Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to turn lurkers into donors? A study of online social support interactions between nonprofit organizations and their followers

  • Original article
  • Published:
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An increasing number of nonprofits are interacting with their current and prospective donors on social media. How to elicit donations effectively through social media, however, remains under-researched. This study applied the optimal matching theory to examine online interactions between nonprofit organizations and their followers. A 2 (valence of organizational post: positive vs. negative) × 2 (type of social support: emotional vs. informational) between-subjects experiment was conducted to investigate how the match between a nonprofit organization’s need and its followers’ social support impacts third-party observers’ perceived relationship satisfaction and donation intention. The mediation effect of enacted social support evaluation (i.e., perceived helpfulness, supportiveness, and sensitiveness) was also examined. It was found that organizational post valence exerted an indirect effect on third-party observers’ perceived relationship satisfaction and donation intention through perceived supportiveness and helpfulness. These mediation effects were conditional on the type of social support provided by online followers of the organization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reprocity in social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application (pp. 21–37). Boston, MA: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 381–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, M. K., & Duck, S. (1994). Everyday supportive contexts for social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 175–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartikowski, B., & Walsh, G. (2014). Attitude contagion in consumer opinion platforms: Posters and lurkers. Electron Markets, 24, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-013-0149-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blouin, M. C., Lee, R. L., & Erickson, G. S. (2018). The impact of online financial disclosure and donations in nonprofits. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boren, J. P. (2014). The relationships between co-rumination, social support, stress, and burnout among working adults. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913509283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509105519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive Communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 34–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L., Goldsmith, D. J., & Sarason, I. G. (1994). The communication of social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. xi–xxx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. A., Lambright, K. T., & Wells, C. J. (2014). Looking for friends, fans and followers? Social media use in public and nonprofit human services. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-197609000-00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C., & Russell, D. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. Sarason, I. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936509201900200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutrona, C. E., Shaffer, P. A., Wesner, K. A., & Gardner, K. A. (2007). Optimal matching support and perceived spousal sensitivity. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 754–758. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan-Tetik, A., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). Online conversation and corporate reputation: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of exposure to the social media activities of a highly interactive company. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 444–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlandsson, A., Västfjäll, D., Sundfelt, O., & Slovic, P. (2016). Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • France, J. L., Kowalsky, J. M., France, C. R., McGlone, S. T., Himawan, L. K., Kessler, D. A., & Shaz, B. H. (2014). Development of common metrics for donation attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention for the blood donation context. Transfusion, 54(3), 839–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.12471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, D. J., McDermott, V. M., & Alexander, S. C. (2000). Helpful, supportive and sensitive: Measuring the evaluation of enacted social support in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500173004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green-Hamann, S., & Sherblom, J. C. (2014). The influences of optimal matching and social capital on communicating support. Journal of Health Communication, 19(10), 1130–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.864734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate: Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haber, M. G., Cohen, J. L., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1–2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in modeling the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54.

  • Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • High, A. C. (2011). The production and reception of verbal person-centered social support in face-to-face and computer-mediated dyadic conversations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • High, A. C., & Solomon, D. (2008). Locating computer-mediated social support within online communication environments. Conference paper presented at National Communication Association. San Diego CA.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, C., Gueguen, N., & Boulbry, G. (2018). How proof of previous donations influences compliance with a donation request: Three field experiments. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark, 15, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, M., & Carpenter, S. (2012). Optimal matching model of social support: An examination of how national product and service companies use twitter to respond to consumers. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 27(2), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, H.-C., Wang, L.-L., & Xu, Y.-T. (2013). Understanding the different types of social support offered by audience to A-list diary-like and informative bloggers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Li, C., Carcioppolo, N., & North, M. (2016). Do our Facebook friends make us feel worse? A study of social comparison and emotion. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E. L. (2001). Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs, 68(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, J., Martinez, L., Holmstrom, A., Chung, M., & Cox, J. (2017). Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: A narrative review and directions for future research. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 20(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2013). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood? Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark, 10, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelman, R., & Rojas-Mendez, J. (2018). Why Canadians give to charity: An extended theory of planned behavior model. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark, 15, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morelli, S. A., Lee, I. A., Arnn, M. E., & Zaki, J. (2015). Emotional and instrumental support provision interact to predict well-being. Emotion, 15(4), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M+R Benchmarks (2019), The 2019 M+R Benchmarks Study, available at https://mrbenchmarks.com/numbers

  • Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organization. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812452411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonprofit tech for good (2018). 2018 global trends in giving report. Available at https://givingreport.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2018-GivingReport-English.pdf

  • Source, N. P. (2018). The ultimate list of charitable giving statistics for, 2018 Available at https://nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/.

  • Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosure on contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1991). The influence of communication structure and social support on job stress and burnout. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 506–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockwood, N. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2020). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Regression-based approaches for clinical research. In A. G. C. Wright & M. N. Hallquist (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., Kuo, J.-S., & Ho, Y.-C. (2012). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011427597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, S., Dienlin, T., & Reinecke, L. (2015). Influence of social support received in online and offline contexts on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction with life: A longitudinal study. Media Psychology, 18(1), 74–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269_2013_838904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. W., Grube, J. A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02879.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, twee: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, J., Sreenivasan, S., Korniss, G., Zhang, W., Lim, C., & Szymanski, B. K. (2011). Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities. Physical Review, 84(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.011130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

    Cheng Hong

  2. School of Communication, University of Miami, 5100 Brunson Drive, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

    Cong Li

Authors
  1. Cheng Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheng Hong.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, C., Li, C. How to turn lurkers into donors? A study of online social support interactions between nonprofit organizations and their followers. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark 17, 527–547 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00255-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00255-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation