Social Media Assignment

Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Public Relations Review Full Length Article What motivates the public? The power of social norms in driving public participation with organizations Fan Yang a, Holly K. Ott b,∗ aThe Pennsylvania State University, United States bUniversity of South Carolina, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:

Received 18 September 2015 Received in revised form 26 July 2016 Accepted 27 September 2016 Available online 4 October 2016 Keywords:

Social norm Market norm Public participation Perceived recognition Organizational commitment a b s t r a c t This study examines motivating factors that impact public participation with organizations.

A between-subjects lab experiment was conducted to examine the role of different types of norms (social norm vs. market norm) in initiating participation. Results suggest that when people feel recognized by an organization, their motivations are as strong as those who receive monetary rewards for participation. Three distinct underlying psychological mechanisms that drive participation are identiﬁed. Theoretical and practical implications for public relations and organizational communication are discussed.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The concept of participation has increasingly become a core focus in public relations. The degree to which an organization is able to engage key publics and obtain participation from them has proven to be crucial to its long-term survival and success (Chung, Lee, & Heath, 2013 ; Kiousis & Dimitrova, 2006; McKeever, 2013; Men & Tsai, 2013 ). For example, companies are encouraged to consult with key stakeholders and prospective publics during decision-making processes. Furthermore, public relations theories such as Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory, relationship management theory (Ferguson, 1984 ) and Kent and Taylor’s (1998) dialogic principles emphasize the key role of company-public relationships and how effective communication and relationship management can contribute to outcomes such as enhanced consumer trust, commitment, involvement, and engagement.

Companies and organizations have found numerous ways to invite public participation. However, a central question to be answered is: What motivates publics to participate? While the amount of individualized information and specialized products have already made it hard to involve people in any event collaboratively (Putnam, 1995 ), demanding consumer schedules and other logistical restrictions can decrease the amount of public participation in many capacities. Therefore, it can be argued that participation comes with a cost and that publics are becoming less inclined to participate in organizational initiatives.

Prior studies have documented the effectiveness of monetary incentives in increasing public participation (e.g., Files, 1984; Tamer Cavusgil & Elvey-Kirk, 1998 ). It is, however, not always possible for organizations and companies with limited resources, such as non-proﬁt organizations. Furthermore, the growing success of several organizations calls into question the necessity of monetary rewards in motivating public participation. For instance, the popularity of Wikipedia is, by and ∗ Corresponding author at: School of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of South Carolina, 800 Sumter St., Room 334, Columbia, SC 29208, United States.

E-mail address: [email protected] (H.K. Ott). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.09.0040363-8111/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 833 large, based on voluntary public participation and contributions anonymously over the past few decades (Shirky, 2008 ). Why would people so actively participate in and contribute to something that seemingly delivers no direct reward like money?

Two types of norms emerge as the governing rules for participation and contribution: the social norm and the market norm. The social norm refers to the situation under which people contribute not for payment, but for certain social rules (e.g., altruism, politeness and reciprocity) that are essential to maintaining communal relationships with others (Heyman & Ariely, 2004 ). While individuals governed by the social norm take actions with no expectations for monetary compensation in return, researchers have suggested that recognition and appreciation are the keys for people to get involved in such communal relations (Clark & Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982 ). Alternatively, the market norm can motivate individuals to contribute, as it represents the most common economic rule for labor exchange – to get paid for the work done (e.g., a salary). No research so far has systematically examined how public participation with organizations might vary as a result of social norm vs. market norm incentives, which provides little guidance for corporations to develop effective and efﬁcient strategies in this regard.

This study conducted an experiment to analyze the role that the social norm and the market norm play in promoting individuals’ contribution and intent to participate again with organizations. This study examines the following questions:

Would individuals be motivated to contribute to an organization when they are appreciated (social norm) vs. when they are paid (market norm)? More importantly, what are the underlying psychological mechanisms explaining such contributions in the social norm as opposed to the market norm? 1. Theoretical framework The decline of public engagement and participation has been documented by many scholars in diverse disciplines of social science (Postman, 1985; Putnam, 1995 ). For companies and organizations, particularly those whose existence primarily relies on public participation like Facebook and Wikipedia, contributions from publics are indispensable in creating organizational loyalty (Holland & Stacey, 2001 ) and commitment (Lines, 2004; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mayer & Schoorman, 1998 ). Therefore, developing effective strategies to engage the public and to initiate participation has become a focal point for both public relations practitioners and scholars.

For example, in reviewing public participation on Wikipedia, Rafaeli and Ariel (2008) proposed that individual contribu- tions could be driven by motivations like receiving rewards (Snyder & Cantor, 1998 ), self-fulﬁllment (Ciffolilli, 2003 ), sense of community (Rafaeli, Ariel et al., 2005 ), or simply altruism (Kollock, 1999 ). 1.1. An interpersonal approach: the social norm and the market norm In an effort to analyze individual motivations in a systematic way, public relations scholars have argued the value of an interpersonal approach as it humanizes the relationship between an organization and the public with a personal touch ( Men & Hung, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2015 ). According to Fiske’s (1992) relational theory, there are four basic types of social relationships: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. These four relationships were later re-classiﬁed as the market norm and the social norm to speciﬁcally examine individual participation (Ariely, 2009 ).

Individuals in the market norm generally offer contributions or involvement due to market pricing – to get paid. Therefore, participation under market norm hinges upon cost-beneﬁt analysis of individuals. The amount of ﬁnancial compensation determines the level of an individual’s contribution in the market norm. The more people get paid, the more contributions they choose to make (Clark & Mills, 1993; Fehr & Falk, 2002; Rabin, 1993 ).

Conversely, no known correlation exists between the level of contribution and reward in the social norm, because people contribute with no intent to get payment back in exchange for participation. Therefore, they tend to ignore compensation amount, as individual effort is shaped by social rules like altruism (Batson, Sager, Garst, & Kang, 1997 ; Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997 ; Harman, 2015; Trivers, 1971 ). This concept is representative of the dimensions of stewardship, which focus on behaviors that underline the norms of maintaining a mutually beneﬁcial relationship with an organization’s stakeholders (Kelly, 2001 ). As the concept suggests, stewardship is focused on reciprocity between an organization and its stakeholders (Kelly, 2001 ). That is, people and organizations alike work together to beneﬁt the common good. As such, organizations are then encouraged to recognize stakeholders who choose to become involved with the organization by demonstrating gratitude toward them to nurture relationships with publics. Organizations should strive to be good stewards to all of its stakeholders to demonstrate acknowledgement of and commitment to those who contribute to a greater goal. 1.2. Psychological outcomes of the social norm and the market norm Certain psychological outcomes could further explain the drivers of the two norms in participation. For example, the social norm is most likely to come into play when individuals perceive their efforts as being needed, valued, and appreciated ( Fisher & Ackerman, 1998; Trivers, 1971; Unger, 1991 ). Hence, perceived recognition, the extent to which individuals feel their contributions are appreciated, serves as the major psychological gratiﬁcation in the social norm, where individuals are essentially making contributions voluntarily as a favor to organizations instead of getting paid (Kollock, 1999 ). However, monetary payment could also serve as another form of recognition, as receiving payment may elicit positive feelings like self-sufﬁciency (Furnham & Argyle, 1998 ; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006 ). 834 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 Another key psychological outcome is satisfaction with performance appraisal, which refers to the extent to which an individual is satisﬁed with the organizational evaluation of his or her contribution, reﬂected in certain tangible outcomes such as salary or promotion (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001 ; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995 ). Different from perceived recognition, satisfaction with performance appraisal hinges upon the degree of how an organization has accurately and fairly evaluated one’s work and given proper awards consequently (Fassina, Jones & Uggerslev, 2008 ). Satisfaction with performance appraisal is especially important to individuals who make efforts in exchange for payment, as their contributions are essentially award-driven. Their satisfaction, therefore, is very likely to correlate to the amount of monetary compensation received. Researchers over time have found satisfaction with performance appraisal pivotal to organizations in maintaining and boosting contributions from employees and/or publics (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001 ; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005 ).

In addition to recognition and satisfaction, the level of enjoyment of the task that requires one’s contribution could be another major outcome (Mason & Grifﬁn, 2005 ; Park, Jun & MacInnis, 2000 ). Though such enjoyment could intertwine with factors like recognition and satisfaction, it might also work independently during participation. For example, literatures have suggested that the incorporation of gamiﬁcation in public relations helps practitioners to better engage key publics due to a more enjoyable and fun experience for people to participate in an organizational initiative (Seiffert & Nothhaft, 2015; Theaker & Yaxley, 2012 ). Task enjoyment matters especially under conditions when individuals receive low payment for their contributions. In his classic experiment, Festinger (1957) found participants receiving an one-dollar payment were signiﬁcantly more likely to rate a monotonous and boring task as enjoyable than those getting a twenty-dollars payment due to experienced cognitive dissonance. That is, task enjoyment was used as a justiﬁcation for putting one’s substantial time and effort into a tedious task for payment that was clearly “unworthy”, so that participants could reduce the discomfort as a result of cognitive dissonance (also see Harmon-Jones, 2002 ).

Finally, organizations evaluate their efforts and strategies that by measuring individuals’ organizational commitment, contribution level, and intent to participate with an organization again. Organizational commitment refers to the degree to which an individual identify with and attach to an organization (Lines, 2004; Mayer & Schoorman, 1998 ). Individual contribution level gets at the degree of individuals involvement in a certain initiative or campaign held by organizations ( Batson et al., 1997; Cialdini et al., 1997 ). Intent to participate again with an organization, on the other hand, measures individual intention to be part of the organizational initiative or campaign in the future (Wise, Hamman, & Thorson, 2006 ).

Organizations rely on these key outcomes to determine whether they plan to seek consumer participation using components from the social norm or market norm principles. As it is difﬁcult to determine a single, one-size-ﬁts-all best practice in this regard, relying on behavioral-based measures is a common practice that has beneﬁtted organizations in the long run.

Though limited empirical evidence can be found to support the argument that people may participate as much (and as effectively) for reasons other than monetary incentives, some scholars have suggested that the social norm could be a driving force for public participation (Rafaeli & Ariel, 2008 ). Although money has always been a powerful incentive in driving participation (Rafaeli et al., 2007; Rafaeli, Raban et al., 2005 ), it is important to note that individuals in the market norm are highly sensitive to compensation amount as they are constantly doing cost-beneﬁt analysis (Clark & Mills, 1993; Fehr & Falk, 2002; Rabin, 1993 ). If individuals receive a payment that is signiﬁcantly lower than expected, monetary incentives could not only fail to encourage participation, they could even backﬁre and discourage people more than offering no payment would impact a decision to participate (Fehr & Falk, 2002 ). In this case, the social norm might even motivate people more than a low payment would in terms of participation and contribution to organizations. Therefore, when considering what motivates individuals to contribute, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1-6: There are signiﬁcant differences between individuals motivated by the social norm, the market norm with low payment, or the market norm with high payment in terms of (H1) recognition perceived, (H2) task enjoyment, (H3) satis- faction with performance appraisal, (H4) organizational commitment, (H5) contribution level, and (H6) intent to participate again, such that the social norm works as effectively as the market norm with high payment, while the market norm with low payment yields signiﬁcant lower effects on the above outcome variables. 1.3. Psychological mediators in participation Psychological outcomes like recognition and satisfaction might not be invoked all at once during participation. Instead, there might be a chain reaction where certain psychological outcomes could serve as mediators for others (Douthitt & Aiello, 2001; Kollock, 1999; Mason & Grifﬁn, 2005 ). For example, gratiﬁcation from feeling recognized in an organization, if met, could enhance an individual’s level of organizational commitment (Salancik, 1977 ). Alternatively, organizational commitment could rely on how much individuals are satisﬁed with the performance appraisal, reﬂected in the amount of monetary compensation in the market norm (Judge et al., 2001 ).

Besides feeling recognized and satisﬁed at the time of appraisal, another factor that could impact users’ behavioral intentions is task enjoyment (Curry, Wakeﬁeld, Price, & Mueller, 1986 ; Rego & Cunha, 2008; Rego et al., 2008 ). As research has suggested, enjoyment could lead to positive feelings toward an organization (Kim, 2011 ). Organizational commitment, in this case, can be reasonably elicited through task enjoyment. Finally, once individuals display commitment toward an organization, they may be more inclined to participate and contribute to such an organization again in the future.

As there is a lack of research on differentiating motivating power of the social norm vs. the market norm, there is even less research that examines the psychological mechanisms through which individuals might become motivated by the two norms. Therefore, due to the dearth of literature to inform speciﬁc hypotheses, we ask the following research questions: F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 835 RQ1-3: Do perceived recognition, satisfaction with performance appraisal, and task enjoyment mediate the inﬂuence of (RQ1) the social norm, (RQ2) the market norm with low payment, and (RQ3) the market norm with high payment on organizational commitment and, ﬁnally, individuals’ intent to participate again? 2. Method This study employed a between-subjects experiment in which a total of 186 participants were randomly assigned into control, social norm, market norm with low payment, and market norm with high payment conditions. Operationalization of type of norms was based on previous studies, which usually adopted small gifts to activate the social norm. They were usually chosen by prior researchers as the key to the social norm is to effectively express one’s appreciation to participants in a short period of time without initiating their feelings or thoughts associated with monetary payment. Therefore, small gifts such as candy are ideal stimuli in lab experiments due to their abilities to convey one’s gratitude and ignorable prices ( Ariely, 2009 ). The market norm, on the other hand, emphasizes the beneﬁts one gets for his/her contributions in the form of payment. Therefore, cash payment is usually employed as the most effective experimental stimulus for activating the market norm (Heyman & Ariely, 2004 ). Hence, this study operationalized the social norm using greeting cards and the market norm using cash payment. 2.1. Participants Participants were recruited from eight undergraduate courses in a mass communications program at an accredited university in Central Pennsylvania. Students earned extra credit for their participation. A power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size for the study using G*power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009 ), indicating that 180 participants were needed to achieve the power of 0.80 (Cohen, 1992 ). One hundred eighty-six participants successfully completed the study. The sample included 146 females (78.5%), with the average age of 20.2 (SD = 1.30, N = 186). 59.1% of participants self-identiﬁed as White, and 5.4% as Hispanic/Latino, 10.8% as African-American, and 21% as Asian-American.

Compared to the overall population at the university, the sample has a similar average age and ethnicity percentages.

But it has a higher percentage of female participants than the population (around 50% female undergraduates overall) due to the nature of communication (liberal arts) majors. A series of independent-samples t-tests indicated that males and females didn’t differ from each other in responding to the experiment stimuli (perceived recognition, t(184) = 0.12, p = 0.90; task enjoyment, t(184) = 0.89, p = 0.37; satisfaction with performance appraisal, t(184) = 1.54, p = 0.13; organizational commitment, t(184) = 0.04, p = 0.97; time spent on editing wiki pages, t(184) = 1.23, p = 0.22; and intent to participate again, t(184) = 0.30, p = 0.76), suggesting that gender played an insigniﬁcant role under study. 2.2. Pretest A pretest was conducted to deﬁne conditions based on a convenience sample of 68 undergraduate students in a mass communications program at an accredited university in South Central Pennsylvania. Participants from the pretest sample were not included in the ﬁnal sample. However, the pretest sample was chosen based on the similarity of demographics with the ﬁnal sample of participants.

In a Qualtrics survey, four monetary comparisons were presented for determining an appropriate monetary amount for the market norm with “low payment” and “high payment” conditions. Participants were asked to rate their perceived differences (1 = “not different at all”; 7 = “signiﬁcantly different”) on $1.00 vs. $ 2.00, $1.00 vs. $3.00, $1.00 vs. $4.00, and $1.00 vs. $5.00. A repeated measures ANOVA employing a multivariate approach was conducted to examine perceived differences on each comparison. Such analysis revealed that participants perceived the four comparisons signiﬁcantly different from each other, Wilks = 0.29, F(3, 65) = 52.54, p < 0.001, partial 2= 0.71. Perceived difference was highest on $1.00 vs. $5.00 (M = 5.52, SE = 0.16) using Bonferroni post-hoc procedure. Therefore, the low payment condition was assigned with a $1.00 cash reward and high payment condition with $5.00. 2.3. Stimulus material This study used manipulated websites of a ﬁctitious online crowdsourcing company called eWiki as the stimulus. Par- ticipants were asked to ask to edit an eWiki page by contributing content to a speciﬁc topic appeared on the page (same as how people edit a Wikipedia page online). To account for the topic effect and obtain ecological validity, two topics of three types: Facebook and Meetup for technology, Beyoncé and Peggy Lee for public ﬁgures, and spring water and lagers for food are used. Six eWiki pages were constructed to include the six topics. Each stimulus included a cover story about eWiki that was the same across all conditions. 2.4. Procedures Based on the information from the pretest, the main study took the form of a lab experiment over the period of one week.

Upon arriving at the lab, participants were seated in front of computers and provided with an instruction sheet with the step- 836 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 by-step procedures for completing the experiment. Once participants implied consent on Qualtrics, they received the “eWiki reward,” which varied by condition randomly. They either received no reward (control condition), $1.00 (market norm with low payment), $5.00 (market norm with high payment), or a greeting card (social norm) prior to their contributions to eWiki.

Afterwards, users proceeded and clicked on a link on Qualtrics to be directed to an eWiki page.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of six eWiki pages. They were asked to write about the topic provided within 30 min. To acquire the ecological validity, participants were able to search and quote relevant sources online with proper citations. After submitting the content on eWiki, participants were directed back to Qualtrics to complete a questionnaire that measured their perceived recognition, task enjoyment, satisfaction with performance appraisal, organizational commitment, and intent to participate with eWiki again. Upon completion of the study, participants were thanked for their participation. 2.5. Independent variables 2.5.1. Type of norms There were four types of norms: control, social norm, market norm with low payment, and market norm with high payment. Participants in the social norm condition received a greeting card for their contribution to eWiki. The greeting cards were ordered online (28 cents per card) and featured standard styles with a picture with either a fox, owl, raccoon, deer, rabbit, or a squirrel on the front. The same message was addressed to each participant on the inside cover of the card to thank the participant for contribution to eWiki. Based on pretest results, participants assigned to the market norm with low payment received $1.00 for their eWiki contribution, while those in the high payment condition received $5.00. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (50 for control, 45 for social norm, 46 for market norm with $1.00 payment, and 45 for $5.00 payment). 2.6. Mediating variables 2.6.1. Perceived recognition Four items based on Fisher and Ackerman’s (1998) and Fisher’s (2000) measures of perceived recognition were employed.

Participants were asked to rate their responses on a Likert scale of 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree” on items such as “eWiki shows its appreciation to me” (Cronbach’s = 0.93, M = 4.63, SD = 1.78).

2.6.2. Task enjoyment A total of three items on a 7-point semantic-differential scale adapted from Park et al. (2000) were used to measure task enjoyment. A sample item included asking participants whether editing the wiki page on eWiki is “not enjoyable at all − very enjoyable” (Cronbach’s = 0.93, M = 4.12, SD = 1.34).

2.6.3. Satisfaction with performance appraisal This variable was measured by three items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) adapted from Keeping and Levy (2000) . A sample item included “I am satisﬁed with the reward I received from eWiki” (Cronbach’s = 0.82, M = 4.68, SD = 1.45).

2.6.4. Organizational commitment Six items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) adapted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) were used to measure organizational commitment. Items like “I really care about the fate of eWiki” were included (Cronbach’s = 0.95, M = 3.86, SD = 1.49). 2.7. Dependent variables 2.7.1. Contribution level Two objective measures were recorded for contribution level of each participant in a log ﬁle. The ﬁrst measure was the time spent on editing a wiki page. The second measure was the number of characters of the content each participant contributed.

Since participants were permitted to use direct quotations from online sources, the length of content contributed became less accurate in that participants tended to quote more for unfamiliar topics. Time spent on editing the wiki page, therefore, was used as the measure for contribution level.

2.7.2. Intent to participate again Seven items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) adapted from Kim and Biocca (1997) and Coyle and Thorson (2001) were used to measure participation intention. Sample item is included “I would like to contribute to eWiki again” (Cronbach’s = 0.93, M = 4.24, SD = 1.60). F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 837 Table 1 Psychological Outcomes as A Function of Type of Norms.

Control Social Norm Market Norm with low payment ($1)Market Norm with high payment ($5) Perceived Recognition 2.77(1.37) c 5.55(1.20) a 4.85(1.63) b 5.56(1.18) a Task Enjoyment 3.77(1.48) c 4.13(1.17) bc 4.62(1.36) a 4.18(1.19) b Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal 3.92(1.32) c 4.53(1.39) b 4.91(1.51) b 5.44(1.16) a Organizational Commitment 3.28(1.48) b 4.14(1.22) a 3.92(1.61) a 4.17(1.49) a Contribution Level 680.24(397.70) c 953.38(474.53) a 819.75(377.24) b 899.43(488.65) ab Intent to Participate again 3.65(1.74) b 4.41(1.28) a 4.38(1.74) a 4.58(1.43) a Note: Cell entries are means. Standard deviations are reported in the parentheses. Means with different subscripts differ at p < 0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Manipulation check A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to rule out any potential confounding inﬂuence from the six photos (fox, owl, raccoon, deer, rabbit, or squirrel) of the greeting cards. Such analysis revealed no different impacts between the six photos on perceived recognition, F(5, 40) = 1.03, p = 0.42; task enjoyment, F(5, 40) = 0.89, p = 0.50; satisfaction with performance appraisal, F(5, 40) = 1.54, p = 0.20; organizational commitment, F(5, 40) = 0.84, p = 0.53; time spent on editing wiki pages, F(5, 40) = 1.39, p = 0.25; and intent to participate again, F(5, 40) = 1.10, p = 0.38.

A series of one-way ANOVA analyses were performed to investigate the possible confounding of the three types of topics (i.e., technology, public ﬁgure, and food). No signiﬁcant differences were found between the six topics on perceived recognition, F(5, 185) = 0.94, p = 0.46; task enjoyment, F(5, 185) = 0.97, p = 0.44; satisfaction with performance appraisal, F(5, 185) = 0.63, p = 0.68; organizational commitment, F(5, 185) = 1.03, p = 0.40; time spent on editing the eWiki pages, F(5, 185) = 0.77, p = 0.58; and intent to participate again, F(5, 185) = 1.28, p = 0.27. 3.2. Effects of types of norms A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine perceived recognition, task enjoyment, satisfaction with performance appraisal, organizational commitment, contribution level, and intent to participate again as a result of the type of norms, respectively. Such analyses offered support to all hypotheses proposed in the paper.

Consistent with H1, it was revealed that type of norms had a signiﬁcant effect on perceived recognition, F(3, 185) = 45.51, p < 0.001. Participants in the social norm and the market norm with high payment perceived signiﬁcantly higher recogni- tion compared to those in the market norm with low payment and control condition. Interestingly, contrary to what H2 expected, although signiﬁcant differences on task enjoyment merged as a function of type of norms, F(3, 185) = 3.38, p < 0.05, participants receiving the low payment in the market norm reported the highest level of task enjoyment. H3 was partially supported, as type of norms had a signiﬁcant effect on satisfaction of performance appraisal, F(3, 185) = 10.66, p < 0.001. Par- ticipants received high payment reported the highest satisfaction level of performance appraisal and those in the condition reported the lowest.

No signiﬁcant difference was obtained between the social norm condition and the market norm with low payment condition. Partial support was also found for H4 as participants displayed the lowest commitment to eWiki in the control condition and no signiﬁcantly different levels of commitment in the other three conditions, F(3, 185) = 3.95, p < 0.01. Type of norms also had a signiﬁcant impact on the contribution level as partially hypothesized by H5, reﬂected in the time spent on editing wiki pages (in seconds), F(3, 185) = 3.56, p < 0.05. Participants in the social norm spent longest time editing the pages compared to those receiving low payment and the control conditions, while no signiﬁcant difference was obtained between the market norm with high payment and low payment conditions. Finally, signiﬁcant differences emerged for individuals’ intent to participate again as a consequence of type of norms as well, F(3, 185) = 3.33, p < 0.05. Participants in the control condition displayed the lowest intent to participate again to eWiki, and no signiﬁcantly different intent was found for those in the other three conditions. Thus, H6 received partial support as well (see Table 1). 3.3. The underlying mechanisms for the social norm and the market norm Path analyses with 5000 bootstrapped samples and 95% bias adjusted conﬁdence intervals were run (Preacher & Hayes, 2008 ) to examine RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3, which asked what factors mediated the relationship between the different types of norms (social norm, market norm with low payment, and market norm with high payment) and intent to participate again.

Three serial mediation models were constructed to test the indirect effect of type of norms on intent to participate again, via perceived recognition, task enjoyment, satisfaction with performance appraisal, and organizational commitment.

Results from the serial mediation models constructed for the social norm indicated that among perceived recognition, task enjoyment, and satisfaction with performance appraisal, the social norm had a signiﬁcant positive indirect effect on intent to participate again, fully mediated by perceived recognition (b = 0.22, SE = 0.08, LLCI = 0.09, ULCI 0.41, p < 0.0001). 838 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 Fig. 1. Path analysis showing serial mediation (perceived recognition and organizational commitment) between the social norm and intent to participate again.

Note: Dummy coding was utilized (market norm with low payment = 1, social norm = 0, market norm with high payment = 0, control = 0). Coefﬁcients reported are unstandardized. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Fig. 2. Path analysis showing serial mediation (task enjoyment and organizational commitment) between the market norm with low payment and intent to participate again.

Note: Dummy coding was utilized (market norm with high payment = 1, social norm = 0, market norm with low payment = 0, control = 0). a = coefﬁcient for path including perceived recognition, b = coefﬁcient for path including satisfaction with performance appraisal. Coefﬁcients reported are unstandardized.

** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Fig. 3. Path analysis showing serial mediations (perceived recognition and organizational commitment; satisfaction with performance appraisal and organizational commitment) between the market norm with high payment and intent to participate again.

** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. There was also a signiﬁcant positive indirect effect via perceived recognition and organizational commitment to intent to participate again (b = 0.43, SE = 0.10, LLCI = 0.24, ULCI 0.66, p < 0.0001) (see Fig. 1).

For the market norm with low payment ($1.00), task enjoyment emerged as the signiﬁcant mediator, fully mediating the relationship between market norm with low payment and intent to participate again (b = 0.22, SE = 0.09, LLCI = 0.06, ULCI = 0.42, p < 0.01). There was also a signiﬁcant positive indirect effect via enjoyment and organizational commitment to intent to participate again (b = 0.28, SE = 0.11, LLCI = 0.07, ULCI = 0.51, p < 0.01) (see Fig. 2).

As illustrated in Fig. 3, for the market norm with high payment ($5.00), both satisfaction with performance appraisal and perceived recognition were found as signiﬁcant mediators. First, there was a signiﬁcant positive indirect effect from the market norm with high payment to intent to participate via satisfaction with the performance appraisal (b = 0.21, SE = 0.07, LLCI = 0.09, ULCI = 0.38, p < 0.001). There was also a signiﬁcant positive indirect effect via the path through satisfaction with performance appraisal and organizational commitment to intent to participate again (b = 0.37, SE = 0.11, LLCI = 0.19, ULCI = 0.63, p < 0.001). Besides satisfaction, indirect effect on intent to participate was also signiﬁcant through perceived recognition (b = 0.21, SE = 0.08, LLCI = 0.07, ULCI = 0.38, p < 0.01). The signiﬁcant positive indirect effect from the market norm with high payment to intent to participate could go through perceived recognition and organizational commitment, as well (b = 0.43, SE = 0.10, LLCI = 0.26, ULCI = 0.67, p < 0.001). F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 839 4. Discussion 4.1. General discussion This study showed that people were, indeed, able to be motivated to participate and contribute for reasons other than monetary rewards. The social norm, reﬂected in the form of a greeting card addressed to each participant generated strong motivations among people. More importantly, this study showed that not only could individuals be motivated by the social norm, but also that they were as motivated as those who received monetary compensation. The social norm generated as strong psychological outcomes as did the market norm including organizational commitment, satisfaction with performance appraisal, and intent to participate again. More importantly, participants in the social norm condition perceived recognition from eWiki and spent time to contributing content to eWiki pages even signiﬁcantly more than those who got paid with $1 dollar. The only exception, interestingly, is that task enjoyment levels in the social norm condition did not differ from those in the control condition. A possible explanation could be the different underlying psychological mechanisms at play for the social norm vs. the market norm that were detected in the serial meditation tests.

Results from the serial mediation analyses suggest that perceived recognition fully mediated the relationship between the social norm and intent to participate again. That is, unless people feel properly recognized and acknowledged, they will not take actions to participate purely on account of altruism or reciprocity. Therefore, it is not plausible to simply ask for a favor and to expect strong participation. Even though people are not participating for money, they are not participating for free, either. The reward to them, per the social norm, is being recognized and valued, which is essential to individual self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1997 ). When people feel appreciated and are inclined to participate, they are then accountable for reciprocating by making quality contributions (Hagin, 1990; Kraut, 1973 ). This may explain why task enjoyment levels in the social norm condition was low, as participants in this condition perceived obligations to contribute a certain amount of content than simply having fun. Therefore, task enjoyment as a psychological schema might be less likely to get activated for participants in the social norm throughout participation.

An interesting ﬁnding in this study is that task enjoyment reported was the highest in the market norm with low payment condition ($1.00) and fully mediated the positive effect of this condition on intent to participate again, which is congruent with Festinger (1957)’s ﬁndings that participants receiving low monetary incentives rated the task as signiﬁcantly more enjoyable in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. While Harmon-Jones (2002) argued that low payment did not necessarily lead to disliking, this ﬁnding highlighted the necessity of organizations making the task enjoyable for people to participate with a low level of payment so that they could be compensated for the cognitive dissonance experienced and reduce the discomfort as a result.

This study reinforces that high payment is attractive and effective in provoking organizational commitment and intent to participate again. As revealed from the mediation analyses, high payment could lead to satisfaction with performance appraisal, which is highly relevant to the market norm. Since people under the market norm are contributing for monetary rewards, if the payment received is considerably high, satisfaction with performance appraisal is gratiﬁed. This explains why it serves as a signiﬁcant mediator only for the market norm with high payment condition instead of the social norm. The power of high payment, on the other hand, manifests itself in producing perceived recognition as shown in the mediation tests. That is, individuals could also transfer a good payment into recognition. In this case, high payment tells how much an individual is valued and appreciated by an organization. 4.2. Theoretical implications The theoretical implications of this study stem from ﬁndings pertaining to the power of social norms, which ﬁlls the intellectual gap as to whether or not public participation with organizations can be motivated by things other than monetary incentives. More importantly, the three different psychological mechanisms (perceived recognition, task enjoyment, and satisfaction with performance appraisal) identiﬁed by this study through which people were motivated under the social norm vs. the market norm untangled why organizations could get publics participating and contributing with and without monetary incentives. It expands previous research (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998; Kollock, 1999; Trivers, 1971; Unger, 1991 ) by identifying recognition as the key factor, driving the social norm over monetary compensation. Furthermore, task enjoyment serving as a mediating variable for the market norm with low payment condition further explores the experiential effect of reward amount. Finally, this paper further validates the effect of high payment on initiating public participation. 4.3. Practical implications This study offers practical implications for public relations practitioners seeking to increase participation among publics.

Findings from the study validate the effectiveness and the efﬁciency of using social norms to invite public participation.

As the concept of stewardship suggests, organizations should customize their strategies to enhance organization-public relationships by focusing on recognizing and appreciating publics rather than emphasizing the monetary beneﬁts that one could receive for a given initiative. While this study used a greeting card to generate short-term recognition to participants in the lab setting, companies and organizations can focus on recognizing publics in the long run by utilizing other approaches to express gratitude such as acknowledging publics in a company newsletter, social media site, or another medium. In addition, 840 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 based on the mechanisms through which low payment could motivate participation, companies and organizations would beneﬁt from making an experience as enjoyable as possible to invite participation. Findings as such may be particularly useful to nonproﬁt organizations and/or small businesses that have limited monetary resources.

Based on the ﬁndings of this study, public relations practitioners could strategize their practices to engage publics and motivate participation for a given initiative or campaign of an organization. For big organizations/companies with enough budgets and resources like the Fortune 500 companies, paying a generous amount of money is always an effective incentive to involve more people to participate. However, with limited resources and less budgets, small organizations/companies, particularly non-proﬁt organizations, would have to consider other alternatives to engage and motivate publics. If only small amount of payment can be offered, public relations practitioners need to add fun elements to the participating experience of publics. Gamiﬁying an initiative or campaign, in this case, could help bringing enjoyment and fun to people, which helps individuals to get enough motivation despite of the low level of payment. On the other hand, the social norm principles could do favors to organizations/companies with different sizes and resources due to its efﬁciency and effectiveness. For big companies, although paying the public could motivate participation, it generates considerably additional cost aside from expenditure for the regular public relation practices. Instead, if these organizations could tailor their daily public relation strategies (e.g., letters to customers, contacting key publics on social media) by assuring individuals that they are valuable assets to the organization, people will not only participate, but they will participate as much as if they were paid. The advantage of the social normal is even more noteworthy to small businesses, considering most of their public relations depend on long-term strategies (e.g., monthly newsletters, word-of-mouth) on a regular basis. Expressing appreciation to publics through theses channels could motivate public participation effectively with little additional ﬁnancial cost. 4.4. Limitations and future directions This study has two main limitations, on which future directions can be built. First, it can be argued that gifts also have a monetary value, and thus is it possible that some people in the social norm might be motivated by the converted money value of the gift (greeting card) in this study rather than the greeting card itself. However, if people were completely motived by monetary value of the greeting card, the similar mediators should be found for the social norm as the ones in the low payment condition, as the monetary value of a small and regular greeting card (usually around one dollar) is easily discernable. However, the mediation tests yielded complete different mechanisms, which suggest individuals driven by the social norm were going by distinct psychological routes than those driven by monetary incentives.

This study did not ﬁnd the negative effect of low payment in participation, which differs from previous research. A possible explanation is that $1.00 (though signiﬁcantly lower than $5.00, per pretest results) might not be low enough to test this hypothesis. Prior research has suggested individuals’ satisfaction levels heavily rely on perceived fairness of the payment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001 ). If people perceive the amount as unfair, a series of negative consequences will be generated to cause low payment to backﬁre and discourage participation more than offering no payment would altogether.

Therefore, future investigations should explore the effect of perceived unfairness of payment amount on public participation. 5. Conclusions This study recognizes the psychological motivations that impact public participation. As companies and organizations continue to search for best practices to build and maintain strong public relations with limited resources, it is particularly important to develop strategies for public recognition. When individuals have a high perceived level of recognition, they are likely to display a commitment to the organization and are thus more inclined to participate and contribute to such an organization again in the future even without monetary compensations. The strength of social norm in engaging key publics and obtaining participation over time will become increasingly indicative of effective communication and relationship management of an organization in engaging maintaining healthy public relations.

References Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H Freeman. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., & Kang, M. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495–509. Chung, J. Y., Lee, J., & Heath, R. L. (2013). Public relations aspects of brand attitudes and customer activity. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 432–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.05.001 Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494. Ciffolilli, A. (2003). Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia. First Monday, 8(12). Retrieved on March 24, 2015, from http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1108/1028. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 841 Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646 Curry, J. P., Wakeﬁeld, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 847–858. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255951 Douthitt, E. A., & Aiello, J. R. (2001). The role of participation and control in the effects of computer monitoring on fairness perceptions, task satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 867–874. Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(2), 161–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309260 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 687–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00208-2 Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as public relations paradigm. In Annual conference of the association for education in journalism and mass communication [1984, August]. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Files, J. A. (1984). Do incentives affect mail survey response rates? Public Relations Journal, 40(5), 1–8. Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 262–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209538 Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a uniﬁed theory of social relation. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge. Hagin, K. J. (1990). The untapped power in praise. Broken Arrow, OK: Faith Library Publications. Harman, O. (2015). The evolution of altruism. The Chronicle of Higher Education [Retrieved from]. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolution-of-Altruism-/151625 Harmon-Jones, E. (2002). A cognitive dissonance theory perspective on persuasion. In J. P. Dillard, & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787–793. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40064046 Holland, J., & Stacey, M. B. (2001). Customer participation in creating site brand loyalty. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(4), 34–45. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.

Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708 Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Kim, T., & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may gave different connections to memory and persuasion.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2) http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j [0–0 Kim, S. (2011). Web-interactivity dimensions and shopping experiential value. Journal of Internet Business, 9, 1–25. Kiousis, S., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2006). Differential impact of Web site content: Exploring the inﬂuence of source (public relations versus news), modality, and participation on college students’ perceptions. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 177–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.013 Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. In M. Smith, & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace.

London: Routledge. Kraut, R. E. (1973). Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 551–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90037-1 Lines, R. (2004). Inﬂuence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1469701042000221696 Mason, C. M., & Grifﬁn, M. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction: The group’s shared attitude to its task and work environment. Group & Organization Management, 30(6), 625–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601104269522 Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171 Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1998). Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: A test of March and Simon’s model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 15–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199801)19:1<15:AID-JOB816>3.0.CO;2-C McKeever, B. W. (2013). From awareness to advocacy: Understanding nonproﬁt communication, participation, and support. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 307–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.806868 Men, L. R., & Hung, F. C. J. (2012). Exploring the roles of organization–public relationships in the strategic management process: Toward an integrated model. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(2), 151–173. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2013). Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.013 Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.005 [0] Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange relationships. I. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Annual review of personality and social psychology (pp.

121–144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Macinnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187–202. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Viking. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002 Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2117561 Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2008). Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 243–267). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rafaeli, S., Raban, D. R., & Ravid, G. (2007). How social motivation enhances economic activity and incentives in the Google Answers knowledge sharing market. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(1), 1–11. 842 F. Yang, H.K. Ott / Public Relations Review 42 (2016) 832–842 Rafaeli, S., Ariel, Y., & Hayat, T. (2005). Wikipedia community: Users’ motivations and knowledge building. In Presented at Cyberculture 3rd Global Conference. August. Rafaeli, S., Raban, D. R., & Ravid, G. (2005). Social and economic incentives in Google Answers. In ACM Workshop Sustaining Community: The role and design of incentive mechanisms in online systems. Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. (2008). Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 53–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810810847039 Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw, & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behaviors. Chicago: St. Clair Press. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217 Seiffert, J., & Nothhaft, H. (2015). The missing media: The procedural rhetoric of computer games. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 254–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.011 Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin press. Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A functionalist strategy. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 635–679). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Tamer Cavusgil, S., & Elvey-Kirk, L. A. (1998). Mail survey response behavior: A conceptualization of motivating factors and an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12), 1165–1192. Theaker, A., & Yaxley, H. (2012). The public relations strategic toolkit: An essential guide to successful public relations practice (1st ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2822435 Unger, L. S. (1991). Altruism as a motivation to volunteer. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(1), 71–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(91)90044-T Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154–1156. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20032843 Wise, K., Hamman, B., & Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: Features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 24–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00313.x