 2011). In addition they
describe the practical, cultural resources as things that are measurable like participants and
money. The symbolic exchange is more intangible, like the sense of belonging to a group or
not. We can reason that people who gather on Facebook advocacy pages are the “group”; you
can measure how many people like the page, as the cultural resources as described in the study
of Ackland and O’Neil. However, we are not sue about whether people on the Facebook pages
can be called an online “group”.
What exactly do we mean by action or activists? The concept of activism has no
straightforward definition, due to the fact that it appears in many forms and expressions.
Scholars have done a great number of case studies on feminists, activists, anti-drugs activism,
political activism and offline and online activism (Della Porta & Diani, 2006; Polletta & Jasper,
2001). Grunig (2002) defines “an activist public as a group of two or more individuals who
organize in order to influence another member or members of the public through action that
may include education, compromise, persuasion, pressure tactics or force” (p.505).
Postmes and Brunsting (2002) divide action in two types. First, the hard definition of
action with a conformational character including protesting, sabotage or hacking. Secondly, the
10
softer definition of action include actions like donating to good causes (Della Porta & Diani,
2006), typical consumer behavior (boycotting products or buying green products) and
petitioning and lobbying (Brunsting & Postmes).
1.2. Problem statement
The current research stems from the need for more insight into the development of social
movements (Rotman, Preece, Vieweg, et al., 2011). Since the introduction of Web 2.0 and
social media hype, things have changed with regards to collective action (O’Reilly, 2009).
However, there is little to no research as to what the discussions and interactions on Facebook
advocacy pages mean. Some researchers state that discussing political, societal or
environmental issues on social media create awareness and is a sufficient tool to make these
issues visible (Rotman et. al. 2011). Also, the positive points of social media networks such as
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can be pointed out; namely the speed and ease of sharing and
accessing information (Skoric, 2012).
The contradicting view on this accessibility of information and people giving their
“like” or opinion about topics, is that the value of these information types must be questioned
(Skoric, 2012). Morozov (2009) is even more critical and states that participation in these
“groups” is not a result of inherent motives and therefore cannot be of any political or social
influence. According to the researcher, people only engage to impress peers with online profiles
and their group memberships. In fact, these advocacy pages do exist, and when we look at the
number of “likes” we can say that they are quite successful in mobilizing the masses, even
compared to large for-profit organizations who are able to get more likes.
The problem with other recent studies is that they have real activists as subject of
study. Taking Morozov’s (2009) reasoning into account, the people mobilizing on Facebook
advocacy pages are not all pure activists. Most people are on Facebook to build up and maintain
their social network (Donath & Boyd, 2004; Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011). The second to
11
conduct this research is that a lot of studies have been conducted on online activism or social
media in general. After thorough study of the available literature, we can conclude that there is
no sufficient research that discusses social, political or environmental issues on the specific
platform of Facebook advocacy pages, despite that today Facebook is such an influential
medium (Altantawy & Wiest, 2011).
Many studies have been conducted to the process that leads to online engagement on
social or political issues on social media platforms. Figure 1. (Rotman et al., 2011) shows the
process of creating awareness and spreading information through social media groups such as
Facebook (Rotman et. al.). It “represents the activity flow that leads to activism or
“slacktivism”, and highlights the role of social media as a facilitator of action” (Rotman et. al.,
p. 821). Consequently, what the “output” of this process is, and which motives people have to
join the discussion on Facebook advocacy pages, is unclear. The researchers state that more
research is needed to look into the reasons why people use social media to discuss advanced
issues. Overall, with the current study, we try to fill that gap and look at whether there is a link
between interacting on the advocacy pages and donations or offline consumer behavior.
Figure 1. Reprinted from “From Slacktivism to Activism: Participatory
12
Culture in the Age of Social Media” By D. Rotman, S. Vieweg, S. Yardi,
E. H. Chi, J. Preece, B. Shneiderman, P. Pirolli, P. Alto, and T. Glaisyer,
2011, CHI, p. 819. Copyright by authors/ owner(s).
1.3 Scientific relevance
We can reasonably say that advocacy organizations who try to profile themselves on
Facebook is quite a new phenomenon. This study is designed to shed light on this new
phenomenon in mass communication, and the way it is linked to offline soft activist behavior
in society. In general, people who interact on social media are of great interest to contemporary
researchers (Viswanath, Mislove, Cha, & Gummadi, 2009). In this study we take a piece of this
interaction on the social media site Facebook and focus on the advocacy pages to determine
whether there is a link to offline behavior. So far, academics are still debating the “usefulness”
of this online behavior (Harlow & Harp, 2012; Rotman et al., 2011). Within this study we are
connecting to the ongoing debate with quantitative research to get more insight into this new
phenomenon. We will also measure the statements from academics about whether social media
leads to more donations and whether this is applicable to this aspect of social media.
1.4 Practical Relevance
This study is relevant for advocacy organizations that are campaigning on Facebook.
Various scholars point out the many large NPOs fighting for our attention on Facebook (Waters,
Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009). It is interesting for companies to find out whether their online
strategies on a social media site such as Facebook inspire people to donate money and consume
certain goods. These companies can use this study to base future strategies upon. Do these
organizations take all motives into account when developing their Facebook strategy or are they
missing an important factor?
In the current study we combine the arguments of the ongoing discussion about online
mobilization with our own findings. This leads towards the following umbrella research
13
question; What is the relationship between the activity on a Facebook advocacy page and offline
soft activist behavior?
1.5. Chapter overview
In the theoretical framework we give an introduction to what social movements are and
how they are formed. Furthermore, we look at people’s online behavior when it comes to online
activism. We continue by looking into what motives “likers” have to engage in interactions on
Facebook advocacy pages and what this interaction means. Finally, we sketch the research
question from which the hypotheses follow. In the method section two cases of Facebook
advocacy pages are discussed. Additionally, we describe the research methodology to test the
four hypotheses. The result section includes an extensive description of all steps taken during
the research, followed by the outcome of the statistical tests. In the discussion we outline our
findings in a broader perspective and take a critical look at the current research. Finally, we
state the facts this research has uncovered and draw conclusions.
Chapter 2. Theoretical framework
2.1 What is a social movement?
The definition of a social movement is a widely debated subject. Diani & Della Porta
(2006) wrote a whole book devoted to the definition of social movements. Diani (2000)
distinguishes three important subjects that define a social movement. According to Diani
“Social movements can be regarded as networks of informal relationships between a
multiplicity of individuals and organizations, who share a distinctive collective identity, and
mobilize resources on conflicting issues” (p. 387). For this informal relationship, people of the
same social movement do not have to be in proximity. In another study, Postmes and Brunsting
(2002) state the following; “We internalize many aspects of our social world through our social
identities—aspects of the social world that are part of us even when we are isolated or
anonymous” (p. 529). This means that even though people are alone behind their computers,
14
when they strive for a common goal, they can be part of collective action. Diani’s third subject
of social movements is that people have a distinctive collective identity. Brunsting and Postmes
point out that this collective identity is also one of the motives to engage in collective action. In
this study we will use the term “collective identity” to indicate that part of the identity that
people derive from interacting with others in their social groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
Thus, people in a group can have a shared collective identity when they feel they belong to the
same group (Klandermans, 1999).
Postmes and Brunsting (2002) describe two aspects on how collective action can vary.
In the first form the action can be confrontational or more persuasive. The second aspect on
which the action can vary is whether it is a individualistic or more collective form of action.
With the collective form of action, the scientists mean action with a group of people with a
common purpose. This can also include people striving towards the same goal, even though
they are not in the same room at the time the action is taking place. With the individualistic
dimension, Postmes and Brunsting refer to actions like individual disobedience to reach a goal.
Thus, collective action is the action people take which is part of a broader social movement.
With reference to the discussion of advanced issues using Facebook advocacy pages we reason
that most people would do this at home when they are alone. Consequently, they can still strive
for a larger group goal.
Social movements are mainly about developing collective identities and not about the
single events of protest according to Della Porta and Diani (2006). Through collective identity,
people link different events and situations and get a greater picture of a situation (Della Porta
& Diani). Based on this shared collective identity people determine whether they are a member
of a certain group, or not. Luhtanen & Crocker (1992) state that “according to the social identity
theory, a social group is a collection of individuals who see themselves as members of the same
category” (p.302). People can base their membership of groups on their race, profession and
15
gender. However, people can have different roles in various social groups and these groups cab
have different values (Tajfel, 1981). Within an action orientated environment the constitutive
rules or values of these social groups can be unstable (Abdelal, Herrera, Johnston, &
McDermott, 2006). Moreover, the constant process of determining who is in the in-group and
who is not, shape the collective identity of this action orientated group (Della Porta & Diani
2006; Abdellal et al.). Additionally, the previous mentioned studies are especially applicable to
offline group-forming. There are few studies available about the forming of collective identities
in online activist groups on social media.
2.2. Social movements - the gradient up until now
To place the current state of affairs in perspective in which advocacy organizations are
using the Internet to mobilize their activists (Harlow & Harp, 2012), we first look at the
organizational structure of movements since the 1960's. Milan (2013) distinguished three
periods with reference to changes in the organizational structure of social movements. The
researcher paid particular attention to the movement’s formality of the organization and lifetime
of the groups.
The first period that can be marked lies around 1960 when movements were led by a
strong formal organization in which distinct groups and group memberships could be specified.
Specific for this period is that activists had a strong collective identity (Milan 2013, Neumayer
& Schoßböck, 2011; Postmes and Brunsting, 2002). Diani and Della Porta (2006) wrote that
this period was important because “new social movements” emerged. Up until that period
people mainly engaged in protests addressing labor circumstances. From this point on,
Milan describes, that the focus point of organizations became broader, with issues like women’s
liberation and environmental protection.
The next period of importance starts around 1990 in which the introduction of computermediated communication (CMC) played an important role in changing social movements as
16
regards to grassroots mobilization (Diani and Della Porta, 2006). After the introduction of
CMC, sharing and spreading information became cheaper and easier (Bennett & Segerberg,
2013.). Milan (2013) describes that from this period there were no more clear-cut memberships,
but informal networks and affinity groups that form the basis for social movements. Due to
CMC, the first anti-globalization networks were formed (Della Porta & Diani). The period that
follows is relatively quiet without major noteworthy events
(Milan, 2013). This period of quietness stops in the year 2000. The third period, from 2000 until
now, wherhe the people try to free themselves from authoritarian movements (Brunsting &
Postmes Brunsting, 2002) that we will describe in the next paragraph.
2.3. The behavior of people online
In our observation, academics are still trying to define and map the current period with
regard to online mobilization of resources for activism. Bennett and Segerberg (2013) state that
the current lack of centralized leadership is a new form of getting together and that this is the
future of social movements. Nowadays, movements have more individualistic actors with no
particular organization to turn to (Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Milan 2011; Neumayer &
Schoßböck, 2011). Milan calls this the “phase of the networked individuals” with the online
“cloud as organizational form”. She describes “The cloud (as the symbolic “place between”)
becomes the platform where the cultural and symbolic production of the movement takes place
through the contribution of a variety of individual actors acting on their own account.” (p. 18).
However, Milan focuses more on the hard forms of online action, while this study focusses on
the soft online actions, given the fact that more and more people and organizations use the web
to mobilize (Harlow & Harp, 2012).
2.4 Online Interaction transformed
Nowadays, people do not only use the internet to socialize with friends and to expand
their network. According to boyd and Donath (2004), people have always had social networks
17
and therefore this online networking is not a new phenomenon. These online and offline social
networks serve as a social or financial safety net. According to boyd and Donath “people are
accustomed to thinking of the on-line world as a social space” (p. 1). We can reasonably say
that interacting on the Internet is different than offline communication, especially when we look
to social cues (Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, & de Groot, 2001). This
also applies to the difference in online and offline communication with regard to collective
action (Postmes & Brunsting 2002).
For a long period, a great number of academics thought that CMC was inferior to faceto-face communication. According to several scholars a CMC contains less social cues than in
face-to-face communication. Therefore, a message sent by CMC, without eye contact, can
easily be misinterpreted (Postmes et al., 2001; McLeod, Baron, Marti, & Yoon, 1997). An
example is Miller's (1995) study wherein he concludes that online interaction is less rich and
has fewer options than face-to-face interaction where the people are present. Nowadays more
academics are positive about the achievements that can be reached with social media.
Maintaining social connections would have cost a greater amount of money and time without
social media (Ellison et al., 2007).
Due to globalization we need or want to interact with people around the world. Using
e-mails, Skype or social media is far cheaper and faster than face-to-face communication.
Nowadays CMC has become such a large part of our daily lives that we no longer see online
interaction as subordinate to face-to-face interaction (boyd, 2007). Many studies (Harlow &
Harp, 2011; Brunsting & Postmes, 2002) conclude that online activism and offline actions
cannot be seen separately from one another. Real-life examples like the Arab Spring and the
Occupy movement show us that social media indeed can be quite successful in informing and
mobilizing people for offline action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013).
18
2.5. Towards a framework for motives to engage in Facebook activism
We have seen that many researchers try to define the current state of affairs in which
social movements use online media to mobilize people. In the introduction it is stated that there
is no study of the use of Facebook advocacy pages to reach certain offline mobilization. To
place the current state of affairs on Facebook advocacy pages in perspective, we will take a
deeper look into the motives why people interact on this networking site. Brunsting and Postmes
(2002) give a useful framework with reliable predictors with regard to the behavior people
exhibit when engaging in online collective action. Brunsting and Postmes also tested models to
predict online action by people's offline action behavior. They found that social motives,
perception of effect of an action and group identification are important predictors and motives
to engage in collective action. Brunsting and Postmes come to the conclusion that people when
interacting on the Internet, rely on an internalized kind of collective identity. People build on
this group-membership, even though they are not proximate when striving for the same larger
goal. Furthermore, they found that when people had a high identification with the offline activist
group, the people were more often willing to engage in action.
We cannot just assume that the motives for collective online and offline action found in
Brunsting’s and Postmes’ (2002) study, are comprehensive for the users of Facebook advocacy
pages. We have several reasons to adjust the motives for people who engage in interaction on
advocacy pages. First of all, the participants of the study of Brunsting and Postmes were
gathered from an offline database with real activists. Among the people who use Facebook
advocacy pages, we see a lot of peripheral members who are piggybacking on the actions of
more active members (Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011), like we see in other online activist
groups. The researchers do not think of these lurkers as real activists. Donath and boyd (2004),
state that online mediums like Facebook have a high level of people who like to be seen by
peers. Even though they observe that being seen by online peer is an important subject of online
19
communication, Brunsting and Postmes do not include the construct in their framework. In
short, enough reasons to supplement the motives of Brunsting and Postmes.
2.6. Motives to engage in Facebook advocacy pages
We will now discuss Brunstings and Postmes’(2002) framework for predicting online
and offline collective action. The exsisting framework will be complemented woth relevant
theory and our own observations. This in order to create a framework that is applicable to the
specific case of Facebook advocacy pages. We complemented the motives of Brunsting and
Postmes with two more motives, leaving us with five motives. We see the motives of Brunsting
and Postmes complemented with presentation success and attitude towards an organization that
we will describe in the next sub paragraph.
2.6.1. Group identification Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) describe a situation in
which people who use Facebook became more and more active when they got a better grasp of
the group norms and therefore identified themselves more with the group. For this reason the
degree of identification with an online group can affect the way people are active on a Facebook
advocacy page. This counts when people can identify themselves with a group and when they
have a positive view of the group. We have seen that a collective identity within a group is
important for moving towards collective action (Ackland & O’Neil, 2011; Della Porta & Diani,
2006). In their study, Brunsting and Postmes (2002) found that hardcore activists had a higher
identification with the environmental group than the less fanatic control group. We do not know
whether people engaging in interaction on Facebook advocacy pages perceive the other likers
of the page as group member. However we reason that if people have a higher identification,
they are more active on the page.
2.6.2. Perception of effect In the study of Brunsting and Postmes (2002) it was found
that perception of effect is a reliable predictor of collective action. They reason that people only
act when they think it is effective in reaching a certain goal. Brunsting and Postmes tested the
20
predictive value of efficacy of an act in their study. One of the motives for engaging in collective
action is the perception of efficacy a person has. The researchers argue that not only the effect
of the people’s own involvement counts, but also the perception of the effectiveness of the act
in general. We can see a direct result from our click when we react or click on a Facebook
advocacy page. The lay-out of Facebook is designed to see the results of our clicking. Therefore
we reason that on Facebook advocacy pages the perception of effect can be a motive to engage
in online action.
2.6.3. Social motives In their study Brunsting and Postmes (2002) questioned people
about the importance of the opinion of their peers with regards to taking action. Indeed do
individuals take other people’s opinions into account before taking a decision to whether or not
become active in a social movement. They found that this variable has a small predictive value
on action intention. However, “Klandermans (1999) has pointed out that it is likely that the
relative importance of motives varies according to the kind of action and the social context.”
(Postmes & Brunsting, p.534). Facebook makes clicks and comments traceable for the peer
group (boyd 2007). Due to the fact that Facebook is a social networking site where most people
know each other, and it is obvious that peers want to leave a good impression (Gibbs, Ellison,
& Heino, 2006). We have an indication that social motives on Facebook play a role in people's
interactive behavior.
2.6.4. Attitude The fourth motive when looking at behavior on Facebook advocacy
pages and the offline result is the attitude people have towards the advocacy organizations.
Organizations must not forget that the attitude towards the goal they communicate on Facebook
is something different than the attitude towards the organization that is communicating this
goal. Even more important, is the attitude the masses have towards the organization itself
(Webb, Green, & Brashear, 2000). Do people think they spend the donated money on a feasible
goal or do they think the organization wastes the donated money? The researchers write that
21
organizations can have the best online campaigns however, when (potential) contributors are
not sure whether the money they donate will be well spent, they will give money to other causes.
2.6.5. Presentation success We have seen that there are several scientists who argue
that people only discuss political, environmental or social issues on social media because of
their positive self-presentation towards peers. In addition, people try to present their better self
to others on social media by this interaction about advanced topics (Skoric, 2012). The motive
of presentation success is inspired by Gibbs, Ellison and Heino's (2006) research who describe
how successful self-presentation is an important variable in online dating. The variable of
presentation success can be applied to the current study as there are various similar
circumstances. For example, on a dating site people on Facebook are also in an online
environment where clicks and likes are visible for online peers. We observe that when people
like or react on a post of an advocacy page on Facebook, this can be seen by the Facebook
friends of the user. Therefore, the success people experience with their interaction can influence
the activity on a Facebook advocacy page. When people feel successful with their interaction
on Facebook they might be more active on an advocacy page.
2.7 Is using social media for discussing political, societal or environmental issues useful?
On Facebook we see many nonprofit or advocacy organizations which try to get our
likes (Waters et al., 2009). In the introduction we state that the growing influence of Facebook
is ongoing. However, to our knowledge there is no thorough research on what this liking and
clicking on advocacy pages. The usefulness of gathering online as means of mobilizing people
is part of discussion among academics. As in most discussions we see opponents and proponents
who try to define the current situation. Recently, we see that there is a growing number of
researchers who point out that online mobilization of slacktivists or lurkers on social media can
be a preliminary stage before they turn to action. For example, Milan (2013) states that activism
in the cloud has the potential to change the subject of debate. Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011)
22
seem to agree by mentioning that online mobilization leads to more awareness which can lead
to more action. Even among people who were first lurkers, passive members or slacktivists.
The opponents of online mobilization of activists, who argue that online interaction
cannot lead to social or political change, came up with nicknames for these online activities.
These opponents use terms such as slacktivism, lurkers or clicktivism to indicate fake and
useless activism. Slacktivism is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism” (Skoric, 2012). The
second negative term is clicktivism, which is a construction of “clicking” and “activism”
(Bennett & Segerberg, n.d.; Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011; Skoric, 2012). Although
slacktivism was not initially used to indicate online behavior, it is nowadays often used to
describe online actions (Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011). Furthermore, the term slacktivism is
used to indicate “feel good” online activism that is easy to engage in. According to Christensen
(2011) slacktivism can be less valuable than traditional engagement like offline activism.
However, Skoric concludes that even though online mobilization on social media can be all
about the “feel good” of the slacktivist, all small efforts can help to reach a broader goal.
Clicktivism is often used to indicate activism that is rated by the number of likes and
clicks instead of a good social or political debate (Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011). White (2010)
claims that while clicking, people easily blend into the masses and therefore they are not
triggered to take a clear political position. At last, we find the term lurkers in the paper of
Neumayer and Schoßböck. They use lurkers to indicate people who engage in discussion by
every now and then leaving a comment or clicking on something in social media without any
extra effort to reach a goal.
In line with Neumayer and Schoßböck's optimistic vision on online mobilizing of
activists is Bennett & Segerbergs’ (2013) connective action. These authors use the term
connective action to indicate the connecting power of the online world and the ease for people
to express opinions and mobilize activists. The authors Bennett & Segerbergs state that the
23
Occupy movement and the Arab1 Spring were only able to be this extensive because of the
connections people made on social media (Howard & Duffy, 2011; Wiest, 2011). Bennett and
Segerberg write that social media such as Twitter and Facebook use personalized stories that
cause protest to quickly spread worldwide. In addition, they describe how this debate from the
mobilized masses on social media is the source of conventional media such as newspapers and
TV-news.
2.8 Research question
Webb et. al. (2000) wrote that society in the US is depending more and more on good causes
with regard to providing and distributing knowledge, food, clothing and other services that
benefit society. Therefore, it is interesting to know whether online interaction regarding these
advanced topics do lead to anything. Linking to the ongoing discussion among academics, we
look at the facts of the online behavior and interaction on advocacy pages.
All together this results in the following research question;
RQ; Is there a relationship between liking a specific Facebook advocacy page and offline
soft activist behavior that the advocacy organization is calling for, with regards to
donating money and moral buying behavior? And does degree of activity on that
advocacy page influence the offline activity of donating money and moral buying
behavior?
The Occupy Wall street protest with the slogan “we are the 99%” protests against rich people and large
companies who possess 99% of the money in this world (Conover, Davis, Ferrara, McKelvey, Menczer,
Flammini, 2013,). Quickly after the encampment on Wall Street, other stock market squares were occupied. This
is an example of how social media spread the message and offline presence was mediated through online media
(Castels 2012, Bennett & Segerberg, 2013). In the Arab spring, the revolution in the Arab world, social also
played a large role in spreading the inspiring stories. The messages on social media were often the base of
physical protests (Howard & Duffy, 2011)
1
24
2.9 Hypotheses
Harlow and Harp (2012) conducted research on the opinions of activists with regard to
how successful the activists think social media is in mobilizing people for action. The academics
concluded from their study in Central and South-America that activists use online and offline
action as an inextricable tool. In addition, the authors conclude that online interaction can be to
turned into physical action and offline protest (Harlow & Harp; Skoric, 2012). However, their
study was exploratory and the authors had real activists as subjects of study and no “average
citizens” were included in the population sample. However, we know that on the internet are
quite a lot of peripheral users of media platforms (Harlow & Harp; Skoric). We have seen that
offline soft activist behavior can include donating money or special consumer behavior (Webb,
Green, & Brashear, 2000). Reasoning with Webb et al. (2000) that people who have a good
attitude towards an organization and like that organization’s advocacy page on Facebook, are
willing to give money to that organization. Those people will be less willing to donate to
organizations they do not like on Facebook. We test these statements about the ability of turning
online interaction into offline action. Based on this reasoning of the previous paragraph we have
formed the following hypotheses;
H1. Facebook users who like a certain Facebook advocacy page are more often willing
to donate money to that certain organization than people who do not like the certain
advocacy page.
H2. Facebook users who like a certain Facebook advocacy page are more often inclined
to exhibit offline consumer behavior the organization is calling for on
Facebook than Facebook users who do not like this advocacy page.
25
On Facebook, the three organizations subject to this study; Wakker Dier, Rank a Brand and
Fairtrade Nederland use different posting strategies or buttons in their search for successful
communication with the public. Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) state that people active on
social media can become more active in the future if communication is successful. However
there are a lot of scientists who state that most people on the advocacy pages are slacktivists
and no active attributers to the discussion. These are contradicting views on the topic of using
internet for activist goals. In addition, Neumayer and Schoßböck state that people can become
more active online over time. The more people interact on the advocacy page the more people
are exposed to the information about goals and results of the NPO. This results in the following
hypotheses:
H3. More active users of a Facebook advocacy page are willing to donate more often
to the organization of their liking than people who are less active on that page.
H4. More active users of a certain Facebook advocacy page are showing more often the
consumer behavior the organization is calling for than people who are less active on
the page.
26
Chapter 3. Method
3.1 Case study
Like a lot of studies in social science we chose to compare several cases (Creswell &
Garrett, 2008). This exploitative and comparative study is looking for empirical relations
between the two variables; liking of a Facebook advocacy page and offline (consumer)
behavior. Looking at the Wakker Dier, Fairtrade Nederland and Rank a Brand pages and their
case descriptions we observe that the organizations call for different specific measurable offline
behavior. In the overall information of the three advocacy pages is clearly stated what people
can do or not to contribute to the organizational goal. From the case description we deduced
one focus point per organization that is used in the questionnaire. We asked people whether
they display the desired moral buying behavior more often or whether they display the opposite
(negative) behavior. We will now look deeper into these three Facebook advocacy pages.
3.1.1. Wakker Dier The information on the Wakker Dier Facebook page states that it is a NonGovernmental Organization (NGO) in the sector of environmental issues1.
Their mission is to give animals in the cattle industry “a voice”. Wakker Dier “strives for a
society in which the animals from livestock are treated with respect”. In the page description
we can find how the organization tries to achieve this goal. At first, with education and
advertisements they try to create awareness. Seconly, they address the use of greener or more
justified production methods for large food companies. At last, they try to create public debate.
The Wakker Dier page has the most likes of the three Facebook pages subject to this study.
At the end of January 2014, the organization had 51.135 people who liked the advocacy
page. The organization is calling for action by posting vegetarian recipes on the page, and the
1
(https://www.facebook.com/WakkerDier/info)
27
administrator asks people not to buy the cheapest chicken meat in. The Netherlands; plofkip. In
April 2014 the picture header of the Wakker Dier page shows three chickens, pointing out that
biologically chickens that have more space to scratch around, are healthier and receive less
antibiotics. Looking back on posts from January 2014, almost all posts from Wakker Dier
contain a picture and a few contain a video. After thoroughly scanning the page we see that
almost all posts from the administrator have received at least a hundred to more than a thousand
likes and twenty to more than five hundred reactions. There are weekly posts with pictures of
scarred animals. For example a post in February 2014 contains text and at least a picture that
asks people to stop buying cheap pork meat, has 1417 likes and 138 reactions. However, we
see that most posts on the Wakker Dier page are about the battle of banning the plofkip from
prominent supermarkets. Individuals post links and pictures on the page every day. We can call
the tone of Wakker Dier serious and some pictures of the scarred animals can be shocking.
Additionally, there are buttons on the site with direct links to activities. Furthermore, one button
and gives people the option to donate directly to the organization.
3.1.2. Fairtrade Nederland The second organization of interest, Max Havelaar or
Fairtrade Nederland (from now on; Fairtrade Nederland), had around 15.070 likes at the end
of January 20141. On the Facebook advocacy page of Fairtrade Nederland, the foundation
states that it strives for a better future for farmers in developing countries. For this reason
Fairtrade Nederland developed a quality mark for products like chocolate and bananas that are
produced under honest circumstances. In our observation the organization chooses a positive
and encouraging approach to communicate with their likers. We can see that the organization
tries to encourage people to buy Fairtrade Nederland certified products by posting recipes with
1
(https://www.facebook.com/fairtradenederland)
28
Fairtrade ingredients. Furthermore, we see tips about where to buy the Fairtrade labeled
products. Other posts of the administrator contain pictures and informative texts about farmers
that are now earning honest wages because of the Fairtrade Nederland products. In addition
pictures are being posted of companies that have made an effort to become greener. Besides
the recipes and picture buttons on top of the page, there is a weekly online magazine that
promotes various stores and their Fairtrade promotions. The administrator of Fairtrade
Nederland posted a picture or video with a descriptive text every day. Around 80 to 130 people
liked the posts in January 2014. There are quite a few questions or pictures posted to the
advocacy page by the public every week. When people post a question or picture most of the
time the organization gives a short reaction.
3.1.3. Rank a Brand The third organization of interest is Rank a Brand, a service for
comparing clothing brands and other consumer products with reference to their sustainability
level1. According to the introduction text on Facebook, Rank a Brand is the biggest comparison
site in Europe with a database of a thousand brands. The company tries to encourage people to
buy the greenest and most sustainable products available. The organization asks people to
download an app that enables people to check a brand's sustainability before buying the product.
On the website we can read how the app works; a brand gets a label from A; “good to buy” up
to E; “do not buy yet”2. On the Facebook advocacy page we see relatively fewer buttons that
ask for action than on the other two pages. In addition, on the main page of Rank a Brand a
video is shown with explanation how the organization tries to reach its goals. The interaction
on the page can be typified as a news site that contains information about sustainability of
certain brands. The administrator posts pictures, videos or links to their website several times
1
2
(https://www.facebook.com/RankaBrand)
(http://www.rankabrand.nl/home/Hoe-we-werken)
29
per week. They post pictures to ask people to donate to the organization. The tone of the posts
is positive towards organizations that exert for more sustainable production processes and
contain a critical tone towards organizations that are not. At the end of January 2014 the
organization had 4.430 people who liked the page. We can see that posts from the administrators
get about five to more than a hundred likes in February 2014.
3.2. Measures and survey description
The questionnaire consists out of three parts in which the online behavior, the offline
behavior and the demographics were questioned. The four variables from which the relation
will be tested; donation behavior, consumer behavior, liking of the page and degree of activity
will now be explained. In the first block of the questionnaire, the online activity was measured.
The respondents were asked to score which of the three Facebook pages they are “active” on.
When respondents did not like one of the three pages the survey ended.
Based on the case study we conclude that the three advocacy organizations all lay their
focus on stimulating people to buy a type of consumer product. We call this variable the offline
buying behavior. Furthermore, respondents were asked for their activity online. We asked how
often the respondent liked, shared, completely read or reacted on a post on the advocacy page
they chose as most important. In addition, the respondents had to answer three questions about
the offline buying behavior.
With regards to the consumer goods of Wakker Dier, people had to score whether they
more often bought “cheap chicken” or “free range chicken”. In the case of Fairtrade Nederland
we asked the respondents for a choice between Fairtrade chocolate and bananas or the normal,
cheaper option. At last, the respondents who found Rank a Brand most important were asked
to score whether they bought a fair non-toxic option or the cheapest option more often. The
construct contains a nominal measurement scale on which respondents had to choose whether
their consumer behavior is according to what the organizations are calling for on Facebook. A
30
statement about the buying behavior is for example “I most often bought meat substitutes or
free-range chicken” or “I most often bought the cheapest chicken meat available”. We wanted
to be careful with regard to question framing therefore we did not use the word plofkip in the
questions about moral consumer behavior (Diani & Della Porta, 2006). We reasoned that
respondents might have a negative association with the word plofkip.
In the second block of the questionnaire the willingness to donate by liking a Facebook
page was measured. The construct was measured on a ratio level by asking respondents which
one-time amount they were willing to donate to the advocacy organizations by liking that
advocacy page on Facebook (Webb et al., 2000). The final part of the survey contained
demographical questions like age, gender and educational level.
3.3 Procedure
The online survey program Qualtrics was used for collecting data. When possible, the
questions on the survey were randomized. After the survey had been tested by different people,
we contacted the pages administrators by e-mail and phone to ask whether they wanted to share
a link to the survey on the Facebook pages. Fairtrade Nederland posted the link to the
questionnaire on their Facebook page. Wakker Dier did not post the link therefore we asked
people in our Facebook friend lists to look on their own Facebook page if they had friends who
like the Wakker Dier page. The administrator of Rank a Brand did not react on our mails in
time. Therefore, we posted the link to the survey under pictures of the Rank a Brand Facebook
page that had a lot of likes and comments. All questionnaires were filled in online.
3.4 Participants
The Dutch survey was started by 383 people and 281 respondents completed the survey.
A number of 120 respondents were deleted from the sample because they did not meet the
requirement of liking one of the three selected pages. Another 101 people did not complete the
total survey and therefore their answers were deleted too. Only 14 respondents were likers of
31
Rank a Brand. These 14 were cut from the data (two were already deleted because they did not
finish the whole questionnaire). Leaving a clean sample of 148 respondents, with 48 likers of
Wakker Dier and 77 of Fairtrade Nederland and 28 who liked both pages. The final data
included answers of 14.2% (n=21) male and 84.5% (n=125) female respondents and two
respondents who did not fill in their gender.
32
Chapter 4. Results
The goal of this study is to find out whether interaction on social media can raise the amount of
donations to good causes like Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) state and whether this online
interaction leads to desired consumer behavior. Or, does the interaction on social media about
social, environmental, or political issues not have a link to offline soft activism like other
academics state? We first discuss the four constructs of measurement and then the results on
the tested hypothesis will follow. The independent variables exist out of the group membership
and degree of activity on a Facebook advocacy page. The dependent variables are the offline
soft activist behavior like donation behavior and consumer behavior. These easy to read results
are explained in the tables and texts to make the result section clear.
4.1 Descriptions of calculations
4.1.1. Liking of the advocacy page Respondents were at first gathered from three
different Facebook advocacy pages. These three organizations are calling for different
consumer behavior. We surveyed respondents from the Rank a Brand, Fairtrade Nederland and
Wakker Dier Facebook page. However, from the Rank a Brand page we only got 14
respondents. Therefore, these respondents were filtered out of the sample. We have a sample of
148 respondents left, of which 43 (29,1%) who only like the Wakker Dier page and 77 (52%)
respondents who only like the Fairtrade Nederland page. There are 28 (18,9%) respondents who
like both the Wakker Dier and the Fairtrade page. At start of the survey people were asked when
they like more than one page, to choose which of the pages is most important to them. In
addition, from the 28 respondents who like both pages, 13 people find Wakker Dier more
important, and 15 respondents find Fairtrade Nederland more important. This means that in
total 92 respondents (62,2%) find Fairtrade Nederland most important and 56 (37,8%)
respondents find Wakker Dier most important.
33
4.1.2. Degree of activity The degree of activity on a Facebook advocacy page is
questioned by letting the respondents score their activity on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
The respondents could also choose the category of (almost) no use at all. We asked respondents
the degree of activity per interaction with regard to liking, sharing, totally reading or reacting
to a message on the Facebook advocacy page of their liking. The scale of measuring the online
activity was too specific to calculate with. The sample of 148 respondents shows that people
who actively give a reaction on a post on the advocacy page are in the minority. Most people,
71,6% answered “(almost) never” to the question of how often they react on a post on the
Facebook advocacy page of their liking. On the other hand, of the people who do read a post
from the organization more often, 44 that is, 29% of the respondents read the posts daily. Only
and 4,7% answered “(almost) never” to that question. On the activity of sharing the posts of an
organization, there were only four people that indicated they do this daily. Liking is mostly
done weekly with 34,5% by 51 respondents. These numbers show that some of the groups were
too small to calculate with. Therefore, we divided the groups into active and passive participants
on the four online activities of liking, reading, sharing and reacting on a Facebook post.
The split is made into two groups; not active at all and on the other side; those who are
actively liking daily, weekly or monthly. We see that in 141 of the 148 people, 95,3%, of the
total group read at least one a post on the advocacy page on a monthly basis. For the reason that
almost everyone in the sample is an active reader, we left this group aside for the tests. We
reasoned that sharing of- and reacting to a post is more active than just liking posts on the
advocacy page. Therefore, these activities is what is focused on in the test. Of all respondents
87 (58,8%) have never actively shared any content from the advocacy page and 61 (41,2%)
people share at least one message on the advocacy page per month. With regards to reacting to
a post on the advocacy page, 42 respondents (28, 4%) react actively and 106 respondents
(almost) never react on a post.
34
4.1.3. Offline soft activist behavior and Donation Behavior People were asked for
their current and future intention to donate money to the advocacy organization (Webb et al.,
2000). In addition, we asked at which one-time fee people would still click the like button on
the three advocacy pages. According to Webb et al. the amount of money people like to donate
to a NPO is a great way to measure attitude towards an organization. However, the amount of
current and future intended donations to all three advocacy organizations was that little that we
could not do any calculations with these numbers. Namely, of the 148 respondents there
were142 people who did not donate or intend to donate in the future to Fairtrade Nederland and
132 respondents did not to intend to donate to Wakker Dier. There is one respondent who claims
to have donated €100 to all three organizations. We left this person in the sample for the reason
that this person did not answer in extremes on the rest of the questions. The intended future
donation is a little higher than the current donations; 127 out of 148 (86, 45%) are not planning
to donate in the coming next three months to Wakker Dier and 136 (91, 9%) respondents are
not planning to donate anything to Fairtrade Nederland.
The next step was to ask people which one-time fee they were willing to pay for liking
an advocacy page if the money is directly donated to the advocacy organization. To this question
105 respondents replied that they did not want to pay a fee to like the advocacy page of Wakker
Dier. In addition, 108 out of 148 did not want to donate by liking to Fairtrade Nederland. Within
the pool of people who did want to donate by liking, we got a wide range of amounts of money
that people were willing to donate. Furthermore, there were quite a few people who did not
want to donate by liking. Therefore, we split the sample up into two groups “yes: I would donate
by liking” and “no: I would not donate by liking a page”.
4.1.4. Offline soft activist behavior People were questioned about whether they show
the consumer behavior the advocacy page is calling for. This is a within-subject test setup
because all the respondents had to answers both questions about both pages. We asked one
35
simple question per advocacy page. For the Wakker Dier page this was whether respondents
more often buy the cheapest chicken or that they more often chose for a free range or organically
raised option. From the 148 respondents, 122 people chose the free range and/or organic option
more often than the cheaper chicken. With regard to the consumer behavior of Fairtrade
Nederland we asked all respondents whether they more often bought the option of cheaper
coffee or chocolate without Fairtrade label or whether respondents more often bought coffee
and or chocolate with a Fairtrade Nederland or other Fairtrade label. From the 148 respondents
also 122 people bought the Fairtrade labeled product more often. Even though the amount of
people who chose the “better” product per page is the same, the groups who chose these
products are different.
4.2. Descriptions of results
4.2.1. Page of liking x Donation by liking The first hypothesis was tested with a Chisquare test. The expectation was that; people who like a certain Facebook advocacy page are
more often willing to donate money to that NPO than people who do not like the advocacy page
of the NPO. The respondents were split into two groups: people who only like Wakker Dier and
people who only like Fairtrade Nederland. People who liked both pages were filtered out in this
test, leaving a sample of 120 respondents. We conducted two Chi-square tests to determine
whether people were willing to donate more money to the organization of the page of their
liking. First of all, we looked at the page of Wakker Dier with the variables; liking (Do like/Do
not like) and donation by liking (No donation/Donation). People who like the Wakker Dier page
are willing to donate by liking to that organization more often than people who do not like the
Wakker Dier page. Namely, 25 out of 43 people (58,1%) would donate money to Wakker Dier
by clicking the like button. Among the people who only like Fairtrade Nederland were only 8
out of 77 (10,4%) willing to donate by liking to Wakker Dier. This gives the result x2(1, N =
120) = 31.554, p = .00. The outcome is summarized in table 1.
36
Table 1
Results of Chi-square Test Liking of Wakker Dier Page and Current
Donation Behavior
Donate by
Like Wakker Dier page
Liking
Yes
No
No donation
18 (41,9%)
69 (89,6%)
Donation
25 (58,1%)
8 (10,4%)
2
Note.  = 31.554*, df = 1. *p < .05
Secondly the Chi-square statistical test was applied to the Fairtrade Nederland with
variables; page liking (Do like/Do not like) and donation by (Liking/No liking) variables. All
the numbers can be found in table 2.
Table 2
Results of Chi-square Test Liking of Fairtrade Nederland Page and
Current Donation Behavior
Donate by
Like Fairtrade NL page
Liking
Yes
No
No donation
52 (67,5%)
35 (81,4%)
Donation
25 (32,5%)
8 (18,6%)
2
Note.  = 2.660, df = 1. *p < .05
As one can see, the calculations did not give significant results. In the sample 25 out of the 77
( 32,5%) people who like the Fairtrade Nederland page were willing to donate to Fairtrade
Nederland by liking. Eight respondents out of 43 who do not like the Fairtrade Nederland page
are willing to donate money by liking the page, x2(1, N = 120) = 2.660, p = .076. Therefore, the
hypothesis can be confirmed in the Wakker Dier case but not among the Fairtrade Nederland
likers.
4.2.2. Liking of page x Consumer behavior For the second hypothesis we used the
two constructs of liking the page and certain consumer behavior. The second expectation was;
People who like a certain Facebook advocacy page are more often inclined to exhibit the moral
37
buying behavior the organization is calling for on Facebook than people who do not like this
advocacy page. The respondents were split into three groups: Wakker Dier likers, Fairtrade
Nederland likers and people who like both pages. The hypothesis is tested on both the consumer
behavior that Wakker Dier is calling for, and the behavior Fairtrade Nederland is calling for.
This expectation is partly supported with the Chi-square test in the Wakker Dier case again.
With the results showing that users of the Wakker Dier Facebook page are more inclined to
exhibit the moral buyer behavior this page is calling for than people who do not like this page.
The people who like Wakker Dier do buy the free range or organic chicken significantly more
often than people who do not like the page x2(2, N = 148) = 7.996, p = .018. The Fairtrade
Nederland page-users do buy the plofkip more often than the free range option. All details can
be found in table 3.
Table 3
Results of Chi-square Test Consumer Behavior and Liking of Wakker Dier Advocacy Page
Consumer Behavior
Cheap chicken
Free range
Liking Wakker Dier page
Like WD
Not like WD
3 (7%)
20 (26%)
40 (93%)
57 (74%)
Like both pages
3 (10,7%)
25 (89,3%)
Note. 2 = 7.996*, df = 2.*p < .05
We did not find this a significant difference for the Fairtrade page users as can be seen
in table 4, however there is a remarkable outcome. In the Fairtrade consumer behavior case, the
people who do not like this page also buy a great amount of Fairtrade products rather than the
cheaper non-Fairtrade option. From both groups, the likers and the non-likers of the Fairtrade
Nederland page, the percentage of people who choose the Fairtrade option is 79%. In the group
with 28 people who like both pages only one person chose the cheaper non-Fairtrade products.
Table 4
Results of Chi-square Test Consumer Behavior and Liking of Fairtrade Nederland Advocacy Page
38
Consumer Behavior
Cheap coffee
Fairtrade Coffee
Liking Fairtrade page
Like FT
Not like FT
16 (20,8%)
20 (9%)
61 (79,2%)
34 (79,1%)
Like both pages
1 (3,6%)
27 (96,4%)
Note. 2 = 4.672, df = 2.*p < .05
4.2.3. Degree of activity x Donation by liking The third hypothesis is based on two
constructs. Namely, the degree of activity on the advocacy page and whether people want to
donate to an organization by liking or not. Expectations were that; More active people of a
Facebook advocacy page are willing to donate to the organization of their liking more often
than people who are less active on that page. The degree of activity exists out of sharing
(Yes/No) or commenting on (Yes/No) the page. For the calculations the file was split into
Wakker Dier likers and Fairtrade Nederland likers.
The Chi-square test was conducted with the variables; sharing (Active sharing/No sharing)
x donation behavior (No Donation by liking/Donation by liking) per advocacy page. The
hypothesis cannot be confirmed. The people on the Wakker Dier page who are more active, are
not willing to donate more often despite liking that organization than people who are less active
on the page x2(1, N = 56) = 2.698, p = .084, as can be found in table 5.
Table 5
Results of Chi-square Test Actively sharing and Donation by liking to
Wakker Dier
Sharing
Donate by liking
content
No donation
Do donate
Not active
16 (55,2%)
13 (44,8%)
Active
9 (33,3%)
18 (66,7%)
Note. 2 = 2.698*, df = 1. *p < .10
The same is true for people who like the Fairtrade Nederland page x2(1, N = 92) = .111, p =
.463. People who are more actively sharing posts do not want to donate by liking more often
than less active sharers. The results are put in table 6.
39
Table 6
Results of Chi-square Test Actively sharing and Donation by liking to
Fairtrade Nederland
Donate by
Like Wakker Dier page
Liking
Yes
No
No donation
39 (67,2%)
19 (32,8%)
Donation
24 (70,6%)
10 (29,4%)
2
Note.  = .111, df = 1. *p < .05
The next step was to test the hypothesis with two other variables. The second Chi-square
test in this category had the variables; degree of activity with regards to reacting on posts
(Active/Passive) and donation by liking (No Donation by liking/Donation by liking). There are
no significant results in the Wakker Dier or Fairtrade Nederland case. In the Wakker Die case,
people who are more actively reacting on the page do not more often want to donate by liking
to the organization; x2(1, N = 56) = .708, p = .290 which can be seen in table 7.
Table 7
Results of Chi-square Test Actively reacting on content and Donation
by liking to Wakker Dier
Reacting on
Donate by liking
content
No donation
Do donate
Not active
18 (48,6%)
19 (51,4%)
Active
7 (36,8%)
12 (63,2%)
2
Note.  = .708, df = 1. *p < .05
Table 8 shows that Fairtrade Nederland likers who are more actively reacting on posts
do not more often want to donate by liking either; x2(1, N = 92)= 2.031, p = .123.
Table 8
Results of Chi-square Test Actively reacting on content and Donation by
liking to Fairtrade Nederland
Reacting on
Donate by liking
content
No donation
Do donate
Not active
50 (72,5%)
19 (27,5%)
Active
13 (56,5%)
10 (43,5%)
2
Note.  = 2.698*, df = 1. *p < .10
40
4.2.4. Degree of activity x Consumer behavior At last we look at the activity on the
page with regards to actively sharing and reacting to posts and the consumer behavior per page.
The expectations were that; more active users of a certain Facebook advocacy page exhibit the
consumer behavior the organization is calling for more often than people who are less active on
the page. Again the file is split on the preference people gave to the page of liking, Wakker Dier
or Fairtrade Nederland.
The hypothesis could not be confirmed in any of the Chi-square tests. Namely, table 9
shows that with regards to the 2x2 model of the Wakker Dier page and the degree of activity as
sharing (No active sharer/Active sharer) and consumer behavior Wakker Dier (No
plofkip/Buying plofkip) we found .x2(1, N = 56) = .148, p = .535.
Table 9
Results of Chi-square Test Actively sharing of content and Consumer
Behavior Wakker Dier is calling for
Sharing of
Consumer behavior
content
Cheap meat
Free range meat
Not active
3 (10,3%)
26 (89,7%)
Active
2 (7,4%)
25 (92,6%)
2
Note.  =0.148, df = 1. *p < .05
In table 10 we can see that people who are actively sharing the messages of Wakker
Dier do not show the moral buying behavior the page is calling for. The 2x2 model of the
Fairtrade Nederland page has on one side the degree of activily sharing (No active sharer/Active
sharer) and on the other side the consumer behavior; (No Fairtrade/Buying Fairtrade). The
outcome of x2(1, N = 92) = 2.756, p = .081, this means that people who actively share massages
from the Fairtrade Nederland page are not showing more offline moral buying behavior than
people who are not actively sharing messages of Fairtrade Nederland.
41
Table 10
Results of Chi-square Test Actively sharing of content and Consumer
Behavior Fairtrade Nederland is calling for
Sharing of
Consumer behavior
content
Cheap coffee
Fairtrade coffee
Not active
13 (22,4%)
45 (77,6%)
Active
3 (8,8%)
31 (91,2%)
2
Note.  = 2.756*, df = 1. *p < .10
In the Wakker Dier case we tested the hypothesis also with the variables reacting (Active
reacting/No reacting) and buying plofkip (No plofkip/Buying plofkip). We did not find a
significant outcome; x2(1, N = 56) = .475, p = .443, this is shown in table 11.
Table 11
Results of Chi-square Test Actively reacting on content and Consumer
Behavior Wakker Dier is calling for
Reacting on
Consumer behavior
content
Do donate
Not active
4 (10,8%)
33 (89,2%)
Active
1 (5,3%)
18 (94,7%)
2
Note.  = 0.475, df = 1. *p < .05
Table 12 is shows the outcome to the question whether people who are active in their
reacting on the page are more often buying the Fairtrade products or not. This test got no
significant numbers either x2(1, N = 92) = .404, p = .389. Based on both activities of sharing ofand reacting to posts on the advocacy page and the wanted consumer behavior, we can reject
the hypothesis that people who are more active on a Facebook advocacy page are exhibiting the
more specific consumer behaviors offline that the advocacy organization is calling for.
Table 12
Results of Chi-square Test Actively reacting on content and Consumer
Behavior Fairtrade Nederland is calling for
Reacting on
Consumer behavior
content
No donation
Do donate
Not active
13 (18,8%)
56 (81,2%)
42
Active
3 (13%)
Note. 2 = 0.404, df = 1. *p < .05
20 (87%)
43
Chapter 5. Discussion
In the following paragraphs we will look back to the validity of the study, interpret the
broader meaning of the results, give some limitations to the research and recommend topics for
future research. With the current research we wanted to search whether there is a link between
activity on certain advocacy pages and offline consumer and donation behavior. Of course the
Facebook pages are not the only influential media a person is exposed to (Della Porta & Diani,
2006; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). People can watch commercials on other media
channels and therefore like the Wakker Dier advocacy page and then buy less plofkip. Or it
could be that people already do not buy plofkip that often and see the Facebook page and hit
the like button. Moreover, with the current results of this study we do not suggest that everything
is caused by liking the Facebook page. However, we indicated that there is a relationship
between liking the Wakker Dier page and offline consumer and donation behavior.
The chances are high that we did not find connections between degree of activity on an
advocacy page and offline behavior because the measurements were not readily calculable.
Most people were not active on the Facebook advocacy page with regards to reacting to and
sharing of the messages. We based the scales on a previous study of online and offline behavior
by Brunsting and Postmes (2002), however those researchers recruited respondents from a
database of self-proclaimed activists. There might be a higher action intention among the
respondents of their study.
In the current study we found relationships between liking an advocacy page and offline
moral buyer behavior (Skoric, 2012). In addition, our findings do not harmonize with Diani’s
(2000) statement that the advantages of using CMC to mobilize people online are endless.
However, “being active is one key requirement of success”, (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 65).
When looking at the degree of activity of sharing an commenting on Facebook posts and both
44
offline variables; buying and donation behavior, we did not find any significant links in the
Wakker Dier or Fairtrade Nederland case.
The case study shows that the different pages in the current research have various
posting strategies and more importantly, different frequency of posting messages. We found
that people who like the Fairtrade Nederland page do not show the desired offline consumer
and donation behavior the organization is calling for more often than people who do not like
the page. We can reason that this is because the organization is less active on Facebook than
Wakker Dier. Or it might be that the two pages are calling for the overlapping kind of moral
buying behavior. The conclusion can be drawn that people who like the Wakker Dier page do
also often buy Fairtrade products.
In the Fairtrade Nederland case we can see that interacting on this page does not lead to
significantly more offline behavior in the direction the page is calling for. However, this
probably does not mean that it tends to Skoric’s (2012) phenomenon of slacktivism.
For the reason that both Wakker Dier and Fairtrade Nederland likers do buy a lot of Fairtrade
products we did find a significant outcome in testing differences between those groups. Diani’s
(2000) definition of social movements is that people “mobilize resources on conflicting issues”.
We can reasonably say that in the current study we can speak of conflicting issues. The
conflicting issues are on the one hand the consumer who wants cheap chicken, and on the other
hand Wakker Dier who wants a better life for poultry. We demonstrated that people do mobilize
resources of the Facebook page that results in donating money and moral buying behavior in
certain cases.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the current study is that Wakker Dier likers do
not only show peers that they support Wakker Dier, but they actually do give money to the
organization and make conscious choices in their consumer behavior. This does imply that the
gathering on Facebook advocacy pages is not only to impress online peers as Morozov (2009a,
45
2009b) and Skoric (2012) state but it also leads towards offline soft activist behavior. In our
observations, when people donate money or do specifically not buy the cheapest chicken
available, this cannot be seen by the masses on Facebook. The current research is in line with
the findings of Harlow and Harp's (2011) study which states that online and offline activism
supports each other. In the current study online activities and offline donation and consumer
behavior support each other. Although this differs per organization that uses Facebook to
communicate their goals.
Now we will link to the discussion sketched in the theoretical framework, weher we
asked whether there is a link between online mobilization and offline soft activist behavior. We
see there is a relationship between online mobilization and offline behavior in one of the two
studied cases. The current research shows that there is a relationship between liking an NPO on
Facebook and offline soft activist behavior of the online group. These findings are in line with
the statements that Neumayer and Schoßböck (2011) made about good causes profiling
themselves on social media leading to more donations and we can now say that this is also
applicable to some organizations on Facebook. However, with this research we cannot
determine whether people act because they really think it’s useful or whether it they are inspired
to act because they liked the page first. We now know there is a relationship between liking a
Facebook advocacy page and offline behavior. Furthermore, we have one more argument that
it is useful to mobilize people on social media.
We found that Wakker Dier has a greater link to offline behavior than Fairtrade
Nederland. In the case study we saw that both organizations follow a different strategy on
Facebook. Wakker Dier posts content with frightening images when Fairtrade Nederland
chooses a more positive content. Furthermore, Wakker Dier creates content more often leading
to more interaction on the page. It could be that Wakker Dier has a better online strategy or that
people on the different pages have different motives to engage on the Facebook page.
46
In the current research we used various ways to recruit respondents. We actively asked
the people on the Wakker Dier page to fill in the questionnaire. In the Fairtrade Nederland case
the administrator posted a link to the questionnaire on the page. Therefore, it could be that the
sample contained more active users of the Wakker Dier page than in the Fairtrade Nederland
case. With regards to the questions on the survey, there is a possibility that they were better
formulated in the Wakker Dier case. With regard to the Wakker Dier case we chose one clear
example of plofkip to question the participants about. The part with Fairtrade Nederland
questions contained a several examples as bananas and chocolate, this can be confusing.
Whether people like and interact on the Facebook advocacy page because of their selfpresentation or not, we have a strong indication that self-presentation is subject of the
interaction. Therefore, advocacy pages should, when trying to influence people’s offline activist
behavior, take this construct in mind. The presentation on Facebook is only useful if the
organization is able to transfer the message well, with the result that people become more active.
Whether this has to do with an increasing group identification (Neumayer & Schoßböck, 2011)
can be subject of further research. The current research is an important stepping stone in
addressing the discussion on what online mobilization means for social movements. Advocacy
organizations can use this knowledge to formulate online strategies in order to reach their offline
goals.
5.1.1. Areas for further research After extensive literature research we came up with
a conceptual framework figure 2. Unfortunately we were only partly able to test this conceptual
model in this master thesis. Future research should reveal underlying motives that people have
to engage in online interaction on Facebook advocacy pages. Based on the studies literature we
put forth several reasons to be active on Facebook advocacy pages. In the current study we did
not test these motives for their relevance, this can be done in future research. The online activity
47
in the conceptual model of figure 2 is split into two parts; the degree of online activity and
membership of a Facebook advocacy page.
Figure. 2, Conceptual model how motives to engage interaction on advocacy pages, online activity and offline
activity relate to each other.
In the current study the sample was too small to test a relation between degree of activity and
offline soft activist behavior. In future research a better scale should be developed for testing
the relationship between degree of activity online and soft activist offline behavior. The offline
activity in the model is the same as in the current study namely, moral buying behavior and
donation behavior. It is interesting to look the direction the conceptual model works in. Do
people with certain motives to be active on a Facebook advocacy page have a higher degree of
activity on the page or not?
48
Chapter 6. Conclusion
In the current research we looked for a link between online mobilization on Facebook
advocacy pages and specific consumer behavior and donation behavior. We wondered if people
who are more active on a certain Facebook advocacy page are willing to donate more money to
that organization and more often show moral consumer behavior than people who are less active
on a certain Facebook advocacy page.
With this study we link to the ongoing discussion about whether people’s activity on a
social media site as Facebook is effective to reach a social, political or environmental goal. The
study uses the constructs of participants and money to measure cultural resources in a social
movement (Ackland & O’Neil, 2011). The current study shows that in one of the two studied
cases there is a significant link between the liking of a Facebook advocacy page and offline soft
activist behavior. The outcome in the Wakker Dier case is that people who like the page are
willing to donate money towards the organization by liking the advocacy page. Furthermore,
participants who like the Wakker Dier Facebook page do less often buy the cheapest chicken
meat option, plofkip. However, in the Fairtrade Nederland case these connections between
liking the Facebook page and offline soft activist behavior the page is calling for were not found.
This outcome is probably because the people who like the Wakker Dier page also buy Fairtrade
products often.
Finally, we expected that people who are more active on a certain advocacy page are
willing to give more money and also more often show the moral consumer behavior the pages
are calling for. These two expectations did not get any support in the current study. Therefore,
we conclude that the activity on a page cannot be linked to the amount of offline soft activist
behavior people are showing.
49
References
Abdelal, R., Herrera, Y. M., Johnston, A. I., & McDermott, R. (2006). Identity as a Variable.
Perspectives on Politics, 4(04), 695–711. doi:10.1017/S1537592706060440
Ackland, R., & O’Neil, M. (2011). Online collective identity: The case of the environmental
movement. Social Networks, 33(3), 177–190. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.03.001
Allen, K. (2013 January 3) The average Facebook user is getting older—and more masculine
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/The_average
_Facebook_user_is_getting_olderand_more_13483.aspx
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action. Information ,
Communication
&
Society,
15:5,
739-768.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in
Teenage Social Life. The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection,
7641, 118-140. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.83
Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age:
Predicting Offline and Online Collective Action. Small Group Research, 33(5), 525–554.
doi:10.1177/104649602237169
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “ movement ” of mixed methods research and the
role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333. Retrieved from
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S025601002008000300003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt
Christensen, H. S.. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political
50
participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). [Peer Reviewed Journal on the
Internet].
Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3336
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements an Introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA:
BLACKWELL PUBLISHING. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/
Diani, M. (2000). Social Movement Networks Virtual and Real. Information, Communication
& Society, 3(3), 386–401. doi:10.1080/13691180051033333
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
71–82. doi:10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.cc
Conover, M. D, Davis, C., Ferrara, E., McKelvey, K., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.,( 2013), The
Geospatial Characteristics of a Social Movement Communication Network, Plos one. doi
10.1371/journal.pone.0055957
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social
Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Fairtrade Nederland, (2014) In Facebook [Advocacy page] Retrieved January 31, 2014, from
https://www.facebook.com/fairtradenederland/info
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The
Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet
Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. doi:10.1177/0093650205285368
Grunig, L., A. Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent
public relations departments respond, in: J.E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations
and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992, pp.
503–530, p. 505.
51
Harlow, S., & Harp, D. (2012). Collective Action on the Web. Information, Communication &
Society, 15(2), 196–216. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.591411
Howard, P. N., & Duffy, A. (2011). What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab
Spring?,
(pITPI
Wokring)
Retreived
from
http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=2170
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities
of
Social
Media.
Business
Horizons,
53(1),
59–68.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Klandermans, B. (1999). Group identification and political protest: farmers’ protest in the
Netherlands, European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1073-1095. Retreived from
http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sozio/mitarbeiter/m29/content/dokumente/595/
deWeerdKlandermans1999.pdf
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s
Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318.
doi:10.1177/0146167292183006
McLeod, P. L., Baron, R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority
influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5), 706–718. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.82.5.706
Milan, S, (2012), The Guardians of the Internet? Politics and Ethics of Cyberactivists (and of
their Observers) Results from the Inter Asia Roundtable 2012, Methodological and
conceptual issues in cyber activism research. Retreived from; https://citizenlab.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/NUS_Session-6_Stefania-Milan.pdf
Milan, S, (2013), WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and the Exercise of Individuality: Protesting in the
Cloud, Advance online publication.
52
Miller, H., Sciences, S., & Nottingham, T. (1995). The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life :
Goffman on the Internet. Paper presented at Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space
Conference Goldsmiths' College, University of London.
Morozov, E. (2009a May 19 ). The brave new world of slacktivism. [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_
world_of_slacktivism
Morozov, E. (2009b September 5). From slacktivism to activism. [Web log post]. Retrieved
from http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/05/from_slacktivism
_to_activism
Neumayer, C., & Schoßböck, Ju. (2011). Political lurkers? Young people in Austria and their
political life worlds online. (CeDEM Working Paper No. 11). Retreived from
http:// http://books.google.nl/books
Postmes, T., & Brunsting, S. (2002). Collective Action in the Age of the Internet: Mass
Communication and Online Mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 290–
301. doi:10.1177/089443930202000306
Rank a Brand. (2014) In Facebook [Advocacy Page] Retrieved February 19, 2014, from
https://www.facebook.com/RankaBrand/info
Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E. H., View, M., Preece, J., … Foundation, N. A.
(2011). From Slacktivism to Activism: Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media,
819–822. Retreived from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979543
O'Reilly, T. (2009). What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008839
Skoric, M. M. (2012). What is Slack about Slacktivism? Results from the Inter Asia Roundtable
2012, Methodological and conceptual issues in cyber activism research. Retreived from;
53
http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/downloads/Inter-Asia-Roundtable/InterAsiaRoundtable2012.pdf#page=83
Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology.
Retrieved
from
http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=ldA8AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=H
uman+Groups+and+Social+Categories:+Studies+in+Social+Psychology&ots=mn0S7bc
UKv&sig=SMeVCFiYulc6h2lDOEyu1hw_CkE#v=onepage&q=Human%20Groups%20
and%20Social%20Categories%3A%20Studies%20in%20Social%20Psychology&f=false
Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2009). On the evolution of user
interaction in Facebook. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social
Networks - WOSN ’09, 37. doi:10.1145/1592665.1592675
Wakker Dier. (2014) In Facebook [Advocacy page] Retrieved January 31, 2014, from
https://www.facebook.com/WakkerDier/info
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review,
35(2), 102–106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006
Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and Validation of Scales to
Measure Attitudes Influencing Monetary Donations to Charitable Organizations. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299–309. doi:10.1177/0092070300282010
Wiest, J. B. (2011). Social Media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering Resource
Mobilization Theory, 5, 1207–1224.
Zeevi, D. (2013 February 21). The Ultimate History of Facebook [Web log post]. Retrieved
from
http://socialmediatoday.com/daniel-zeevi/1251026/ultimate-history-facebook-
infographic
54
Appendix A; Questionnaire
Thank you for clicking on the link to this interview. We will process the answers anonymous.
1. Which page(s)do you like on Facebook? (Several options are possible).
o Rank a Brand, o Wakker Dier, o Max Havelaar
2. Please score the page which is most important for you?
o Rank a Brand, o Wakker Dier, o Max Havelaar
You have indicated the … Facebook page is most important to you. The following questions are
about this specific page.
3. How often do you like a post on the Facebook page?
o Daily  On average, I like a post of this organization … times a day. o Weekly 
On average, I like a post of this organization … times a week. o Monthly  On
average, I like a post of this organization … times a month.
o (Almost) never
4. How often do you share a post of the .. Facebook page?
o Daily  On average, I share a post of this organization … times a day. o Weekly
 On average, I share a post of this organization … times a week. o Monthly 
On average, I share a post of this organization … times a month o (Almost) never.
5. How often do you read a post of … on Facebook?
o Daily  On average, I read post of this organization … times a day. o Weekly 
On average, I read a post of this organization … times a week. o Monthly  On
average, I read a post of this organization … times a month.
55
o (Almost) never.
6. How often do you comment on a post of the .. Facebook page?
o Daily  On average, I comment on post of this organization … times a day.
o Weekly  On average, I comment on a post of this organization … times a week.
o Monthly  On average, I comment on a post of this organization … times a month.
o (Almost) never.
7. If with liking of the Facebook page you would be able to donate to the advocacy
organization, at what one time amount would you be willing to like the page? Please fill in
an amount of money, or fill in 0 if you would not donate. o …
8. How much do you donate at the moment to this organization? (If you are not donating any
money, please enter 0 in the box below). o ….
9. What is your intention to donate average per month in the coming year (If you have no
intentions of donating please enter 0) o …
The following statements are about your buying behavior in the last three months. Please select
the option that applies best to your situation.
10. In the past three months in generally I most often bought; o organic chicken, meat
substitutes or I did not buy any meat at all.
o the cheapest kind of chicken.
11. In the past three months in generally I most often bought; o the cheap kind of coffee,
chocolate etc without a Fairtrade label.
o coffee, chocolate, etc. with the Max Havelaar or another Fairtrade.
56
12. In the past three months in generally I most often bought; o clothes which are likely to
contain toxic substances and were probably produced under unfair conditions. o clothes
from which I knew for sure that they are non-toxic and are made under fair conditions.
13. Please fill in your demographics; o Age; (number) o Sex: (male/ female/ open) o
Occupation: (student/ working, both)
o How often active on Facebook in general (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, never) o
How many friends on Facebook? (number)
57