How the type of public benefit work in nonprofit organizations influences social media presence: an example from Facebook

Szamrowski, Piotr

doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2023.175.34

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

How the type of public benefit work in nonprofit organizations influences social media presence: an example from Facebook

Autorzy

Szamrowski Piotr

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2023.175.34

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Purpose: The main objective of the study was to identify those nonprofit organizations that were characterized by the highest Facebook publication frequency, the highest number of Facebook followers and the highest average public reaction to the Facebook content. Design/methodology/approach: Content analysis was used to accomplish the research objectives. Findings: The results of the study clearly indicated that the nonprofit organizations with the most effective use of Facebook are those operating in the areas related to ecology, animal protection and protection of natural heritage. Research limitations/implications: There is a need for research on the basis of which it will be possible to find out whether, in fact, the high interest in organizations related to ecology, animal protection and protection of natural heritage and their Facebook profile has a psychological basis. Practical implications: The results of the research can be an important source of information for executives of nonprofit organizations in the utilization of social media in their day-to-day operations. Originality/value: This paper expands the knowledge of Facebook utilization in a specific group of Polish nonprofit organizations, i.e. those with the status of public benefit organizations.

Słowa kluczowe

social media Facebook non profit organizations ecology and animal protection organizations

media społecznościowe Facebook organizacje non-profit organizacje zajmujące się ekologią i ochroną zwierząt

Wydawca

Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej

Czasopismo

Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska

Rocznik

2023

Tom

z. 175

Strony

525--546

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 27 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Szamrowski Piotr

piotr.szamrowski@uwm.edu.pl

Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4739-4767

Bibliografia

1. Allen, K., Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727-739. DOI: 10.1097/01.psy.0000024236.11538.41.
2. Amiot, C.E., Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a Psychology of Human-Animal Relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6-47. DOI: 10.1037/a0038147.
3. Bellucci, M., Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(4), 874-905.
4. Campbell, D.A., Lambright, K.T. (2019). Are You Out There? Internet Presence of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(6), 1296-1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019852673.
5. Campbell, D., Lambright, K., Wells, C. (2014). Looking for friends, fans and followers: Social media use in public and nonprofit human services. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 655-663. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24029413.
6. Ellingsen, K., Zanella, A.J., Bjerkas, E., Indrebo, A. (2010). The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoos, 23, 231-243. DOI: 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931.
7. Erlanger, A.C.E., Tsytsarev, S.V. (2012). The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students attitudes toward nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 20, 21-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614341.
8. Galvin, S.L., Herzog, H.A. (1998). Attitudes and dispositional optimism of animal rights demonstrators. Society & Animals, 6, 1-11. DOI: 10.1163/156853098X00014.
9. Guo, C., Saxton, G.D. (2017). Speaking and being heard: How nonprofit advocacy organizations gain attention on social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017713724.
10. Guo, C., Saxton, G.D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57-79. DOI: 10.1177/0899764012471585.
11. Hellsten, I., Jacobs, S., Wonneberger, A. (2019). Active and passive stakeholders in issue arenas: A communication network approach to the bird flu debate on Twitter. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.12.009.
12. Huang, Y., Lin, Y., Saxton, G. (2016). Give me a like: How HIV/AIDS nonprofit organizations can engage their audience on Facebook. AIDS Education and Prevention, 28(6), 539-556. DOI: 10.1521/aeap.2016.28.6.539.
13. Johnston, K., Taylor, M. (Eds.) (2018). Handbook of engagement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley- Blackwell.
14. Lee, Y.J. (2018). Is your church “liked” on Facebook? Social media use of Christian congregations in the United States. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(3), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21291.
15. Lovejoy, K., Saxton, G.D. (2012). Information, community and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353.
16. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R.D., Saxton, G.D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313-318. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005.
17. Maxwell, S.P., Carboni, J.L. (2016). Social media management: Exploring Facebook engagement among high-asset foundations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(2), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21232.
18. Motyl, M., Hart, J., Pyszczynski, T. (2010). When animals attack: The effects of mortality salience, infra-humanization of violence, and authoritarianism on support for war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 200-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.012.
19. Nah, S., Saxton, G.D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444812452411.
20. Oliński, M., Szamrowski, P. (2018). Znaczenie mediów społecznościowych w funkcjonowaniu organizacji pożytku publicznego. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Seria: Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 117, 351-368.
21. Paul, E.S. (2000). Love of pets and love of people. In: A.L. Podberscek, E.S. Paul, J.A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 168-186). Cambridge University Press.
22. Saxton, G.D., Waters, R.D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280-299. DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721.
23. Sherif, M. (1966). The psychology of social norms. Harper Torchbooks.
24. Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement. Harper Collins.
25. Tao, W., Li, C.Z., Chen, Z.F., Ji, Y.G. (2021). Public responses to nonprofit social media messages: The roles of message features and cause involvement. Public Relations Review, 47(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102038.
26. van Wissen, N., Wonneberger, A. (2017). Building Stakeholder Relations Online: How Nonprofit Organizations Use Dialogic and Relational Maintenance Strategies on Facebook. Communication Management Review, 2(1), 54-74.
27. Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-3361606c-ae02-4c76-bfa0-382897f21544