Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Twitter as a social actor: How consumers evaluate brands differently

on Twitter based on relationship norms
Zongchao Li , Cong Li 1
School of Communication, University of Miami, P.O. Box 248127, Coral Gables, FL 33124, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 2 August 2014
Keywords:
Social response theory
Consumerbrand relationship
Twitter
CMC

a b s t r a c t
The consumerbrand relationship literature indicates that consumers follow certain norms in their
relationships with brands, and adherence or violation of those norms affects their brand evaluations.
However, whether consumers use similar principles to guide their interactions with brands in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments such as social networking sites remains unknown.
To address this question, this study tests how consumers evaluate brands on Twitter depending on their
own Twitter usage intensity. Based on social response theory, it is argued that a CMC context (as represented by Twitter) acts as an independent social actor and people follow ofine interpersonal relationship
rules in their interactions with brands on Twitter. Through a 2 (relationship type: exchange vs. communal)  2 (Twitter usage intensity: light vs. heavy) experiment, it is found that light Twitter users follow
exchange relationship norms and evaluate a brand with exchange relationship-oriented messages more
favorably than communal relationship-oriented messages. Heavy users, however, do not show such
differences.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
The notion that consumers form relationships with brands is
well documented in the literature (e.g., Aggarwal, 2004;
Aggarwal & Law, 2005; Aggarwal & Zhang, 2006; Esch, Langner,
Schmitt, & Geus, 2006; Foo, Douglas, & Jack, 2008; Fournier,
1998; Johnson & Grimm, 2010; Mathwick, 2002). Built upon interpersonal relationship theories, these studies have distinguished
two types of relationships: exchange and communal. A common
premise in this line of research is that consumers follow interpersonal relationship norms when interacting with brands and adherence or violation of those norms will affect their brand evaluations.
Most prior research on consumerbrand relationships was
within ofine contexts. However, with the evolving complexity of
new media technology, there is a central argument in the computer-mediated communication (CMC) literature regarding the
lack of social cues and its impact on social norms. Some researchers suggested that the reduced social presence in the context of
CMC tends to weaken the salience of social norms (e.g., Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel, Dubrovsky,
Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986), but others contended that the reduced
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (305) 284 2138.
1

E-mail addresses: z.li13@umiami.edu (Z. Li), congli@miami.edu (C. Li).

Tel.: +1 (305) 284 2355.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.016
0747-5632/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

social presence makes certain social norms more salient, rather

than impaired (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes, Spears, Sakhel,
& De Groot, 2001; Spears & Lea, 1994).
Meanwhile, there is a growing body of research arguing that
media technology itself, functions as an independent source
(actor) of communication (Sundar & Nass, 2001). According to
social response theory and computers-as-social-actors (CASA) paradigm (e.g., Moon, 2000; Nass & Steuer, 1993), people can establish
relationships with computers (Sundar, 2004) and these relationships are subject to the same social rules of interpersonal relationships (e.g. Nass, Moon, & Carney, 1999; Nass, Steuer, & Tauber,
1994; Tzeng, 2006). Other research has further applied this rationale to the web context (Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007; Magee &
Kalyanaraman, 2010), and demonstrated that people apply social
norms that conventionally guide human-to-human interactions
to websites.
Nowadays, many companies are using social networking sites
such as Facebook and Twitter to interact with their consumers
(Holmes, 2011). The online social networks build a tight community where users form a strong relationship with the brand. However, it is unknown whether consumers would apply traditional
ofine interpersonal relationship norms within such a unique
online environment. To fulll this theoretical gap, this study
explores consumerbrand relationships in the context of a social
networking site, Twitter. Through a 2 (relationship type: exchange

188

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

vs. communal)  2 (Twitter usage intensity: light vs. heavy)

between-subjects experiment, the study tests how consumers
evaluate brands with exchange or communal relationship orientations. It is argued that the Twitter website acts as a proxy for interpersonal relationships. Heavy Twitter users are expected to
establish a closer relationship with the Twitter site and follow
the communal relationship norms. Light users, on the other hand,
tend to follow the exchange norms. When those relationship
norms are conformed or violated, it will signicantly inuence
how people evaluate brands that post relational messages on
Twitter.
2. Literature review
2.1. Exchange relationships vs. communal relationships
Two types of relationships are identied in the interpersonal
relationship literature, exchange relationships and communal relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Mills, 1993; Mills & Clark,
1994). Social rules and norms governing the giving and receiving
of benets distinguish the two forms (Clark & Mills, 1993). Individuals give each other benets with the expectation of receiving a
comparable benet in return in an exchange relationship. The
receipt of a benet creates an obligation or debt that an equal benet should be reciprocated. In contrast, communal relationships
impose no obligation between the relationship partners. Instead,
benets are given in response to each others needs or welfare concerns (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Mills, 1993). Friendships, romantic relationships, and family relationships are communal in nature,
while relationships among business partners are more exchangeoriented (Clark, Dubash, & Mills, 1998; Mills & Clark, 1994).
Distinctive behavior norms of these two relationship types have
been revealed in previous research. Individuals participating in an
exchange relationship prefer to receive a comparable benet
(Clark, 1981). They are more likely to keep track of inputs and outputs in a joint task (Clark, 1984; Clark, Mills, & Corcoran, 1989),
and ask for repayment for benets provided (Clark & Mills, 1979;
Clark & Waddell, 1985). People in a communal relationship do
not seek a comparable benet (Clark, 1981). They tend to keep
track of the partners needs (Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986; Clark
et al., 1989), and are more willing to express emotions (Clark &
Taraban, 1991). Mills and Clark (1994) have noted that communal
relationships are associated with expectations of long-term relationship outcomes, while exchange relationships are not necessarily long-term oriented.
The distinction between exchange and communal relationships
has also been applied to research of consumerbrand interactions
(e.g., Aggarwal, 2004; Aggarwal & Law, 2005; Aggarwal & Zhang,
2006; Esch et al., 2006; Foo et al., 2008; Johnson & Grimm, 2010;
Li & Li, 2014; Mathwick, 2002). Brands can possess human-like personalities (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998), thus consumers may
form relationships with brands in a similar manner as relationships
with other people. Prior research has suggested that relationship
norms dictate consumers interactions with brands. For example,
Aggarwal (2004) argued that a consumers evaluation of a brand
is based on whether his/her interaction with the brand adheres or
violates the norms of their relationship. It was found that people
preferred to receive a non-comparable benet when primed with
a communal relationship scenario, but preferred to receive a comparable benet when primed with an exchange relationship context. Moreover, people in the communal relationship condition
preferred a longer delay between giving and receiving benets
because a delayed return request was regarded as unrelated to
the original request, conrming the communal relationship norms.
In contrast, individuals in the exchange relationship condition were

more inclined to an immediate request because such a request

acted as a gesture of paying off the debt, conrming the exchange
relationship norms of quid pro quo (Batson, 1993). Similarly,
Aggarwal and Law (2005) showed that a certain prime could make
a relationship norm salient, and consequently affected how
consumers evaluated brands. The effects of relationship norms on
consumer behavior had also been examined in other contexts, such
as loss aversion (Aggarwal & Zhang, 2006), new technology (Foo
et al., 2008) and donation (Johnson & Grimm, 2010).
It is worth pointing out that most prior studies examined the
effects of relationship norms on consumerbrand interactions
within an ofine setting. How consumers establish relationships
with brands within an online environment remains unknown in
the literature. However, such research is much needed because
computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FtF)
communication are expected to inuence peoples perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviors in very different ways, although there is
no consensus on how they differ. On the one hand, some research
suggests that CMC is less personal and socio-emotional than FtF
communication (Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986). It is argued that
the lack of social and non-verbal cues in a CMC context makes it
difcult for a person to express his/her emotions (Rice & Love,
1987), and also harder for these emotions to be decoded and recognized by other people (Derks, Fischer, & Bos, 2008). Without FtF
interactions, individuals tend to experience a sense of isolation
and estrangement (Foo et al., 2008; Harden, 2002). The absence
of social cues in a CMC environment, thus, could reduce the impact
of social norms and constraints and trigger deregulated abnormal
behaviors (e.g., Daft & Lengel, 1986; Kiesler et al., 1984; Siegel
et al., 1986). On the other hand, other studies have shown that a
CMC environment can indeed draw people together to open up
and offer help (Joinson, 2001; Mathwick, 2002). It is argued that
without the constraints of social status and physical appearance,
CMC makes it easier for people to express themselves (Derks
et al., 2008; McKenna & Bargh, 1999). The anonymity feature
associated with CMC allows people to reveal themselves more
intimately than within FtF contexts (Mathwick, 2002; Postmes
et al., 2001; Reingold, 1993). The high level of self-disclosure, consequently, could help form meaningful and close relationships in
the cyberspace (Joinson, 2001; Reingold, 1993). In fact, online
relationships appear to be as intimate and rich in emotional support as any experienced in off-line environments (Mathwick,
2002, p. 42). The reduced social presence in CMC makes certain
social norms more salient, rather than impaired (Lea & Spears,
1991; Postmes et al., 2001; Spears & Lea, 1994).
These two contradictory camps of argument present a great
challenge for scholars to examine how CMC contexts affect
consumerbrand relationships. Many important but unanswered
theoretical questions arise, such as What kind of relationship
consumers expect when they interact with brands in a CMC environment? and Will people use ofine interpersonal relationship
norms to guide their interactions with brands online? Unfortunately, the existing literature does not provide clear answers to
these questions, and it seems quite ambiguous in regard to what
specic relationship dominates consumers interactions with
brands in the cyberspace. In an attempt of solving these conceptual
puzzles and advancing theoretical understandings of how consumers form relationships with brands online, we adopt a unique
theoretical perspective from social response theory in this study
(Moon, 2000; Moon, 2003). It is argued that a CMC environment
itself, such as a social networking site, acts as an independent
social actor. Interpersonal relationship norms widely observed
within ofine settings will also dictate how consumers interact
with brands online, because the CMC environment where the
brands are placed is considered as a unique social actor.

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

2.2. Social response theory and CASA paradigm

According to social response theory, when presented with a
technology possessing a set of characteristics normally associated
with humans, people respond by exhibiting social behaviors and
making social attributions toward the technology (Moon, 2003,
p. 127). Thus, social conventions that traditionally regulate interpersonal behaviors are applicable to human interactions with technology (Moon, 2000). The most prominent social response research
is conducted by a school of researchers endorsing the computersas-social-actors paradigm (CASA). The CASA paradigm contends
that people respond to computers as an independent source of
information and a social actor in its own right and that they automatically and unconsciously apply social attributions and expectations to computers (Nass et al., 1994; Sundar & Nass, 2000). Many
prior studies have demonstrated that people apply social rules and
norms to their interactions with computers, such as politeness
(Nass et al., 1994; Nass et al., 1999; Tzeng, 2006), self/other attribution (Moon, 2003; Nass & Steuer, 1993; Nass et al., 1994), gender
stereotypes (Nass, Moon, & Green, 1997; Nass et al., 1994), personality (Isbister & Nass, 2000; Moon & Nass, 1996), reciprocity (Fogg
& Nass, 1997), and self-disclosure (Moon, 2000). One theoretical
rationale accounted for such social responses is that humans are
social animals, evolutionarily biased toward a social orientation
(Moon, 2000, p. 325). Another explanation for this phenomenon
is that people engage in mindless behaviors to avoid extensive
information processing (Nass & Moon, 2000).
The common thread across all these studies is that individuals
can establish an evolving, long-term based relationship with computers and such a relationship is psychologically different from
users relationships with the person(s) behind the computer terminal (Moon, 2000). In other words, people tend to view computer
technology not just as a medium of communication, but also as a
source of communication (Sundar & Nass, 2000). Many relationship-oriented constructs such as trust, credibility, and dependence,
also apply to humancomputer relationships (Sundar, 2004).
Besides computers, researchers have also applied social
response theory to the web context by arguing that a website
can function as an independent social actor (e.g., Brown et al.,
2007; Kumar & Benbasat, 2001; Magee & Kalyanaraman, 2010;
Wakeeld, Wakeeld, Baker, & Wang, 2011; Wang, Baker,
Wagner, & Wakeeld, 2007). Several prior studies have demonstrated that users develop a relationship with a website by applying social norms that conventionally guide human-to-human
interactions. Magee and Kalyanaraman (2010), for example, found
that users attributed perceptions of morality to certain websites
and such perceptions further impacted the websites persuasiveness. Similarly, Brown et al. (2007) argued that an online community website acted as a social proxy. Most recently, social response
theory has been applied to social media (Huang & Lin, 2011;
Pentina, Zhang, & Basmanova, 2013) and virtual agents research
(Chattaraman, Kwon, & Gilbert, 2012). Applying the social response
to Twitter, Pentina et al. (2013) found that perceived self-Twitter
personality match strengthens trust towards the Twitter brand.
The reason why people interact with computers and websites in
a way as if they were persons is largely based on how they interpret message source. Traditional communication models often
assume the message source to be the message originator, and
media are just channels for communication between the message
sender and the receiver (Sundar & Nass, 2000). With the evolving
new media technology nowadays, however, it is argued that the
physical manifestation of media technology itself can serve as a
communication source and this source is perceived as autonomous
and worthy of human social attributions (Sundar & Nass, 2001).
Extending social response theory and CASA paradigm to examine consumerbrand relationships within a CMC environment, we

189

anticipate that consumers will use interpersonal relationship

norms to guide their interactions with brands online, and the
directions of these interactions depend on specic relationships
they form with the CMC environment (the social actor). Particularly, we choose a popular social networking site, Twitter, to represent a CMC environment in our study since most companies start
to use social media to communicate with their consumers nowadays (Holmes, 2011). Adopting the communication source typology by Sundar and Nass (2001), we argue that Twitter functions
as a proximate message source and an independent social actor,
representing the network community as a whole. Thus, the social
exchange is between each Twitter user and the Twitter website.
When consumers interact with a new brand (which they have no
prior experience with) on Twitter, they will refer to the relationship they have with Twitter to make judgments and decisions.
When a Twitter user establishes a relationship with the Twitter
website, this relationship can be either exchange or communal.
Specically, two user groups are classied in this study: heavy
users and light users. It is argued that heavy Twitter users are more
likely to follow the communal relationship norms, while light users
are more exchange relationship oriented. The rationale to make
this assumption is based on the virtual community and interpersonal relationship literature. The traditional relationship marketing perspective suggests an exchange orientation. As argued by
Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 22), the objective of all marketing
activities is establishing, developing and maintaining successful
relational exchanges, and marketing relationships are maintained
by a mutual exchange and the fulllment of promises (Gronroos,
1990, p. 5). However, relationships formed in a virtual community
might go beyond the exchange orientation (e.g., Joinson, 2001;
Mathwick, 2002; Postmes et al., 2001; Reingold, 1993). The mutual
support among members of an online brand community suggests
the possibility of communal relationship norms (Mathwick,
2002). Moreover, social networking sites enable people to nd others with similar interests and emotional needs, making it possible
to develop close and intimate relationships (Derks et al., 2008).
Therefore, a virtual community may be a marketing context that
affords the opportunity for relationship building based upon something more than mere exchange (Mathwick, 2002, p. 42). From the
interpersonal relationship perspective, communal relationships
are usually found among friends, romantic partners and family
members where a high familiarity and intimacy are established,
while exchange relationships are mostly among strangers and
business partners (Clark et al., 1998; Mills & Clark, 1994). Past
research has found that usage of social networking sites (SNSs) corresponds with the familiarity with such sites (Ellison, Steineld, &
Lampe, 2007; Hargittai, 2007). Compared to non-users, users are
more familiar and more experienced. Familiarity established
through enduring usage of SNSs also leads to perceived mutual
support (Snchez-Franco, Carballar-Falcn, Martnez-Lpez, &
Gzquez-Abad, 2011). In this sense, because heavy users know
Twitter well, they may consider it to be a friend, thus following
the communal relationship norms. However, light users barely
know Twitter, so they are more likely to consider it to be a
stranger and observe the exchange relationship norms.
2.3. Hypotheses
Based on the above review of literature, we hypothesize interaction effects between relationship type (exchange vs. communal)
and Twitter usage intensity (light vs. heavy) on brand evaluation.
Relationship type was manipulated through the type of messages
posted by a retail brand on Twitter, which will be explained in
more detail in the following method section. Previous research
has demonstrated that relationship norms are relatively robust to
experimental manipulations: the effects of relationship norms

190

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

can be observed without study participants actual forming a relationship with the brand or partner (Aggarwal 2004; Clark, 1986;
Clark & Mills 1993). As a matter of fact, relationship norms can
be made salient by priming an unrelated scenario (e.g., describing
relationship with a close friend as communal relationship manipulation) prior to the brand evaluation (Aggarwal 2004; Aggarwal &
Law, 2005). Such evidence leads us to believe that relationship
norms can function as a contextual variable inuencing consumers
information processing strategies (Aggarwal & Law, 2005). The
stimulus messages (tweets) that reect either an exchange or a
communal relationship orientation, thus, are expected to trigger
the relationship norms in our experimental setting.
Because heavy users are more communal oriented, they are
expected to prefer communal relationship-oriented messages
when evaluating a brand on the Twitter platform. In contrast, light
users are likely to prefer exchange relationship-oriented messages
on Twitter. When a brand sends wrong messages to consumers
via Twitter that violate expected relationship norms (e.g., sending
communal messages to light users), the persuasive effects of those
messages will be jeopardized. Three outcome variables will be
used to test such hypotheses including attitude, word-of-mouth
(WOM) intention, and purchase intention. All these variables have
been used in prior research with a similar context (e.g., Aggarwal,
2004; Brown et al., 2007; Esch et al., 2006). It needs to be pointed
out, though, that consumerbrand relationship may not fully replicate the interpersonal relationship due to the nature of commercial contexts (Aggarwal, 2004; Johnson & Grimm, 2010). As argued
by Johnson and Grimm (2010, p. 292), it cannot be assumed that
consumers who perceive communal components to their relationships will necessarily respond negatively to extrinsic rewards.
Thus, when the communal relationship norms are violated on
Twitter, it may not generate as much negative effects as it would
when the exchange relationship norms are breached. Based on
these understandings, we specically hypothesize that:
H1. There will be a signicant interaction effect between Twitter
usage intensity and relationship type on attitude toward the brand.
Light Twitter users will have a more favorable attitude toward the
brand posting exchange relationship-oriented tweets than communal relationship-oriented ones, but such a difference will not be
evident for heavy users.

H2. There will be a signicant interaction effect between Twitter

usage intensity and relationship type on WOM intention. Light
Twitter users will have a higher WOM intention toward the brand
posting exchange relationship-oriented tweets than communal
relationship-oriented ones, but such a difference will not be evident for heavy users.
H3. There will be a signicant interaction effect between Twitter
usage intensity and relationship type on purchase intention. Light
Twitter users will have a higher purchase intention toward the
brand posting exchange relationship-oriented tweets than communal relationship-oriented ones, but such a difference will not
be evident for heavy users.

3. Method
3.1. Participants and study design
This study is a 2 (relationship type: exchange vs. communal)  2 (Twitter usage intensity: light vs. heavy) full factorial
between-subjects design. The rst factor, relationship type, was
manipulated in the experiment. The other factor, Twitter usage

intensity, was measured. A total of 86 undergraduate female students (age: M = 19.95, SD = 2.23) at a medium-sized southeastern
university in the U.S. participated in the experiment in exchange
of extra course credit points. The stimulus brand used in this study
was a shoe retailer because of its close association with our study
sample. Female students were purposively recruited because we
wanted to isolate the effects of norm conformity or violation on
brand evaluation from potential confounding inuence of product
involvement. Prior research has suggested that a persons involvement with a product may affect his/her motivation to process
related product information (e.g., Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann,
1983; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Specically relevant to our study, prior
research has shown that social cues perceived through a website
can lead to an increased evaluation only for consumers highly
involved with the product category, and such an inuence is stronger for women than for men (Wang et al., 2007). Based on a separate test from the same student population, female students
(M = 5.66, SD = 1.71) showed signicantly more interest in shoes
than males (M = 3.63, SD = 1.73, Mdiff = 2.03 on a seven-point scale),
N = 84, t (82) = 4.76, p < .001. Thus, we focused on female participants solely in this research.
3.2. Study stimuli
To avoid potential confounding effects of familiarity with existing brands, a Twitter account was set up for a ctitious online shoe
retailer. Recall that relationship type was manipulated through the
type of messages posted by the brand on Twitter. Two versions of
the brands Twitter homepage were created, both containing 10
tweets. These tweets were modied based on real posts on Twitter
and they reected either an exchange or a communal relationship
orientation.
Specically, the exchange relationship-oriented tweets in our
study reected the traditional relationship marketing context:
the brand would post information and interact with consumers
and expect some economic benets in return. The brand would
respond and retweet consumers posts to emphasize the shopping
benets and encourage future purchases (see Fig. 1). On the other
hand, communal relationship-oriented tweets were primarily
focused on establishing a close relationship with consumers without explicitly expecting a comparable benet in return. The brand
would respond and retweet consumers posts without the selfserving bias of encouraging future purchases, but to emphasize
more on customer relations and services (see Fig. 2). To ensure that
the two versions of Twitter account only differed in their relationship orientations, efforts were made in the following aspects: (1)
the brands Twitter homepage looked similar, (2) the post date
and time of each tweet were kept consistent, (3) the length of each
tweet was kept at similar levels in both versions to avoid potential
message length effect, (4) the message valence was kept balanced
in both versions so as to avoid potential positivity effect (eight
positive tweets and two negative tweets in both versions), and
(5) same user names were used in the tweets in both versions.
3.3. Pretest
Previous research has demonstrated that relationship norms are
relatively susceptible to contextual inuences: relationship norms
can be elicited by priming an unrelated scenario prior to the brand
evaluation (Aggarwal, 2004; Clark & Mills, 1993). Due to this consideration, a pretest was conducted to evaluate the manipulation
of the two relationship conditions, so as to avoid potential priming
effects by the manipulation check questions.
Forty participants from the same university were exposed to
the two stimulus conditions, none of whom participated in the
main experiment. They were asked eight questions that either

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

Fig. 1. Exchange message condition.

191

192

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

Fig. 2. Communal message condition.

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

tapped into the exchange relationship norms (e.g., The company

gives service to get business) or the communal relationship norms
(e.g., The company helps customers in times of need). All questions came from established measures and the same analytical process was used as in past research (Aggarwal, 2004; Aggarwal &
Law, 2005): the exchange items were reverse-coded and combined
with the communal items to form a net communality score. High
ratings on the score would indicate a communal-oriented relationship perception.
The pretest results showed that participants in the communal
condition (M = 5.04, SD = .76) reported signicantly higher net
communality scores than those in the exchange condition
(M = 4.34, SD = .83), t (36) = 2.70, p < .01, indicating that participants perceived the company in the communal tweets condition
to be more communal relationship-oriented than the company in
the exchange tweets condition, and vice versa. Thus, it conrmed
that the manipulation of exchange and communal relationships
was successful.
3.4. Measures
Twitter usage intensity (a = .94) was measured with six items
such as Twitter is part of my everyday activity, and I feel I am
part of the Twitter community, adapted from the Facebook usage
intensity scale (Ellison et al., 2007). Attitude toward the company
(a = .91) was measured with a two-item 7-point semantic differential scale including dislike/like and negative/positive (Ki & Hon,
2007). WOM intention (a = .94) was measured with four items such
as I would say positive things about this company to other people,
and I would recommend this company to someone who asked my
advice on a 7-point Likert scale (Brown, Barry, Dacin, & Gunst,
2005). Lastly, to measure their purchase intentions, participants
were asked to respond to one question (How likely would you
be to buy shoes from this company in the future?) on a 7-point
scale with 1 being very unlikely and 7 being very likely.
3.5. Study procedure
Upon arrival at the computer lab, each participant was randomly assigned to a computer equipped with the same operating
system. After participation consent was obtained, participants
were asked to ll out a paper-and-pencil pre-experiment questionnaire that contained measures of their Twitter usage intensity and
demographics (gender, age, major, and class rank). Then, they were
given a cover story that the study was designed to help an online
shoe retailer evaluate its social media communication strategy.
They were told that they would review a previously archived Twitter page of the shoe retailer. Next, participants were directed to
click the start button on the computer screen, which led them to
the stimulus Twitter account page of either exchange or communal
relationship. Participants viewing of the stimulus page was selfpaced. After viewing, they were given a post-experiment questionnaire that contained the dependent measures. Upon completion,
they were debriefed and thanked.
4. Results
To test the three hypotheses, a series of ANOVA tests were
performed. To prepare for the ANOVA analyses, one of the independent variable, Twitter usage intensity, was median split. Participants were categorized into two groups, light users and heavy
users, thus making this a between-subjects factor. An independent
samples t test conrmed that heavy users used Twitter more
intensively (M = 4.94, SD = 1.00) than light users (M = .92,
SD = 1.32), t (74) = 15.83, p < .001.

193

4.1. Attitude toward the brand

To test H1, an ANOVA test was conducted with attitude toward
the brand as the dependent variable and relationship type and
Twitter usage intensity as the two xed factors. As seen in Table 1,
no signicant main effect was detected for either factor. The
interaction was marginally signicant, F (1, 82) = 3.46, p = .07.
Follow-up pairwise comparisons revealed that for light users,
attitude was signicantly higher in the exchange relationship
condition than the communal relationship condition, Mdiff = .90,
p < .05. However, heavy users attitudes did not differ between
the two conditions, but they favored communal-oriented messages
more than light users, Mdiff = .83, p < .05. Thus, H1 was partially
supported.
4.2. WOM intention
To test H2, an ANOVA test was conducted with WOM intention
as the dependent variable and relationship type and Twitter usage
intensity as the two xed factors. The test results suggested a signicant main effect of relationship type, F (1, 82) = 7.52, p < .01,
and a signicant main effect of Twitter usage intensity, F (1,
82) = 5.81, p < .05. In addition, the two-way interaction term was
also signicant, F (1, 82) = 4.64, p < .05. To further interpret the
interaction effect, pairwise comparisons were performed. As seen
in Fig. 3, the results indicated that for light users, WOM intention
was signicantly higher in the exchange condition than the
communal condition, Mdiff = 1.41, p < .001. However, heavy users
WOM intentions did not differ between the two relationship conditions. Thus, H2 was supported.
4.3. Purchase intention
Finally, another ANOVA test was conducted with purchase
intention being the dependent variable and relationship type and
Twitter usage intensity being the two xed factors. A signicant
main effect of Twitter usage intensity, F (1, 82) = 10.73, p < .01,
and a signicant two-way interaction effect, F (1, 82) = 4.60,
p < .05, were detected. As also seen in Fig. 3, further analysis on
the interaction effect revealed that purchase intention was signicantly higher for light users in the exchange condition than the
communal condition, Mdiff = 1.39, p < .01, but heavy users purchase intentions did not differ between the two conditions. Thus,
it was concluded that H3 was supported.

5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
The existing literature has offered somewhat contradictory
arguments and empirical evidence on the inuence of interpersonal relationship theories in CMC contexts. Some prior research
argued that in a CMC context, the absence of social cues would
reduce the impact of social constraints and lead to abnormal and
asocial behaviors (Kiesler et al., 1984; Siegel et al., 1986). Challenging this notion, other research suggested that the reduced social
presence would make social norms more important in CMC (Lea
& Spears, 1991; Postmes et al., 2001; Spears & Lea, 1994). Based
on principles of social cognition and interpersonal relationship
development, the social information processing model (Walther,
1992) argued that communicators in CMC are driven to develop
social relationships. Recent research adopting this model has found
that despite the reduced non-verbal cues in the virtual sphere,
socially rich and positive relationships can be developed within

194

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

Table 1
Mean scores of exchange and communal message conditions for light and heavy users.
Light users

Attitude
WOM intention*
Purchase intention*
*

Heavy users

Exchange

Communal

Exchange

Communal

5.20 (1.11)
4.19 (1.55)
3.75 (1.55)

4.30 (1.19)
2.78 (1.16)
2.36 (1.41)

5.05 (1.30)
4.26 (1.12)
4.14 (1.52)

5.13 (1.29)
4.09 (1.48)
4.21 (1.84)

Note: Interaction effect is signicant at p < .05 level.

Fig. 3. Two-way interaction effects on WOM intention and purchase intention.

online networks, including both friendly and romantic relationships (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Utz, 2000).
To shed new light in this debate, we adopt social response theory and CASA paradigm in this study and aim to offer an alternative
explanation for online interactions and relationship formations
within CMC contexts. We argue that a CMC environment such as
a social networking site can act as an information source and an
independent social actor. Users tend to establish relationships with
this social actor. Although the idea that people treat computers/
websites as social actors is not new, studies that examine the
effects of social response in a social networking site context are
quite limited. In general, social networking sites have brought
new challenges to examining mediated communication processes
because the effects of message source on these sites may be more
complex than those in a traditional CMC context (e.g., websites).
Specially, how an individual source (e.g., message poster) and technology source (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) react upon each other and
which source attribution is more salient under certain situations
is a theoretical question yet to be answered. In their study of social
response to Facebook, Huang and Lin (2011) proposed a top-down
model that the social cues perceived through the group-level context (i.e., Facebook site) predict the individual-level arousal to
engage in social behaviors. This model suggests that the macrolevel relationship between users and the social media community
presides over the interpersonal relationships between individual
users.
Consistent with Huang and Lin (2011), our study showed that
people tend to use the relationship they have with Twitter as a

norm to evaluate brand messages on the website. According to

social response theory, peoples reactions to the new media technology are triggered by certain social cues (Moon, 2003). The most
salient social cues are usually the relational target of social
response and people tend to orient toward the most proximate
source of information (Sundar & Nass, 2000). Similar to the
macro-level (group) and micro-level (individual) relationships suggested by Huang and Lin (2011), two potential relationships could
be established in the setting of our study. First, Twitter might be
perceived as a communication medium (i.e., a carrier of visible
sources through the social networks), and the relationship would
be established between each Twitter user and the message sender
(i.e., the brand). Given that the stimulus brand in our experiment
was ctitious, heavy and light Twitter users should follow the
same relationship norm (i.e., exchange) with the brand. However,
if Twitter weighed more heavily as an independent social actor
and an information source in its own right, a relationship would
be established between the Twitter user and the Twitter community. In this case, the role of message sender should be weakened,
and heavy and light Twitter users would show different relationship expectations and follow different relationship norms. Our
study ndings showed support for this explanation, and suggested
the relationship between users and the Twitter community overrode the relationship between users and the brand.
In addition, our study found that when the exchange relationship norms were violated, it signicantly decreased messages
effectiveness. However, there was no such negative consequence
when the communal relationship norms were broken. There are
two possible explanations for these ndings. One argument is that
consumerbrand relationships in a commercial context do not
fully replicate interpersonal relationships. The exchange in a marketing context often involves monetary benets (Aggarwal, 2004;
Johnson & Grimm, 2010), thus the effect of norm violation may
be muted in this context (Aggarwal, 2004). Another explanation
is that communal and exchange relationships may coexist in the
same context. Although heavy users should follow communal relationship norms when interacting with a new brand on Twitter,
they might hold exchange relationship expectations at the same
time. In the interpersonal relationship literature, communal and
exchange relationship perceptions are generally treated as mutually exclusive categories or opposite ends of a continuum (Clark
& Mills, 1993). Individuals are usually assumed to perceive their
relationships as either exchange or communal. However, Mills
and Clark (1994) cautioned that under certain circumstances it is
possible to have both relationships with the same partner. For
example, when there is a minimum cost of benet relative to a
great need, such as offering directions to a lost stranger, communal
relationships can be found in situations that normally elicit
exchange behaviors. Furthermore, a growing number of scholars
have argued that exchange and communal relationships can coexist within a marketing context (Esch et al., 2006; Johnson & Grimm,
2010). Esch et al. (2006), for example, suggested that exchange and
communal relationships are different aspects or facets of the
overall brand-consumer relationship. Johnson and Grimm (2010)
argued that in a consumer-organization context, communal and
exchange relationships are distinct constructs that should be

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

measured separately. People may perceive their relationships with

an organization to have both exchange and communal components. When communal and exchange relationships coexist, organizations should not be much concerned with violations of
relationship norms.
5.2. Managerial implications
The ndings in our study bear managerial implications. First,
social media have been advocated as a rising marketing and relationship-building platform. Various relationship strategies have
been applied (Li, in press). However, to truly engage with the
online audience, companies need to understand and follow the
norms in the virtual sphere. Their message strategies should conform to the expectations of the target audiences. For example, if
a company aims to use social media platforms to build a strong
brand community, their communication should focus on facilitating a close relationship rather than advocating benet exchange.
On the other hand, if the purpose of the companys social media
campaign is to increase brand awareness or to advocate a new
product, emphasizing benet exchange may be appropriate.
Although social media provide companies with ample opportunities of one-to-one conversation and direct audience management, brand-consumer communication on SNSs goes beyond
simple interactions. External factors that may inuence how users
perceive and interpret messages on social media need to be taken
into consideration. Such factors include users habits and personalities, expectations, social media familiarity, and others.
5.3. Limitations and future research
There are a few limitations and future research directions associated with this study that need to be addressed. First, no real-time
relationship was formed between the participants and the stimulus brand in our study. Although previous research has argued that
relationship norms can be triggered in an experimental setting
(e.g., Aggarwal, 2004; Aggarwal & Law, 2005; Clark & Mills,
1993), the quality of relationship may not be ideal in such a setting.
Future research may give participants an opportunity to interact
with the brand and test how it impacts the effects of relationship
norms.
This study included female participants only, so as to avoid
potential confounding effects of product involvement. However,
product involvement may have a signicant effect on how consumers evaluate a brand when relationship norms are conformed
or violated. Future research is needed to test this possibility.
Last, it is worth noting that most stimulus tweets in this study
were written in a positive tone (eight positive vs. two negative).
Perceived positivity could have inated participants responses
on the dependent measures (this may explain why no signicant
interaction effect was found for attitude toward the company). It
could also have diminished the mean differences across experimental conditions due to a potential ceiling effect. Future studies
may control the message valence at a medium level, or to test
valence as an independent variable and its interaction effects with
relationship norms.
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes
and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87101. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1086/383426.
Aggarwal, P., & Law, S. (2005). Role of relationship norms in processing brand
information. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 453464. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1086/497557.
Aggarwal, P., & Zhang, M. (2006). The moderating effect of relationship norm
salience on consumers loss aversion. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3),
413419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508524.

195

Batson, C. D. (1993). Communal and exchange relationships: What is the

difference? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 677683. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196002.
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within
online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20082.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word:
Investigating antecedents of consumers positive word-of-mouth intentions and
behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
33(2), 123138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070304268417.
Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W. S., & Gilbert, J. E. (2012). Virtual agents in retail web sites:
Benets of simulated social interaction for older users. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 20552066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.009.
Clark, M. S. (1981). Noncomparability of benets given and received: A cue to the
existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(4), 375381. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/3033907.
Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 549557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.47.3.549.
Clark, M. S. (1986). Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulations of communal
and exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4),
414425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167286124004.
Clark, M. S., Dubash, P., & Mills, J. (1998). Interest in anothers consideration of ones
needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 34(3), 246264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1352.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1224. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12.
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), 684691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003.
Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Corcoran, D. (1989). Keeping track of needs and inputs of
friends and strangers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 533542.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154007.
Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and
exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2),
333338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.333.
Clark, M. S., & Taraban, C. (1991). Reactions to and willingness to express emotion in
communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
27(4), 324336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90029-6.
Clark, M. S., & Waddell, B. (1985). Perceptions of exploitation in communal and
exchange relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(4),
403418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407585024002.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554571. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554.
Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computermediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3),
766785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004.
Ellison, N. B., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of Facebook friends:
Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 11431168. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How
brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
10610420610658938.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343373. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1086/209515.
Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment
that demonstrates behavior change. In Proceedings of the CHI 97 conference on
Human factors in Computing Systems, 1997 (pp. 331332). New York, NY: ACM.
doi:10.1145/1120212.1120419.
Foo, M., Douglas, G., & Jack, M. A. (2008). Incentive schemes in the nancial services
sector: Moderating effects of relationship norms on customer-brand
relationship. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(2), 99118. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320810852772.
Gronroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The
marketing and organizational behavior interface. Journal of Business Research,
20(1), 311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90037-E.
Harden, G. (2002). E-banking comes to town: Exploring how traditional UK high
street banks are meeting the challenge of technology and virtual relationships.
Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 6(4), 323332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.fsm.4770062.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social
network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making
communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized
conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225252. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x.
Holmes, E. (2011, December 9). Tweeting without fear: How three companies have
built their Twitter strategies. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from <http://
online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204319004577086140865075800.html>.

196

Z. Li, C. Li / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 187196

Huang, J., & Lin, C. (2011). To stick or not to stick: The social response theory in the
development of continuance intention from organizational cross-level
perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 19631973. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.05.003.
Isbister, K., & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters:
Verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics. International Journal of
HumanComputer
Studies,
53(2),
251267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
ijhc.2000.0368.
Johnson, J. W., & Grimm, P. E. (2010). Communal and exchange relationship
perceptions as separate constructs and their role in motivations to donate.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 282294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcps.2010.06.018.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self- disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The
role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 31(2), 177192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.36.
Ki, E., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public
relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19(1), 123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1901_1.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of
computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 11231134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123.
Kumar, N., & Benbasat, I. (2001). Shopping as experience and website as a social
actor: Web interface design and para-social presence. In Proceedings of
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Retrieved from <http://
aisel.aisnet.org/icis2001/54>.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation
and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2),
283301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90045-9.
Li, Z. (in press). Relationship maintenance on Twitter: Implications from loyalty
leaders. Journal of Communication Management.
Li, Z., & Li, C. (2014). Tweet or re-tweet? An experiment of message strategy and
interactivity on Twitter. Internet Research, 24(5). in press.
Magee, R. G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2010). The perceived moral qualities of web sites:
Implications for persuasion processes in humancomputer interaction. Ethics
and Information Technology, 12(2), 109125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676009-9210-1.
Mathwick, C. (2002). Understanding the online consumer: A typology of online
relational norms and behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(1), 4055.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.10003.abs.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social
interaction on the Internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3),
249269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0103_4.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies
and research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical Frameworks for Personal
Relationships (pp. 2942). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc.
Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from
consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 323339. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1086/209566.
Moon, Y. (2003). Dont blame the computer: When self-disclosure moderates the
self-serving bias. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(12), 125137. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/153276603768344843.
Moon, Y., & Nass, C. (1996). How real are computer personalities? Psychological
responses to personality types in humancomputer interaction. Communication
Research, 23(6), 651674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023006002.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1252308.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to
computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
0022-4537.00153.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are respondents polite to computers? Social
desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29(5), 10931110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00142.x.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender-neutral? Gender
stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10),
864876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x.

Nass, C., & Steuer, J. (1993). Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: Computers and
social actors. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 504527. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00311.x.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings
of the CHI 94 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 7278).
New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/191666.191703.
Pentina, I., Zhang, L., & Basmanova, O. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of
trust in a social media brand: A cross-cultural study of Twitter. Computers in
Human
Behavior,
29(4),
15461555.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2013.01.045.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(2), 135146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208954.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social inuence in
computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 12431254. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710001.
Reingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a
computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1),
85108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365087014001005.
Snchez-Franco, M. J., Carballar-Falcn, J. A., Martnez-Lpez, F. J., & Gzquez-Abad,
J. C. (2011). The inuence of customer familiarity and personal innovativeness
toward information technologies on the sense of virtual community and
participation. HumanComputer InteractionINTERACT. Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer. 265279.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in
computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision
Processes,
37(2),
157187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/07495978(86)90050-6.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computermediated communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 427459. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004001.
Sundar, S. S. (2004). Loyalty to computer terminals: Is it anthropomorphism or
consistency? Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 107118. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001659222.
Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2000). Source orientation in humancomputer interaction:
Programmer, networker, or independent social actor? Communication Research,
27(6), 683703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365000027006001.
Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of
Communication,
51(1),
5272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.2001.tb02872.x.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-Mediated communication effects on
disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one
another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317348. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x.
Tzeng, J. (2006). Matching users diverse social scripts with resonating humanized
features to create a polite interface. International Journal of Human Computer
Studies, 64(12), 12301242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.011.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of
friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1), 125. Retrieved
from <http://69.5.5.82/JOB/v1n1/utz.html>.
Wakeeld, R. L., Wakeeld, K. L., Baker, J., & Wang, L. C. (2011). How website
socialness leads to website use. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1),
118132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.47.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A
relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 5290. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/009365092019001003.
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakeeld, K. (2007). Can a retail web site be
social? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 143157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.71.3.143.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208520.