Essay: Social capital

Introduction

The literature reviewed in this paper will explain how social capital has allowed the average person to become the ideal contributing factor to a successful marketing plan. It will move from the basics of social capital and its relationship to technology, to the emerging practice of large brands employing social media influencers as a key part of their marketing strategies. Early literature will cover the sociological and anthropological findings on the effect of technology on the formation of social capital. Pieces discussed will also cover how adoption and use of social media can impact one’s personal levels of social capital, and whether it detracts or supplements existing relationships. This section will include how visible technologies convey a certain social status to others simply by the presence of the gadget. It will also explore existing research on the indicators of social capital on a digital scale, as well as the implications of high or low social capital developed due to these relationships. From there, the paper will explain how an individual’s social capital can be leveraged through self-branding to become a social media influencer. The drawbacks of becoming a social media influencer are also discussed, as social media influence can be viewed as a tool of social division, segregating society by access to technological resources, or ability to cultivate social capital. The last section of this review will contain the most recent literature, which includes studies about the ongoing practice of large brands incorporating these social media influencers into their traditional marketing plans. By the end of this review of literature, the reader should have a comprehensive understanding about how the concept of social capital has evolved over time, how social media has impacted the cultivation of such capital, and how that capital is now being converted and monetized by individuals as well as larger brands. Concluding remarks will suggest possible directions for future research, as this phenomenon continuously grows and evolves.

Review of Literature

Social Capital

All capital is productive; it makes possible certain achievements that would be impossible in its absence (Coleman, 1988). The obvious forms of capital that come to mind are physical and human, the tools or personal attributes that allow a person, group, or organization to success in a way that was not possible before. Physical capital is created by the use of tools to facilitate production, while human capital includes an individuals’ skills and capabilities (Coleman, 1988). For the past three decades, research has turned to a less tangible, but increasingly important form of capital, social capital. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) define social capital as the sum of resources, physical or virtual, that an individual or a group earn and cultivate through an active network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Lin (2001) takes a more economic view of the concept, and defines social capital as an investment in social relations with expected returns in the market place. Looking at it from this angle, the accumulated social capital can be returned in other forms of capital such as favors (human capital) or new information (intellectual capital) (Resnick, 2001). The general consensus is that social capital provides access to resources through maintained social relations, and that the relationships themselves are an investment (Bourdieu, 1984; Lin, 1999). The accumulation of social capital, or inability to do so, can impact an individual’s personal, professional, and emotional status.

Social capital can be formed from any network of interpersonal interaction, friends, family, coworkers, really any acquaintance with whom one shares a mutual recognition of the relationship. Members of a relationship, or a larger organization, receive benefits from the connection, which means that they can exert social pressure on each other through the adoption of a set of norms (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004). A refusal to accept or adhere to these norms results in a detachment on the part of the conforming group, which acts as a removal of social capital. One factor that has always influenced the accrual of social capital is the acceptance of new technology. Those who refuse to adapt to the technological advances of their time are usually left behind, their social capital drains as they are no longer able to relate to those with whom they had previously held relationships. Pfaffenberger (1992) discusses the anthropology of technology, and argues that technologies do not exist in a vacuum, but exist in concert with the social works around them, and dictate how the population adapts to their introduction to an existing environment. Technological progress, even when made just for the sake of progress, has lasting impacts on the society into which it eventually becomes ingrained. By accepting new technologies, people can express their willingness to keep up with the changing environment, avoid becoming an outcast, and grow their social capital.

Another proclamation that Pfaffenberger (1992) makes is that each new technology has two dimensions, one is its primary function, and the other is related to its social meaning. When a user decides to adopt a new technology, they do not just experience the benefits that come with the function of the physical object, they also find themselves in a shifting social standing. Klinger (2006) discusses in the first chapter of her book how the growth of the home theatre had an impact not only on the users’ movie watching experience, or the movie theatre industry, but also on the social identification of those who chose to adopt the latest fad. The technologies that one chooses to adopt (in Klinger’s book, a home movie system), are a testament to the owner’s wealth and commitment to quality living (Klinger, 2006). Those who elect to purchase emerging commodities are not only purchasing a convenient tool, but expressing their “taste” for the newest and best. They are revealing their desire for economic mobility through the classes, for continued social acceptance, and for renewed levels of social capital (Klinger, 2006).

In the last decade, visual representations of desire for economic mobility have become untethered from the home, as handheld and wearable technologies have become expressions of wealth and conformity. It is nearly impossible to walk down the street without seeing smartphones, Fitbits, Apple watches, wireless headphones, and any number of other recent technological advances being used casually in everyday life. Social pressures to conform within an organization go beyond an individual’s actions, they can also apply to the adoption of new innovation (Valente, 1995, Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004). Most of those who opt to avoid these emergent technologies do so because of generational differences, financial reasons, or outright deviancy. According to studies conducted on the diffusion of new technologies, those who wish to maintain their social status will gradually conform by adopting new technologies as members of their current or desired social class do so (Bayer and Melone 1989; Rogers 1995; Wolfe 1994; Yetton et al. 1999). Choosing to adopt a new technology, especially those with communication-based advancements, can grow one’s social capital; similarly, refusing to do so can prevent acquisition of the same resources.

Even more recently, people are beginning to curate social capital not with their digital technologies, but with their digital presence. The next section of this work will discuss how the cultural explosion of social media has effected relationships, by maintaining existing bonds as well as fostering new ones. From there, the most recent literature will explain how social capital and social media have allowed typical social media users to become an integral part of marketing plans for all companies, from Fortune 500 to small startups. In 1988, Coleman wrote that the property that differentiates social capital from other forms of capital is its public good aspect. That is to say that organizations often experienced more of the benefits of social capital than the actor or actors who generated the capital, which he argues led to underinvestment in social capital (Coleman, 1988). More recently, people have found a way to monetize social capital, through brand management and the emergence of social media influencers, which has reinvigorated research done on the topic.

Social Capital on Social Media

This section will review literature concerning personal use of social media, and how it relates to an individual’s levels of social capital. Social media has been defined as a series of technological advances that facilitate content creation and interaction by online users (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger, & Shapiro, 2012). Whether one believes that social media is hurting social interaction or bolstering it, there is no denying that the Internet has permanently altered the way we communicate. Nie (2001) argues that Internet usage detracts from face-to-face interactions, which could lead to diminished social capital. However, that view has been criticized (Bargh & McKenna, 2004), in favor of claims that online interaction could supplement or ever replace typical face-to-face interactions, negating any potential loss of social capital due to time spent online (Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001). The means of creating and fostering relationships has changed incredibly in the past two decades, but the dynamics of human relationships remain largely the same, on and off line.

Those who adopt new forms of social media might not be aware of the impact that their use has on their level of social capital, though they are consciously seeking out a way to connect with other users. Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2007) conducted a study on the levels of social capital observed in college students, with most of their participants active Facebook users. This study introduces existing dimensions of social capital, bridging and bonding, as well as an additional dimension, maintained capital (Putnam, 2000; Ellison, et al., 2007). Bridging capital consists of one’s “weak ties”, or more casual connections between individuals, that don’t usually include emotional support (Granovetter, 1973); these could be classmates, coworkers, or members of a similar social circle. Bonding capital is found between individuals with close, emotional relationships, such as family and friends (Ellison, et al., 2007). Maintained capital evaluates an individual’s ability to stay connected with members of a previously held relationship, in this study this consists of participants friends from high school after they have gone away to college (Ellison, et al., 2007). The introduction of social media to one’s social habits allows for the routine maintenance of looser relationships, with very low effort expended by either user.

As social media is sometimes criticized for the downfall of face-to-face interaction, it is important to consider members of a community who shy away from in-person communication, who might be more apt to invest in relationships when there is a medium between users. In evaluating predictors of bonding and bridging capital, Bian & Leung (2015) found that the most powerful factor inversely attributed to high levels of social capital was loneliness. This is supported by previous research (Sloan & Solano, 1984) that indicates that lonely people face issues maintaining ongoing relationships, and spend less time engaging social with others, resulting in low levels of social capital. Ellison et al. (2007) corroborates a similar sentiment, referencing previous research that shows various forms of social capital is related to factors of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and overall satisfaction (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). People who seek out social networking platforms such as Facebook or Twitter are looking for a community or sense of connection, either to supplement their offline relationships, or to fill the void of those which they lack. Ellison et al.’s 2007 study reveals that Facebook plays an important part in determining which students form and maintain capital, though it is not clear whether they made a Facebook for this purpose, or if this was a secondary dimension of the technology, like Pfaffenberger (1992) alluded to. In discussing their findings, Ellison, et al. (2007) hypothesize that Facebook is so beneficial in forming and maintaining social capital because its affordances lower the barrier for communication. In other words, Facebook makes it easier and less intimidating for shy, introverted students to participate in a network they may have avoided in person (Ellison, et al., 2007). This is particularly important, as Ellison’s later work, Ellison, Vitak, & Gray (2014), finds that it is not enough for Facebook users to add other users to their network, they must engage in behaviors that get the attention of their network members. Not only that, but they must contribute in ways that allude to the possibility of a return of social capital to the other user, which follows the idea of a social capital marketplace from Lin (2001) (Ellison et al., 2014). In the context of these college students on Facebook, their presence on social media opens them up to participating socially in a way that may have been anxiety inducing before. The studies also suggest that through loose ties, such as a shared Facebook group or an event invitation, connections form on social media have the opportunity to translate to real life, allowing for the continued accumulation of social capital (Ellison, et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2014).

To turn briefly back to the impact of physical technologies on social capital, Bian & Leung (2015) explored the effects of shyness, loneliness, and smartphone addiction on levels of social capital. The individuals who experienced symptoms of smartphone addiction, who were spending more time on their devices for information seeking and sociability reasons, incidentally built up their individual social capital (Bian & Leung, 2015). The symptoms of anxiety and withdrawal which stemmed from their addiction to their technology, that caused them to compulsively check their messages and social media accounts, ended up growing and fostering their relationships and thus their social capital (Bian & Leung, 2015). This is not to say that having a smartphone or access to the Internet alone is a determining factor of social capital accumulation, but intensive use of Facebook, as well as general symptoms of smartphone addiction, were proven to have a positive impact of levels of such capital. (Ellison et al., 2007; Bian & Leung, 2015). This contributes to the literature that refutes claims of internet usage leading to diminished social capital, for even those utilizing social media to replace face-to-face interactions are able to cultivate certain levels of social capital.

The advent of social media has also brought about the possibility of increasing the number of bridging relationships exponentially, as public users can now have their posts seen by hundreds of thousands of others on the same platform. By creating an online presence and updating blogs and profiles daily, a new wave of micro-celebrity, the social media influencer, has taken their accrued social capital and turned it into a plethora of resources in the “market place”.

Influencers Using Social Capital On Social Media

The growing number of social media influencers (SMI) on social networking sites in recent years has garnered the attention of social media, marketing, and branding scholars. Social media influencers are third party endorsers who create and maintain an audience through blogs, tweets, and Instagram posts (Freberg, Graham, McGaughey, & Freberg, 2011). They can be easily recognized by their corporate account settings and massive number of followers; but more than that, they are members of, and opinion leaders within, a community. In the context of this literature, community can mean any number of groups, either bound by demographic factors or interest areas. Up until recently, public endorsements had been reserved for athletes, musicians, and performers who had established themselves as household names. Now, audience members, who are also potential consumers, turn to less prominent and more relatable members of their communities for product or service recommendations and endorsements. Instead of being limited to there in person social circles, social media users can experience what is called electronic word of mouth (eWOM), where users they are exposed to share can information with their followers. Instagram and Facebook act as the ideal tools for communication by electronic word of mouth (Castro, 2006), which is where social media influencers come in. SMIs are social media users who have accrued enough social capital to reach and influence a sizable audience about a product or service. SMIs are able to create a personal relationship with their followers, leading to increased trust, and thus more social capital (Castro, 2006). When comparing the qualities of an SMI to a CEO, SMIs were more likely to be sought out for advice and reassurance, which is not due to naivety of their audience, but because they were also shown to be more likely to respond and give advice to the average consumer (Freberg et al., 2011). People are more likely to heed endorsements or rejections from an individual that they view as a member of their community, or someone who shares some of their existing or potential qualities; the value of such trust in a brand is immeasurable.

Personal branding.

Social media influencers do not fall into their role by accident; besides building and maintaining high levels of social capital, they take part in the painstaking process of self-branding, which involves creating a specific public image for commercial gain or to develop more capital (Khamis, Ang, & Welling, 2016). All social media users participate in some kind of brand management, whether they are conscious of it or not. In an online context, brand management comes with each decision to reveal a piece of information or share a photo with their audience (Labrecque, Markos, & Milne, 2010). Those who wish to become influencers are extremely precise in what they post on their profiles and blogs. Even the seemingly mundane posts are thoughtful curated to match the personal brand they are trying to present. Creating a personal brand through social media does not require previous affiliation with a commercial entity, rather their place as a common member of a community is part of their appeal; what matters most is their visibility and ability to attract attention (Khamis et al., 2016). It sounds simple, but attention is hard to come by in an “attention economy” where an unprecedented number of communicators compete across more screens for increasingly distracted audiences (Brody 2001). The most successful influencers are able to separate themselves from other aspiring leaders of a community, either in content production or engagement style.

To become an SMI requires a great deal of work, but to maintain one’s place might be even more difficult. Once they present themselves to the public, they are expected to remain consistent, authentic, and essentially without flaw or personal difficulty (Khamis et al., 2016). Even the most prestigious celebrity endorsers falter, have a lapse in judgement, or get caught in a scandal, which often leads to the termination of their endorsement deals. For celebrity endorsers, there is often enough goodwill built up around them that they may continue to garner new deals once the initial scandal is over. Social media influencers often do not have the same safety net, and not only do they lose out on endorsing certain brands, they also betray the transactions of social capital they have with those in their community. In her book, Marwick (2013) concludes that SMIs are expected to be simultaneously “authentic” and “businesslike”, which forms the assumption that they would never do anything un-businesslike, even in their personal lives. The pressure to always adhere to a brand in every post and every engagement requires much more thought and dedication than many expect of a person who pursues a career on social media.

Issues of the SMI image

Becoming a social media influencer is the result of converting one’s life into a networking and advertising campaign, which most believe can be achieved through dedication and hard work. But Marwick (2013) argues that this is a harmful way of thinking, as one’s failure in such an endeavor is then seen as a personal failure, rather than the result of outside forces. Marwick (2013) argues that social media, and self-branding in particular is not the great equalizer of the economic playing field, as is suggested; but that due to the structural dynamics of the industry, it favors the same people that have always thrived in other areas of the tech world – young, rich, white men. This critical and skeptical view of using new technologies to raise one’s socioeconomic status is far from groundbreaking. Klinger (2006) discussed a similar sentiment in her book, she warns that those adopting a home theatre for the sake of economic mobility must be recognize that new technologies come encoded with traditional values. Users must be wary of expecting new technologies that promise “freedom” and “mastery”, as these properties are always most readily available to those who traditionally have them (Klinger, 2006). This is to say, simply acquiring new means to showcase one’s preferred taste and status does not allow just one group to advance in levels of influence and social capital, as all users receive the same boost, and those higher ranking in the traditional systems remain higher up.

Despite the difficulties evident in becoming and maintaining status as a reliable social media influencer, they are undeniably effective when integrated into marketing plans. This is in part due to their ability to communicate and engage with consumers in a seemingly organic and nonthreatening way. Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre (2011) identify the seven functional building blocks of social media: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups. The benefit of an SMI is that they are able engage with consumers using these foundations in a novel way. By building their personal brand, they form an identity, and this combined with fostering conversation with other users leads to the creation of social presence, an intimate relationship with their followers (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). SMIs who maintain a favorable reputation and maintain their relationships are able to take on the responsibility of opinion leaders in their community, thus allowing them to affect the adoption of new technology in said community (Richins & Root-Shaffer, 1988; Valente & Davis, 1999). Those are fortunate enough to cement their status as a social media influencer have indeed built a brand worth investing in.

Brands Using Influencers Using Social Capital On Social Media

With the growing presence of social media, organizations have less control than they once had over the conversation about their products and their entire entity. Consumers are opting to communicate with other consumers about brands and products, rather than take the word of the organization itself (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Social media maintains the traditional flow of information from company to customer, but incorporates a new route for customers to talk with one another (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Communication about their brands are happening with or without their permission, so companies must now decide how to participate in the conversation taking place on social media, or risk ignoring it (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). The majority of Fortune 500 companies have a corporate Facebook page, as well as an official Twitter account (Okazaki & Taylor, 2013). However, this type of social media presence is just a mediated version of the traditional, one-way communication that brands have always had with their stakeholders. As social media enforces a more participatory culture, it is more important for a company to know what its audience is saying about it, rather than focusing completely on the message the company is trying to get across(Markos-Kujbus & Gáti, 2012) In order to have more control over conversation, and public perception, many brands are choosing to use their own social media influencers. They choose respected and influential members of the communities they are targeting to reach with potential consumers.

Companies are advised not to pick an SMI just for their number of followers or for their rates of engagement. It is important the influencer, who may prove to become the “face” of the brand in the eyes of their followers, fits the brand’s image. Creating the right image holds the key to attracting similar consumer segments, and has been a central tenant for marketers and advertisers for decades (Okazaki & Taylor, 2013). Social media platforms are best for communicating a brand image that is consistent with potential consumers’ self or personal identity (Lee et al., 2008; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Social media users gravitate to influencers that they admire or hope to emulate, companies should aim to work with the influencers who have built the most social capital with target audiences. Choosing the right person to be a brand’s “storyteller”, and incorporating them in marketing and social media strategies, can shape or even protect a brand’s reputation (Booth & Matic, 2011). The fundamentals of social media relations mirror those of public relations, there must always be a strategic plan for how to implement any new aspect. In this case, an SMI must be integrated seamlessly into the plan, opening up a new channel for one-on-one communication with the “face” of the brand (Booth & Matic, 2011).

One tenet of effective implementation of strategy on social media comes from community building (Markos-Kujbus & Gáti, 2012), and by enlisting the help of a social media influencer, companies are able to reach an existing and loyal community. The “linchpin” of any consumer engagement effort on social media is social capital, (Bourdieu, 1984; Lin, 1999), which may not be easily accessible for a large corporation, but is the lifeblood of any good SMI. Having an SMI acting as a brand ambassador or spokesperson for a company enables more effective relationship building activity on social media, which leads to social capital and goodwill between brands and their consumers (Zu & Saxton, 2018). Acquiring social capital does not depend on quantity of engagement, it is not effective for a brand or an SMI to flood their followers’ timeline. Rather, capital comes from the diversity of engagement with stakeholders, including the content of the message itself (Zu & Saxton, 2018). Even with diverse engagement, social capital is not the desired final outcome from a company, it is valuable in the frame of a transactional economy, where capital can be spent on or converted into another desirable outcome (Zu & Saxton, 2018). Effective acquisition of social capital depends on how well organizations are able to connect with their stakeholders, which is why it is so important for a brand to find the right “storyteller” (Zu & Saxton, 2018). For companies that choose to adapt to the changing world of social media, social media influencers are the next step to meaningful engagement with their stakeholders. For those that choose to maintain traditional methods and shy away from change, they risk being left in the wake of continued advancement and significant loss of social capital.

Conclusion

The research addressed in this paper covered existing literature on the idea, and cultivation of, social capital, how social media has impacted such cultivation, and how this capital is now being used for personal and commercial advancement. Social capital is formed through fostering relationships, some casual, some more intimate, and being able to maintain them over time. Previously, the development of social capital was often overlooked, as the organization usually benefitted from the relationships more than any individual. But as social media has allowed those who may have had lower levels of social capital to form mediated bonds of similar strength, people have found a way to reap the benefits of such relationships. Just as individuals recognized the need for more “authentic” and relatable sources of information regarding brands and products, corporations realized the same. Businesses are gradually realizing that conversations about their brand are occurring in ways they can no longer control, and are doing their best to incorporate the new influx of influencers as a means to traditional marketing and advertising goals.

As discussed, becoming a social media influencer requires purposeful formation and maintenance of a personal brand. Even with such measures taken, traditional power structures limit who is able to turn their social capital into a lucrative brand. Researchers might consider further studies in regards to those who fail to obtain the social standing or the level of social capital that they had once hoped to achieve, and how these failures reflect systemic restrictions. Another area that researchers may consider is the success of companies that are cutting out the middle man, the influencer, and acting as individuals on social media. Well-known brands like Wendy’s and Netflix take advantage of the participatory culture of Twitter, and act like the average user, making jokes, using sarcasm, responding to mentions in a unconventional way for a large brand. It would be beneficial to see what audience members think of such engagement, and whether it succeeds in helping the brand reach their goals. Another piece of such a study could focus on which brands have the flexibility of using such an approach, while others are stuck in the traditional marketing strategies.

References

• Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. and Shapiro, D. (2012), “Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy”, Business Horizons, 55 (3), 261-71.
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Castro, A.C.C.S. (2018) Social media influencers: An exploratory approach to the relationship with SMI’s followers. Ship Technology Research, 53(4), 194-200.
• Coleman, James S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
• Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855–870.
• Frank, K.A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148-171.
• Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review 37(1), 90-92.
• Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22, 7–20.
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1480.
• Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017) Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191-208.
• Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241-251.
• Klinger, B. (1998) “The new media aristocrats: home theater and the domestic film experience.” The Velvet Light Trap, 42(4).
• Labrecque, L.I., Markos, E., & Milne, G.R. (2011) Online personal branding: Processes, challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive marketing, 25, 37-50.
• Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration: A comparison of technology- and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 149-170.
• Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.
• Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. London: Cambridge University Press.
• Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268.
• Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
• Marwick, A. (2013). Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
• Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–35.
• Okazaki, S. & Taylor, C.R. (2013) Social media and international advertising: theoretical challenges and future directions. International Marketing Review, 30(1), 56-71.
• Pfaffenberger, B. (1992) Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 491-516.
• Richins, M. L., Root-Shaffer T. (1988). The role of involvement and opinion leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit’. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(1), 32–36.
• Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Valente, T., Davis R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. ANNALS, 566(1), 55–67.
• Vanek, J. (1978). Household technology and social status: Rising living standards and status and residence differences in housework. Technology and Culture, 19(3), 361-375.

2018-12-12-1544575447