Social Media: A Contextual Framework to Guide Research · PDF fileSocial Media: A Contextual...

INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

Social Media: A Contextual Framework to Guide Research and Practice

Lynn A. McFarland and Robert E. PloyhartUniversity of South Carolina

Social media are a broad collection of digital platforms that have radically changed the way peopleinteract and communicate. However, we argue that social media are not simply a technology but actuallyrepresent a context that differs in important ways from traditional (e.g., face-to-face) and other digital(e.g., email) ways of interacting and communicating. As a result, social media is a relatively unexaminedtype of context that may affect the cognition, affect, and behavior of individuals within organizations. Wepropose a contextual framework that identifies the discrete and ambient stimuli that distinguish socialmedia contexts from digital communication media (e.g., email) and physical (e.g., face-to-face) contexts.We then use this contextual framework to demonstrate how it changes more person-centered theories oforganizational behavior (e.g., social exchange, social contagion, and social network theories). Thesetheoretical insights are also used to identify a number of practical implications for individuals andorganizations. This study’s major contribution is creating a theoretical understanding of social mediafeatures so that future research may proceed in a theory-based, rather than platform-based, manner.Overall, we intend for this article to stimulate and broadly shape the direction of research on thisubiquitous, but poorly understood, phenomenon.

Keywords: social media, organizational context, social networking

Humans are social animals, and the propensity to seek and formrelationships with others is deeply embedded into our DNA. Earlyin our history we formed into small packs of roving hunter-gatherers based upon common hunting techniques. The birth ofagriculture allowed the development of geographically stable com-munities. Advancements such as alphabets, printing presses, tele-phones, airplanes, and email continued to fulfill humans’ appetitefor social interaction and communication. In each major transition,the human need for building social relationships both created, andwere further stimulated by, technological changes that facilitatedinteraction: hunting tools, agriculture, air travel, and the Internet.In turn, in each transition, the social context within which peopleinteracted and communicated changed as well.We are in the midst of yet another social revolution stimulated

by the interaction between the human desire for connectivity and

technology. Social media are digital platforms that facilitate infor-mation sharing, user-created content, and collaboration across peo-ple (Elefant, 2011). Social media include networking sites such asFacebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zichuhr, 2010). This technology hasrevolutionized the way people connect, communicate, and developrelationships (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Derks & Bakker, 2013).Social media also have the potential to revolutionize organiza-tional behavior (e.g., leadership, engagement) and a variety ofHuman Resource (HR) functions, including recruitment, selection,and training and development. However, at this point the benefitsof social media are merely potential, and there is more speculationthan evidence. There are innumerable anecdotal claims discussingthe merits (and risks) of social media in the broader businesscommunity, but little scientific research that validates such claims.Thus, at a time when most organizations are struggling withincorporating or adapting to social media, there is almost noscholarly guidance to provide principles, best practices, or separatefact from fiction.Such neglect is problematic theoretically and practically. The-

oretically, social media present a context for interaction that arepotentially quite different from traditional interaction (e.g., face-to-face) and possibly other types of digital media (e.g., email).Some of the features unique to social media may challenge theability of existing theories and frameworks to explain cognition,affect, and behavior, and may require new theories and frame-works to fully understand social media and organizational behav-ior. Practically, managers are trying to understand whether or howtheir firms should employ social media for organizational pur-poses. Further complicating such issues is the fact that social

Editor’s Note. Steve W. J. Kozlowski served as the action editor for thismanuscript.—GC

This article was published Online First June 8, 2015.Lynn A. McFarland and Robert E. Ployhart, Department of Manage-

ment, University of South Carolina.We want to thank the SHRM Foundation for supporting the authors’

previous work on this topic because it helped stimulate our thinking aboutthe nature of social media in organizations. However, the ideas expresseddo not necessarily represent the views of the SHRM Foundation.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn A.

McFarland, 1014 Greene Street, Darla Moore School of Business, Univer-sity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected]

ThisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.

Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association2015, Vol. 100, No. 6, 1653–1677 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039244

1653

media contexts are believed to be so different from conventionalcontexts, that new laws and legal guidelines are being established(Elefant, 2011). Social media are a global phenomenon, and ne-glecting to examine social media with scientific scrutiny contrib-utes to the potential devaluation of applied psychological science(Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). It also misses an opportunity for appliedpsychology to influence public policy and law, at least to the extentthat scholarly journals become standards for professional practice.The purpose of this article is to develop new theoretical insights

that describe the nature and consequences of social media inorganizational settings. We develop theoretical arguments demon-strating that social media are not simply a different type of tech-nology, but rather represent contexts that can be distinguishedfrom more traditional organizational contexts. That is, social me-dia represent “ideal types” on one side of a continuum of socialinteraction contexts, with the other side containing physical (e.g.,face-to-face) contexts, and older digital technologies (e.g., email)falling in between.The framework developed in this article makes three contribu-

tions. First, the framework is based on a comprehensive integrationof multiple literatures to identify the underlying discrete ambientstimuli that distinguish social media contexts from traditional andolder digital contexts. These stimuli allow researchers to under-stand why social media, digital communication, and traditionalinteractions may have different effects on employee cognition,affect, and behavior. Second, this framework contributes to pos-tulates and propositions whose implications may require signifi-cant revisions to existing theories of interpersonal interactions andcommunication. We take three theories with broad support (socialexchange theory, social contagion theory, and social networktheory) to illustrate how the nature of social media contexts chal-lenge or transform these theories in new ways. Finally, the pro-posed framework is used to show how social media contextsinterrelate with traditional organizational contexts to stimulateimplications for practice (including potential benefits and potentialrisks). We show how many findings within a traditional organiza-tional context are affected by consideration of social media con-texts. We then use these practice issues to direct important theo-retical questions for future research. These three contributions are,respectively, presented in the three subsequent sections of thisarticle.

Positioning Social Media Within aContextual Framework

Social Media Defined

Social media are digital Web 2.0 platforms that facilitate infor-mation sharing, user-created content, and collaboration across peo-ple (see Elefant, 2011). Social media are digital in that they existentirely on the Internet or portals that can access the Internet (e.g.,cellular phones). Platforms are different mechanisms or techno-logical vehicles for connecting people and information. They arecreated by different outside entities that may develop the platformfor profit or noneconomic purposes (e.g., to share family pictures).Social media platforms include web-based and mobile-based Web2.0 technologies that allow an interactive dialogue between orga-nizations, communities, and individuals (Greenhow & Robelia,

2009a; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Content refers to the informa-tion posted to social media platforms that may include written text,pictures, videos, or most anything else that can be representeddigitally.Social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn are

among the most popular social networking platforms. Social net-working sites are web-based services that allow individuals to (a)create a public (or semipublic) profile within a system, (b) developa list of other users with which they share a connection, and (c)view and correspond with their list of connections (and even thosemade by others within the system; Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Otherexamples of social media include media sharing like YouTube andPhotobucket; wikis (i.e., collaborative knowledge development);creative works like blogs, social bookmarking such as CiteULike;and content compilation and organization such as RSS feeds(Greenhow, 2010). Social media also include forums designed toallow employees to vent and share information about employersand students to share information about teachers, such as Glass-door.com and ratemyprofessor.com.New types of social media are continually being created, but all

share an underlying platform that is based on Web 2.0 technology.This means they are based on an Internet structure that allows largenumbers of users to share in the creation, manipulation, anddistribution of content. Users do not just obtain content from theInternet; they help create it. In this way our connections canbecome the connections of our colleagues, and these colleaguesmay in turn alter the nature of that content or add new contentnearly instantly. This means social media networks can grow largeand evolve very quickly in unexpected ways (Greenhow & Robe-lia, 2009b).Social media can be distinguished from older Web 1.0 forms of

digital communication media such as email and text messaging.Web 1.0 platforms tend to be more linear in the way content isdistributed and do not easily support large and highly interactivenetworks (Dominick, 1999; Wei, 2012; Wei & Hindman, 2011).Unlike Web 2.0, Web 1.0 technologies do not allow multiple usersto access and manipulate posted content (they can only respond tocontent, or manipulate and then repost it). Thus, what distinguishessocial media from other forms of virtual communities and digitalcommunication media is that social media are much more open,interactive, fluid, and dynamic. To illustrate, imagine a group ofpeople talking over dinner. Web 1.0 platforms would be equivalentto members passing written notes back and forth, while Web 2.0platforms would be more similar to members talking interactively.An underlying premise in the manuscript is that knowledge and

insight about social media in organizational settings will occur ina more informed and systematic fashion when that research pro-ceeds according to a theory-directed framework. To date, thelimited research on social media has focused on specific platforms(e.g., selection using Facebook; Van Iddekinge, Lanivich, Roth, &Junco, in press). While valuable, we believe this progression willlead to a piecemeal and incomplete understanding of social media.For example, comparing knowledge transfer between traditional(physical) networks and LinkedIn networks may tell us somethingabout LinkedIn, but it does not necessarily contribute to a broaderscientific understanding of social media. In contrast, our approachshifts the locus of understanding from the technology to thecontextual features that distinguish social media. Therefore,throughout this article, “social media” refers to the sharing of



1654 MCFARLAND AND PLOYHART

information via the web or mobile devices based on Web 2.0platforms. However, we will refer to specific social media plat-forms (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn) as illustrations or when a pointrelates directly to a specific social media feature.

The Importance of Context

There are significant theoretical insights to be gained abouthuman behavior by understanding the defining features of thebroader context within which that behavior occurs (Cappelli &Sherer, 1991; Heath & Sitkin, 2001; Johns, 2006; Mischel, 1969;Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Porter, 1966; Rousseau & Fried, 2001;Schneider, Smith, & Sipe, 2000; Wright & Haggerty, 2005). Acontextual framework is especially important for understandingthe nature and consequences of social media in organizations.First, the phenomena of social media are so amorphous that, atpresent, they preclude any simple theoretical synthesis. Socialmedia platforms (e.g., Facebook, YouTube) take many forms andare quickly evolving. Each application differs in its characteristicsand features, and hence creates different opportunities or con-straints on behavior. Research that proceeds by trying to under-stand any one of these applications will produce a fragmented andunnecessarily complicated view of social media. Second, becausesocial media are still evolving, describing the technologies willlikely result in numerous “minitheories” that are only relevant tospecific applications and only in limited settings. Third, trying toapply existing person-focused theories to social media will leadscholars to neglect many of the features that make social mediacontexts different in the first place. Thus, developing a theoreticalframework to explain what social media are provides new insightsinto how social media influence the cognition, affect, and behaviorof people within organizations and in conjunction with the orga-nizational context.Johns (2006) defines context as “. . . situational opportunities

and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organi-zational behavior as well as functional relationships between vari-ables.” (p. 386). Cappelli and Sherer (1991) define context as “. . .the surroundings associated with phenomena which help to illu-minate that phenomena, typically factors associated with units ofanalysis above those expressly under investigation.” (p. 56). Rous-seau and Fried (2001) describe the process of identifying contex-tual features as “contextualizing,” suggesting further that it “. . .entails linking observations to a set of relevant facts, events, orpoints of view that make possible research and theory that formpart of a larger whole.” (p. 1). These definitions underlie a fewcritical points. First, an understanding of context contributes to anunderstanding of the entities embedded within that context. Sec-ond, context affects the cognition, affect, and behavior of individ-uals embedded within it. Third, context influences processes andinterrelationships between constructs, as well as the meaning thatpeople ascribe to events or themselves (Johns, 2006). As Lewin(1936) noted, behavior can only be understood as a function of theperson and contextual situation.Johns’ (2006) framework for understanding context suggests

that contextual features exist in a hierarchy, such that the discretecontext is embedded within the omnibus context. The omnibuscontext describes the most general features of context and providesa broad understanding of what the context is at a macro level (e.g.,who, where, when, and why). The discrete context identifies the

specific features of the context that are the most proximal influ-ences on the cognition, affect, and behavior of people embeddedwithin the context. The discrete context contains the specificcharacteristics of the environment that are proximal influences onhuman cognition, affect, and behavior. For example, prior researchthat has identified contextual stimuli such as work group interde-pendence, conjunctive versus disjunctive tasks, or the dynamismof the external environment, illustrates the nature of the discretecontext (see Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003;Thompson, 1967). In this framework, the effects of the omnibuscontext on behavior are mediated (explained by) the discretecontext. In turn, understanding the nature of behavior withina context requires understanding of both the discrete and om-nibus context.This conceptualization of context is clearly aligned with

multilevel theorizing and principles (Kozlowski & Klein,2000). The omnibus context and discrete ambient stimuli existat different levels, with the latter stimuli subsumed within theomnibus context. Understanding this nested view of context,and the manner in which top-down effects occur, benefits byrecognizing the dynamics that underlie multilevel systems.Most important for present purposes is realization that stimulimost adjacent to a given level are likely to have strongerconsequences than stimuli that are farther removed (a conceptknown as bond strength; Simon, 1973). Therefore, discreteambient stimuli will more strongly affect individual cognition,affect, and behavior than will the omnibus context. Likewise,top-down contextual effects happen relatively faster thanbottom-up effects, reflecting multilevel asymmetries (Kozlow-ski & Klein, 2000). As we shall see, more than one context mayexist at one time, such that social media contexts interrelatewith the organizational context.With context defined in this manner, it will be shown that

social media represent an extreme form of context that is verydifferent from the nondigital context (e.g., face to face or groupinteraction, printed media), and even other forms of digitalcommunication media (e.g., email). In turn, this means thatcognition, affect, and behavior within social media contextswill often differ—sometimes drastically—from what is mani-fested in more traditional organizational contexts. To makesense of these differences and why they occur, we build fromthe framework of Johns (2006) and others (Cappelli & Sherer,1991; Mischel, 1969; Rousseau & Fried, 2001) to define anddescribe social media contexts. We first identify the broadomnibus features of a contextual continuum that ranges fromphysical to digital, and then discuss the specific discrete ambi-ent features that operationalize social media contexts and dis-tinguish them from other contexts. Figure 1 provides an over-view of the contextual framework.

The Omnibus Context Continuum

Similar to research on virtual teams (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski,2002; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), we propose that the context withinwhich social interaction occurs falls on a continuum, with socialmedia at one extreme and nondigital (i.e., physical) social inter-action falling at the other extreme. Digital communication media(e.g., email) lies between these two extremes. The omnibus contextis truly a continuum, but we use social media, face-to-face, and



1655SOCIAL MEDIA IN ORGANIZATIONS

digital communication media as idealized types to illustrate thekey features of each omnibus environment.The social media end of the context continuum is a human-

constructed, immaterial, digital system for facilitating social in-teraction and communication. Social media are human construc-tions (Web 2.0) similar to the construction of skyscrapers orhighway systems. However, skyscrapers or highways are material,tangible objects accessible to the senses. Social media, in contrast,are immaterial, intangible, virtual, and digital contexts that do notexist outside of the human-created environment that support them.Specifically, if there were a total loss of electricity or substitutableenergy sources, then social media do not exist. Social media aredigital in the sense that information is captured and presented interms of bits or types of information that can be assembled intocomplex strings of information. For example, one may watch a“real time” video on the Internet, but regardless of its realism, thisimage is still a combination of bits of information.The nondigital end of the context continuum is one that exists

in the physical (material) world. Examples include face-to-faceinteractions with other people, small group interactions, andother forms of interaction or communication that occur in anenvironment that has physical substance. Between these twoextremes are digital communication media. Examples includeemail, text messaging, Skype, and related platforms based onWeb 1.0 technology. They are similar to social media in thatthey are human-constructed, digital, and virtual. However, dig-ital communication media are more linear because they arebased on Web 1.0 technology (e.g., do not enable members tomanipulate content easily).The omnibus difference between the digital (immaterial) and

nondigital (material) contexts can be summarized in terms oftime and space (distance). Specifically, the barriers of time andspace are minimized, possibly even eliminated, in social mediacontexts relative to nondigital contexts. With social media it is

possible to communicate instantly, interactively, and asynchro-nously with others who are geographically distributed; suchinteractions can occur numerous times in a day with differentand even large groups of people. In the nondigital context, suchcommunication is considerably more constrained and challeng-ing; if not impossible. Within the digital context, digital com-munication media and social media can be further distinguishedin that social media offer a context that is generally more open,interactive, dynamic, and fluid.Although we have described different idealized types along

the contextual continuum, it should be remembered that orga-nizational members are exposed to multiple contexts (Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard, & Berg, 2013). Employees will slidebetween digital and nondigital contexts throughout their day,perhaps checking email, collaborating on social media, andengaging in face-to-face meetings and interactions. Althoughmembers shift through these contexts to varying degrees and invarying amounts, each context will shape cognition, affect, andbehavior depending on where the context is located on thecontextual continuum. For example, we interact differentlywhen talking within a small group setting than we do over emailor virtually (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Kirkman, Gibson, &Kim, 2012). Figure 1 does not imply that organizational behav-ior is constrained within one context, but rather that multipleomnibus contexts exist and they will create predictable influ-ences on cognition, affect, and behavior.However, the most profound implication is that social media

represents extreme types of psychosocial contexts within whichpeople interact and communicate that is different from other con-texts. Most of the current treatments of social media are viewedentirely from practical considerations: faster, cheaper, and better(see Jue, Marr, & Kassotakis, 2010, for a thorough review). Suchpractical considerations are important but do not explain for whom

Figure 1. Theoretical framework of social media context.




these benefits might occur, where, when, or why—that is, theylack a description of the omnibus context. Thus:

Postulate 1: An omnibus contextual continuum exists, withsocial media at one extreme and nondigital (physical) contextsat the other extreme.1

We now turn to describing the specific discrete ambient stimulithat distinguish social media from other contexts in which socialinteraction takes place.

The Discrete Context of Social Media

The discrete context represents the specific, lower level, ambi-ent stimuli that are the most proximal influences on individualcognition, affect, and behavior (Johns, 2006). There is some ad-jacent research that has considered the nature of these ambientstimuli. For example, research on virtual teams highlights techno-logical features such as accessibility, social presence, spatial dis-tance, or communication medium to distinguish virtual teams fromconventional teams (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hoch & Koz-lowski, 2014; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). More specific tosocial media, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) categorize social mediaplatforms in terms of media richness and self-disclosure. Kietz-mann, Hermkens, McCarthy, and Silvestre (2011) present sevenbuilding blocks of social media, including identity, conversations,sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups.We conducted an extensive review of scholarly research on

social media from the organizational, educational, psychological,information technology, computer science, communications, mar-keting, and law literatures. We integrate and extend this priorresearch to posit eight discrete ambient stimuli that distinguishsocial media contexts from physical, nondigital context. Thesesame stimuli also help make fine distinctions between digitalcommunication media and social media. There are a large numberof specific ambient stimuli that are likely to vary considerablyacross omnibus contexts, but not all of these are necessarilycritical. Therefore, we focus only on the most important ambientstimuli for understanding social media in organizational contexts.We should note that these stimuli are obviously interrelated, andthey may interact with each other to exaggerate or minimize theirdirect effects. However, here we describe each independently toprovide a greater appreciation of their features. Also note that wepresent these attributes in a stylized manner, meaning that one mayfind an exception to the various points but the arguments areexpected to hold in general. The ambient stimuli most relevant tosocial media are summarized in Table 1.

Physicality. Physicality is the extent to which a given expe-rience is tangible or accessible to the senses (Johns, 2006). Exam-ples include geography, location, weather, temperature, and phys-ical structures (e.g., cities). Physical stimuli create differences incultural orientation, values, and attitudes because they presentbarriers that contribute to people forming collectives with thosenearby. For example, geographic barriers such as mountains oroceans contributed to the emergence of regional differences inlanguages, cultural values, and political systems (Alderman,2012). In the nondigital context, most social interaction occurswith people located in fairly close physical proximity. Classicsocial psychology research suggests that physical proximity affectsthe form of relationships in many ways, both positive (promoting

liking and attraction) and negative (crowding creates conflict oraggression; e.g., Freedman, 1975; Kraut, Fussell, Brennan, &Siegel, 2002; Merry, 1987). In contrast, physical stimuli are almostcompletely irrelevant for shaping social media interactions. Solong as there is Internet or cellular access, a user can connect withany other user from anywhere on the globe. Although there areregional differences in Internet access, and obvious language dif-ferences, once access is obtained, one has access to social mediaregardless of location. Further, physical stimuli such as weather,snowstorms, and the like, only affect social media to the extentsuch climatic events produce a loss of connectivity. Thus, theconstraints put in place by physical stimuli in nondigital contextsare scarcely relevant in social media contexts, and for digitalcommunication contexts as well (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).

Accessibility. Access stimuli are features of social systems orstructures that influence the opportunity to join a network. Theaccess may be perceived, such as when a person avoids a socialrelationship for fear of rejection, or real, such as when there is noopportunity to join a network (e.g., great physical distance). Theextent to which network access is open in the nondigital world isseverely constrained by barriers both physical (e.g., geography,distance, and weather) and social (e.g., political differences acrosscountries). Usually, one must be in close physical proximity togain opportunity to move from a member outside the network to amember inside the network (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993), becausejoining a network requires time, interaction, and trust. In contrast,access to social media contexts is mainly limited by social barriersbecause physical access is open to all who have Internet or cellularconnectivity. Clearly one will not have access to all of the socialnetworks that exist within social media, but there is open access toenter social media contexts in the first place (e.g., there are nobarriers to opening a Facebook account). Further, within socialmedia it is possible to have multiple users connect to an individualor network and gain their cumulative knowledge. Subscribing toblogs posted by leading thinkers in a given area is one example.Most of us will never meet Richard Branson, but millions ofpeople follow him on LinkedIn. Similarly, “following” a personwho posts a great deal provides access to his or her content andexpertise. Accessibility is also more open for social media thandigital communication media like email. Until Web 2.0 platformsemerged, most Web 1.0 digital communications were linear andstemmed from a small group of users. Even though users couldsend mass emails to many members, one had to first find the emailaddresses (that is itself often difficult), send the mass email, andhope that various filters did not block the email. The persongenerating the email had to assume all the effort. In contrast, socialmedia platforms based on Web 2.0 streamline this entire processbut also enable others to join the network to receive and generatecontent. Thus, social media contexts can be more open and acces-sible than nondigital contexts and even digital communicationmedia.

1 This article provides both postulates and propositions. Postulates arebroad statements that provide the starting point for more specific theoret-ical arguments. Propositions are more precise operationalizations of thepostulate that are used to demonstrate the truth of the postulate. Postulatesand propositions are not testable themselves because of their breadth, butcontribute to the development of hypotheses that can be empirically tested.




Latency. Temporal stimuli have strong influences on individ-ual thought and action (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Marks, Mathieu,& Zaccaro, 2001; Mitchell & James, 2001; Roe, 2008). Temporalstimuli represent some of the most profound differences betweensocial media and nondigital contexts, and the most important islatency. Latency refers to how long it takes to share content on anetwork. Latency is relatively slow in nondigital contexts (e.g.,consider how long it took for information to spread over printmedia nearly a century ago). In contrast, content that is posted andshared using social media platforms is nearly instantly available.Indeed, it is for this reason that news platforms are increasinglyrelying on social media to break stories more quickly than can bedone with reporters. For example, social media played a vital rolein recognizing, and then responding to, the Fukushima nucleardisaster in Japan, all in “real time” (Funabashi, 2012). The spreadof content using digital communications media can be as fast associal media. However, the user-oriented nature of Web 2.0 plat-forms makes it slightly easier, and hence slightly faster, to spreadcontent in social media. Further, the spread of additional contentafter an initial posting is faster in social media (Zhao, Jiang, Weng,He, Lim, Yan, & Li, 2011). Thus, content presented in socialmedia contexts occurs with shorter latency than content presentedin nondigital contexts.

Interdependence. Interdependence (i.e., the manner in whichmember interactions are interrelated with each other) has a pro-found influence on cognition, affect, and behavior (Bell & Koz-lowski, 2002; Thompson, 1967). Member interdependence mayrange from completely autonomous and independent, to sequential(each person’s output is another person’s input), to reciprocal (like

sequential, but a person’s output can be sent back to the priorindividual for revision), to intensive (there is rich two-way inter-action between any members at any time; Bell & Kozlowski,2002). Interdependence in the nondigital context is usually deter-mined by a variety of physical, task, social, and temporal barriers.For example, there are physical limits on how many people can bepart of a group, and groups will naturally break into subgroups ifa group becomes too large (Dunbar, 2014). Many of these barriersbecome less important in social media contexts, and hence allowthe opportunity for different types of interdependence to emerge.For example, tasks that require high interdependence can begreatly facilitated by using social media because time and spaceare no longer barriers to interaction. At the same time, basiccharacteristics of the platform, such as the manner in which peoplecan (and cannot) interact, will influence coordination and commu-nication (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). For example, social mediaenable an intensive type of interdependence because any membercan access content and manipulate the nature of the content for thebenefit of all members. In contrast, digital communication medialike email are more sequential or reciprocal because content has tobe manipulated by a member, and then emailed back to all othermembers, who may in turn manipulate the content and then emailback to the broader collective. Thus, social media allow greaterinterdependence than digital communication media, which in turnare greater than nondigital interactions.

Synchronicity. Synchronicity captures the extent to whichmembers engage in relationships or communication that requirethem to be temporally “in tune” (synchronous) versus at their ownpace (asynchronous). Task demands will often dictate whether

Table 1How the Discrete Ambient Stimuli Differ Across the Contextual Continuum

This stimulus . . .

. . . makes social media contextsdistinct from physical contexts

because . . .Contextual continuum

Physicality Geographic location, weather, distance,and so on, are largely irrelevant.

Physical; tangible to allof the senses

F2F DCM SM Digital

Accessibility There is more open access to socialmedia than other relationship orcommunication platforms.

Less opportunity to joinnetwork; less openaccess

F2F DCM SM More opportunity tojoin network; moreopen access

Latency The posting or spread of content onsocial media is nearly instant.

Sharing of content isslower

F2F DCM SM Sharing of content isfaster

Interdependence There are more opportunities to shareinformation across a wider range ofpeople.

Fewer opportunities toshare informationacross a large range ofpeople

F2F DCM SM More opportunities toshare informationacross a largerange of people

Synchronicity Relationships and communication canbe either synchronous orasynchronous, with equaleffectiveness.

Synchronous F2F DCM SM Either synchronous orasynchronous

Permanence Content posted on social media ispermanent or nearly so.

Less permanent F2F DCM SM More permanent

Verifiability Content posted to social media can beverified or cross-examined byothers.

Harder to verify F2F DCM SM Easier to verify

Anonymity Users often think and behavedifferently when using social mediabecause they have the perceptionthat they are more anonymous.

Less anonymity F2F DCM SM Greater anonymity

Note. F2F � face-to-face; DCM � digital communication media (e.g., email, texting, and Web 1.0 platforms); SM � social media (e.g., Linked-In,Facebook, and Web 2.0 platforms). Note that “ties” between DCM and SM may be possible (e.g., physicality, permanence).




communication needs to be synchronous or asynchronous (Bell &Kozlowski, 2002; Thompson, 1967). The creation and mainte-nance of interpersonal relationships in the nondigital world gen-erally requires a greater degree of synchronized interaction. How-ever, simultaneously, synchronized interaction with one networkmeans it is not possible to be interacting with another network.There are physical and temporal limits on how active a person canbe across multiple networks that may span home, work, andpersonal-life (Burt, 1992). Further, the creation and maintenanceof interpersonal relationships in the physical world requires a highdegree of direct engagement and activity (Blau, 1964; Dunbar,2014). However, both synchronous and asynchronous interactioncan be effective in social media contexts. Asynchronous interac-tion and communication are possible because postings may occurat any time and from anywhere. For example, consider how manysimultaneous social network “conversations” you are currentlyengaged in. Likewise, one may be a member of a social networkyet post only infrequently. In this manner, it is possible for aperson to be a member of many social networks, and gain thebenefits of such membership, but actively participate (i.e., syn-chronized) in relatively few of them at any given time. In thisregard digital communication media and social media are similar.However, digital communication media are less able to supportsynchronous communication than social media when the size ofthe network exceeds more than a few members, mainly because theWeb 1.0 platforms are based on linear correspondence (post,respond). Thus, social media contexts more greatly enable, andsupport, either synchronous or asynchronous interaction.

Permanence. Permanence refers to how long the content thatis posted on the social media system exists. Before the digital age,content was stored on microfiche or in print in libraries or archives,but the physical demands of storing it resulted in only limitedcontent being preserved. Face-to-face interactions have even morelimited permanence, as the content exists solely in human memorythat is fallible and subject to many biases and inaccuracies (Morris,1983; Smith, 1979). In response to these limitations, organizationsmay digitally record and share the summaries of key informationover email or web postings. Social media contexts similarly offerthe opportunity (or risk) for much greater permanence. In theory,anything that has been posted on the Internet exists forever even ifit has been deleted, because the data is housed on backup serversor through downloads on various users’ hardware. Thus, what isposted in the digital context, whether by social media or olderdigital technologies, may live indefinitely. This is important be-cause even though a person’s attitudes and opinions may changeover time, prior expressions of these attitudes and opinions that areexpressed over social media still exist.

Verifiability. Verifiability is the extent to which content orinformation can be checked or reviewed. It is related to perma-nence, but not the same because verifiability focuses on evaluatingthe content of what was posted.2 Information can be verified innondigital contexts (e.g., printed media), but not for all content(e.g., word of mouth). In contrast, content presented in socialmedia contexts can be verified quickly (think of backgroundchecks today vs. 50 years ago), and there is often no ambiguityabout what was posted. Further, because content on social mediaplatforms is (to varying degrees) accessible by others, it can besearched and verified more quickly and easily than content postedusing digital communication media like email. For example, hav-

ing a third-party verify the content of a person’s email must bedone with either the person’s permission or by court decree (Sher-man, 2007). In contrast, social media content is considered public,which is what enables employers to review social media contentfor recruiting purposes. Even more unique to social media contextsis the fact that verifiability can occur not only with what wasposted, but also where and when it was posted. The location andtime stamps present on many social media postings allow one toverify where a user was at a specific point in time (a pointembarrassingly made by U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra whotweeted his location [and put his delegation’s lives in danger] asthey entered the Green Zone during the Iraq conflict). In thismanner, most everything a person has ever posted in social mediacontexts is verifiable.

Anonymity. Anonymity is the extent to which a person can beidentified (Marx, 2004). It is a well-established psychologicalprinciple that the degree to which a person is anonymous changesone’s cognition and behavior (see Hopkins, 1889 and LeBon,1896, for some very early examples and Anonymous, 1998; Marx,2004, and Smith, Terry, & Hogg, 2007, for more recent discus-sions). Being publicly associated with an idea often raises one’scommitment to the idea, but also results in greater personal critiqueof the idea before it is made public. We are less likely to makeoutrageous claims when the claim is tied to us (Diener, 1976). Wealso behave differently when we see people face-to-face than whenwe do not (e.g., Kugihara, 2001). It is difficult to be anonymous inthe nondigital world, and arguably impossible because others canat least identify one’s appearance (Smith, Terry, & Hogg, 2007). Incontrast, it is easy to be anonymous in social media contexts(Wayner, 1999). Users can create fake names, aliases, or even usethe names of other people, and post content under these aliases.Digital media can allow anonymity for some platforms, such aswhen one creates a fake username using a free email domain (e.g.,Google, Yahoo), but not others, such as text messaging (that is tiedto a phone number). Social media creates the potential for users tobe more anonymous than they would with most other communi-cation platforms, and this opportunity for anonymity can lead toalarming behavior. Douglas and McGarty (2001) found that peoplewho were anonymous on the Internet were much more likely tomake hostile comments and convey threats (in chat rooms and viainstant messaging). Further, Chiou (2006) found that individualsprovided much more information about themselves online whenthey believed they were anonymous. The sender’s anonymity canalso affect the target of the information (Smith et al., 2007). Forexample, information may be perceived as less credible comingfrom an anonymous source (Rains & Scott, 2007). Thus, anonym-ity has the potential to affect both the sender and the user of theinformation exchanged.

Implications. Upon a contextual continuum, social media rep-resent an idealized form containing discrete ambient stimuli dif-ferent from other contexts within which relationships and commu-nication occur. Identifying the eight discrete ambient stimuli is an

2 Note that we use the term “verifiability” broadly. It is not limited toevaluating the accuracy or truthfulness of what was posted; only that it ispossible to determine what content was posted, by whom, when, andwhere. For example, a politician may change a position on a subject. Here,verifiability means it is possible to determine whether the position changed,irrespective of the accuracy of either position.




important theoretical contribution because it enables researchers tomake sharper and more specific distinctions between differentpoints along the context continuum. For example, if designing anexperiment, scholars could focus on manipulating the discreteambient stimuli rather than simply adopting an existing platform,because platforms may disappear or change significantly over time(e.g., Napster) and hence research findings become platform-specific. These observations lead to the following postulate.

Postulate 2: There are eight discrete ambient stimuli thatdistinguish social media contexts from nondigital contextsand, to varying degrees, other digital media communicationcontexts: physicality, accessibility, latency, interdependence,synchronicity, permanence, verifiability, and anonymity.

Of course, readers must be reminded that we have developed thetheory underlying these stimuli in a stylized manner. This meansthe distinctions are expected to hold in general, but exceptions cancertainly occur. For example, social media can have a shorterlatency than email, but this will not always be the case (e.g.,emailing a spouse about dinner plans). Similarly, we have pre-sented each of the stimuli independently, but they will clearly beinterrelated and often interacting, sometimes in contradictoryways. Further, older digital media and social media may be indis-tinguishable on some dimensions, such as physicality or perma-nence. Future empirical research will be needed to identify theseissues, as we discuss in a later section.In the following section we turn to examining the implication of

Postulates 1 and 2. From these postulates we develop three broadlyimportant propositions that convey the implications of social me-dia contexts for changing our understanding of employee cogni-tion, affect, and behavior.

Implications of Social Media Contexts for Theory

Social media contexts are different from those studied in pastresearch. Theories and empirical findings developed in nondigitalcontexts may need to be modified—possibly quite significant-ly—to reflect the uniqueness of the omnibus social media context.It may even be possible that entirely new theories will need to bedeveloped. The unique context of social media has three broadimplications. First, it may change the meaning people ascribe tophenomena, constructs, and processes within social media con-texts. Second, there may be direct effects of the discrete ambientstimuli on the magnitude or direction of relationships. Third, theremay be interactive effects among the discrete ambient stimuli onthe magnitude or direction of relationships.For each direct or interactive effect, we note how the effects

may change, enhance, or constrain cognition, affect, and behavior.We illustrate these implications using three theories highly rele-vant to social media contexts: social exchange theory, social con-tagion theory, and social network theory. We chose these theoriesbecause they have proven broadly applicable across many non-digital contexts, seem reasonable starting places for understandingsocial media, and are beginning to be applied to social mediaresearch questions (e.g., Bond, Fariss, Jones, Kramer, Marlow,Settle, & Fowler, 2012; Borgatti, Mehra, Brass, & Labianca, 2009;Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007). Thus, using these theories asillustrations allows us to demonstrate how social media contexts

often require more than simple generalizations of existing theo-ries.3

Proposition 1: The discrete ambient stimuli resulting fromsocial media contexts change the meaning or interpretation ofexisting theoretical concepts, constructs, or processes.

The discrete ambient stimuli that distinguish the social mediaside of the contextual continuum create an environment where themeaning attached to phenomena, constructs, or processes maydiffer radically from the meaning attached to these same charac-teristics on the nondigital side of the contextual continuum. Weillustrate these changes in meaning using social exchange theory.Social exchange theory proposes that social behavior is the resultof an exchange process whereby individuals weigh the potentialrisks and benefits associated with their social relationships (Blau,1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1958). In this context, risks areconsidered costs for developing or maintaining a relationship, suchas the amount of resources (e.g., time or money) that are requiredto continue the relationship. Benefits are what the individualobtains or gains from the relationship (e.g., friendship, support,and fun). A relationship will continue over time as long as thebenefits outweigh the costs. Costs and benefits may vary fromperson to person because they depend on the point of view of theindividual (Blau, 1964).Social media contexts have the potential to change the meaning

of key concepts in social exchange theory from the way they areunderstood in the physical world. First, the very meaning andinterpretation of social relationships may differ because of differ-ences in physicality. Relationships in social media contexts aretechnologically mediated over platforms such as blogs, tweets, andstatus updates. There is evidence to suggest that the immaterialnature of these “digital” relationships differs from those in othersocial contexts (e.g., Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Greenhow & Robelia,2009a; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). For example, Boyd andEllison (2007) found that the meaning of collegial connections wasinterpreted differently and much more broadly in social mediacontexts (likely because of greater accessibility and interdepen-dence). Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) similarly found thatthere were different types of relationships perceived within socialmedia contexts.Second, the meaning of cost differs in social media contexts

because of differences in latency and asynchronicity. Social mediamay influence the interpretation of “cost” because one can “friend”others and then interact asynchronously when personally conve-nient. For example, these platforms allow one to become col-leagues via social media with other users, but in a manner that doesnot require the individual to invest significant resources (e.g., timeor money) on the relationship, yet still potentially learn a great dealfrom those on their friend list. That is, relationships within socialmedia contexts may be perceived as less costly.Third, the meaning of benefits differs in social media contexts

because of differences in accessibility, latency, and interdepen-dence. For example, investment in social networks may benefit

3 Also note that for parsimony, this section focuses primarily on theextremes of the contextual continuum shown in Figure 1, emphasizingdifferences between social media and nondigital (e.g., face-to-face) con-texts rather than digital communication media contexts.




individuals through greater access to and use of information (e.g.,advice, expertise), influence (“putting in a good word”), socialcredentials (networks “standing behind”), and reinforcement ofidentity and recognition (Lin, 1999). Interpersonal feedback andpeer acceptance through social media connections contribute topersonal identity construction (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009).Even simple asynchronous relationships can offer meaningful ben-efits in a social media context.Finally, the evaluation of exchange relationships over time has

a different interpretation in social media contexts because ofdifferences in physicality, accessibility, latency, and asynchronic-ity. According to the “proximity principle,” it is costly to maintainclose interpersonal relationships in the nondigital world when theparties are separated by great distances (Newcomb, 1960). Phys-icality is largely irrelevant in social media contexts. For example,one of the often-advertised benefits of social media is an ability tostay connected with old colleagues who may live thousands ofmiles away. If the costs of relationships in social media contextsare perceived differently than in nondigital contexts, then it be-comes possible to maintain more “beneficial” relationships formuch longer periods of time (because of greater asynchronicityand shorter latency). The work of Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe(2007) suggests that networking through social media platformsmay help to crystallize professional relationships that “might oth-erwise remain ephemeral” (p. 25), encouraging users to strengthenties and maintain connections with former colleagues; thus, allow-ing people to stay connected even if they move from one locationor job to another. In this manner, people’s interpretation of time, itsduration and scope, are radically different.Thus, the immaterial nature of social media contexts has the

potential to transform one’s interpretations of relationships, costs,benefits, and time. Proposition 1 can be used to stimulate testablehypotheses examining how social media contexts change themeaning of concepts and phenomena. This research should beconducted in accordance with Rousseau and Fried’s (2001) Tier 1(rich description) approach to contextualization. This requires notsimply measuring constructs or processes already used in priorresearch, but taking a more fundamental examination of under-standing the richness of the context and emphasizing the unique-ness of the setting. In fact, it is quite possible that existing mea-sures are contaminated or deficient in social media contexts. Thisissue is similar to the challenges faced by those studying cross-cultural issues. Many of the concepts and phenomena identified inone cultural context may have different meanings and interpreta-tions in different cultural contexts (e.g., Brett, Tinsley, Janssens,Barsness, & Lytle, 1997). Likewise, the study of relationships andcommunication in social media contexts will benefit from focusingfirst on the discrete ambient stimuli, to understand how peoplemake sense of constructs and phenomena in this new environment,and then compare these interpretations to those in more traditionalorganizational settings. New operational definitions and measuresmay need to be developed, and new constructs may be identifiedthat had not previously been considered. Qualitative research willbe an important research methodology in understanding socialmedia contexts.

Proposition 2: The discrete ambient stimuli resulting fromsocial media contexts directly influence the magnitude and/or

direction of relationships among cognition, affect, andbehavior.

The discrete ambient stimuli that distinguish social media fromother contexts are likely to directly influence the nature of rela-tionships among cognitive, affective, and behavioral constructsand processes. Examining the direct effects of these discrete con-textual stimuli is similar to traditional multilevel research because“lower level” observations like individual attitudes or performanceare nested within a “higher level” context. This is a manifestationof the classic cross-level model (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).That is, the discrete ambient stimuli in social media contexts areexpected to be direct proximal influences on the manner in whichindividuals or collectives interact and communicate.We illustrate these direct contextual effects using social conta-

gion theory. Social contagion theory originated in sociology toexplain the spread of within-network members’ attitudes, emo-tions, or ideas, such that individual behavior becomes collectivebehavior (Barsade & Gibson, 2002). The reasoning behind thistheory is that networks are conduits for “infectious” attitudes,emotions, and behavior (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Com-munication networks expose people, groups, and organizations toinformation, attitudinal messages, and the behaviors of others(Burt, 1992; Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990; Ibarra & Andrews,1993). This exposure increases the likelihood that network mem-bers will develop beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes similar tothose of their networks (e.g., Barsade & Gibson, 2002; Carley &Kaufer, 1993; Erickson, 1988).Most applications of social contagion theory are focused in

nondigital (face-to-face) contexts involving small groups. For in-stance, contagion may be activated by leaders and is especiallylikely in work group settings (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Kelly &Barsade, 2001; Sy, Cöté, & Saavedra, 2005). However, the mannerin which “infectious” attitudes, emotions, and behaviors spreadmay be both enhanced or suppressed in social media contexts.First, the potentially anonymous nature of interactions withinsocial media contexts is likely to facilitate more inappropriate,infectious behavior than would be true in nondigital contexts. Thisfact, coupled with more open access to social networks and moreinterdependent networks, creates greater opportunities for the on-set or prevalence of infectious expressions relative to email, forexample. Second, removing constraints because of time (latency)and space (physicality) allow infectious expressions to be spreadmore quickly and broadly. Third, the greater intensive forms ofinterdependence create tighter extended networks, thereby gener-alizing the infectious expressions more broadly (i.e., they go“viral”). These features of social media contexts are vividly illus-trated by observing that they contribute to large-scale change andcrowd behavior. For example, some claim that the Occupy WallStreet movement spread so quickly because of the heavy use of theInternet and social media (Caren & Gaby, 2011). Thus, discreteambient stimuli unique to social media contexts create the poten-tial for social contagion to happen more often, more quickly, andmore broadly.Proposition 2 can be used to prompt specific testable hypotheses

relating the discrete ambient stimuli to differences in cognition,affect, and behavior. These hypotheses should focus on how thediscrete ambient stimuli enhance or suppress the relationships ofinterest. Studies designed to test these hypotheses can take two




forms. On the one hand, varying the levels of these stimuli canoccur purely within social media contexts (what Rousseau & Fried,2001, refer to as “Tier 2 [direct observation and analysis ofcontextual effects]”, e.g., one could examine different social mediaplatforms [e.g., Facebook vs. LinkedIn] that vary on key stimulisuch as anonymity and permanence). Alternatively, research in thisarea can be comparative across contexts (what Rousseau & Fried,2001, refer to as “Tier 3”). This type of research would comparecognition, affect, and behavior across social media, digital com-munication media, and nondigital contexts. For example, onemight compare the effects of physicality or accessibility between asocial media context versus email within a more typical organiza-tional context. These forms of research are also multilevel, andhence should draw heavily from multilevel theory, methods, andstatistical models (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). For example,individuals may be nested within small groups, which are in turnnested within different social media contexts by using platformsthat differ in synchronicity. In this type of design, social mediacontexts will shape the nature of group interactions, and groupinteractions will shape the nature of individual cognition, affect, orbehavior.

Proposition 3: The discrete ambient stimuli resulting fromsocial media contexts interactively influence the magnitudeand/or direction of relationships among cognition, affect, andbehavior.

In contrast to the direct effects suggested above, Proposition 3suggests that the discrete ambient stimuli can interact with eachother. In some instances these interactions will lead to the enhance-ment or facilitation of behavior, whereas in other instances theseinteractions will lead to the suppression of behavior (cf., Johns,2006). Interactions among the discrete stimuli are likely to be verycommon.We illustrate the nature of these interactions using social net-

work theory. In social network theory, social relationships areconceptualized in terms of nodes and ties (Granovetter, 1973,1982). Nodes represent the individuals within the networks andties represent the relationships between those individuals. In itssimplest form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant tiesbetween the nodes being studied. The main features of networksare size (number of connections) and quality (information value ofthe set of connections). Although it may seem that a larger networkis better because it brings more opportunities to obtain informa-tion, the larger networks also require more time and energy. Toomany connections can result in difficulty managing informationand a failure to maintain high quality relationships with others intheir network (Burt, 1992). Therefore, network size is often in-versely related to network or relationship quality.The fact that social media are often referred to as social net-

working tools is not mere coincidence; the various social mediaplatforms that allow social networking overlap in many ways withsocial network theory (Sacks & Graves, 2012). However, thefeatures of social media contexts and the varieties of social mediaplatforms allow scholars to significantly extend the boundaries ofsocial network theory. For example, is the often-found inverserelationship between network size and quality found in socialmedia contexts? One could hypothesize that different social net-working platforms differ in their openness, synchronicity, and

permanence. These ambient stimuli may interact, such that thehighest quality information will occur when a person joins anetwork with open access, asynchronous posting, and permanentinformation. These are the precise conditions of many “discussionboards” or forums focused on specific interests or hobbies. In thisexample, the negative relationship between network size and qual-ity may become positive. Social media connections do not have tobe as time consuming as traditional relationships, and it is possibleto get access to a much broader network (and potentially, a moreknowledgeable network).On the other hand, interactions among discrete ambient stimuli

may strengthen the negative direction. For example, more openaccess to networks also means that the differences between expertsand novices decreases because even novices may have the samewide access to audiences (Howe, 2009). One could hypothesize aninteraction between access and latency, such that open access withinstant postings will contribute to novices flooding the networkwith inaccurate information. For example, the more LinkedInconnections one has, the less he or she is able to know any givenperson very well, and hence it becomes difficult to assess exper-tise. There is a belief that postings on open boards are self-correcting (Esquivel, Meric-Bernstam, & Bernstam, 2006), but atthis point there is little scientific evidence of this. These arequestions that challenge social network theory, and there are likelyto be many new insights, and perhaps even counterintuitive find-ings, generated by testing social network theory within socialmedia contexts.Proposition 3 can be used to prompt testable hypotheses relating

interactions among the discrete ambient stimuli to differences incognition, affect, and behavior. Similar to arguments raised insupporting Proposition 2, studies can be designed either within oracross social media contexts (Rousseau and Fried’s (2001) Tiers 2and 3, respectively). It is also possible that the social media stimuliwill interact with the more traditional organizational (nondigital)stimuli. For example, the task environment in small group settings(e.g., sequential, intensive) may interact with discrete ambientstimuli from social media contexts (e.g., latency, verifiability) toinfluence cognition, affect, and behavior. A group formed togenerate creative solutions (an intensive workflow structure) mightperform better when the social media platform allows anonymouscontent posting; whereas this same group may perform worse if theplatform has slower latency (e.g., email). This research may alsobe multilevel in the form of cross-level interactions. For example,an organizational climate for service might interact with socialmedia accessibility to moderate the relationship between employeeservice orientation and performance behavior.

Implications

Most theories in applied psychology and the organizationalsciences pay little explicit attention to context (Cappelli & Sherer,1991; Heath & Sitkin, 2001; Johns, 2006; Mowday & Sutton,1993; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Context can influence the mean-ing and interpretation of constructs and phenomena, change thenature of processes, and change the strength or direction of rela-tionships specified in theories devoid of context (Johns, 2006).Theories are just starting to be developed specifically to explainthe features of social media (e.g., Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).While encouraging, we argue that any such developments must




start by understanding the omnibus context (i.e., contextualizingthem), which is similar to the way that research on virtual teamshas proceeded (see Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hoch & Kozlowski,2014). Thus, the task for researchers is much more than applyingexisting theory to social media (in effect, a generalizability study).The task for researchers is to evolve and adapt the theories toincorporate the unique features and nuances of social media con-texts, and in doing so, provide new tests of theory and develop thetheories in important ways. A major contribution of this article isproviding a roadmap for how such research should proceed.However, perhaps the most novel and far-reaching contributions

of Propositions 1–3 relate to understanding the relative importanceof nondigital, digital, and social media organizational contexts. Itwill be important for research to understand when one type ofcontext produces stronger effects on cognition, affect, and behav-ior, than a different context. For example, considering Proposition1, for what types of content are nondigital contexts preferable tosocial media contexts? Socializing employees within face-to-facecontexts might contribute to stronger effects on commitment andattachment than social media contexts. Considering Proposition 2,would email, social media, or multiple face-to-face interactionsmost strongly contribute to infectious behavior? Considering Prop-osition 3, how might the sharing of positive information within aphysical network lessen the effects of negative information sharedon a social media network? In all three examples, it is clear thatmuch research needs to be conducted to understand how thetraditional organizational context interrelates to social media con-texts. We consider these possibilities next.

Implications of Social Media Contexts for Researchand Practice

In this section we outline how social media contexts mayinteract or interrelate with the organizational context to influencefindings within the applied psychology and management litera-tures. Indeed, were social media not a different context, then lawsand regulations would not require revision—but evolving case lawin many states clearly suggests they do (Elefant, 2011). These twocontexts may thus interact to change the nature and presence ofcognition, affect, or behavior, as well as the strength and directionof relationships between them. This section considers the impli-cations of social media contexts on key organizational and HRfunctions, including (a) recruitment, (b) selection, (c) training,development, and knowledge management, (d) leadership, team-work, and culture, and (e) socialization and engagement. Thesefunctions were chosen because they are most directly affected bysocial media applications. In each section, we first review what weknow about social media use in the HR function (that is usuallyquite limited; McFarland, 2012). We then provide 1–2 key exam-ples of how social media contexts are likely to change or transformkey existing findings. These examples are not intended to beexhaustive but illustrative of the proposed framework’s implica-tions on understanding practical questions. We then consider po-tential benefits and risks of using social media for each HRfunction.Please note that the intent of this section is not to develop a

“how to” guide for engaging social media in organizations. Thereare already articles that offer guidance for how to implement socialmedia (see Elefant, 2011; Jue et al., 2010; Ployhart, 2012, for

examples). Rather, the goal is to identify the main theoreticalquestions that will direct future research, and consider the mainbenefits and risks of social media implementation in organizations.Table 2 provides a broad overview that illustrates which specificdiscrete ambient stimuli are likely to be most impactful on therespective HR functions. Table 3 summarizes the major researchquestions, benefits, and risks, for each function. Note that thesetables are only illustrations to highlight how the proposed frame-work prompts new research questions and offers insight intopotential benefits and risks.4

Recruitment

Recruiter blogs have long espoused the benefits of social mediaplatforms for recruitment purposes. For example, it is widelyclaimed that social media platforms increase speed of recruitment,effectiveness in recruiting passive candidates (i.e., those not cur-rently looking for a new job), and conversion rates (Jobvite, 2012).In contrast, the scientific literature finds relatively little researchthat substantiates these claims (Breaugh, 2012; Brown & Vaughn,2011; Davison, Maraist, & Bing, 2011; McFarland, 2012).The opportunities afforded by social media contexts may radi-

cally transform the nature of the traditional candidate-employerrelationship. Candidates and employing organizations have histor-ically had fairly tight control over the information and imagepresented to each other, resulting in information asymmetries(Bangerter, Roulin, & König, 2012; Sivertzen, Nilsen, & Olafsen,2013). In contrast, social media contexts break down informationbarriers. For example, accessibility is greater in social mediacontexts because information internal to the firm is more open tooutsiders. Websites such as Glassdoor consist of employees ratingthe quality of their employing organization—regardless of whatorganizational leaders may want their employees to be saying.Candidates can search Glassdoor postings and learn about theinternal culture and climate of the firm (of course, the informationon Glassdoor may not be balanced or representative). Similarly,prior recruiting research suggests that word-of-mouth is one of themost effective sourcing methods (Heneman & Judge, 2008). Socialmedia enables the opportunity to advertise job postings throughemployee social media networks, and have employees spread theword about job openings. This is a digital version of word-of-mouth but on a scale that is faster (latency), includes a largernetwork (accessibility and interdependence), and is more geo-graphically distributed (physicality). Finally, leveraging social me-dia networks may enhance the recruitment of passive candidatesbecause it is possible to search social media networks for qualifiedindividuals more broadly than other channels. In these examples,the focus is not on the specific social media platform, but ratherhow the discrete ambient stimuli that exist in social media contextsenable the application of new approaches.Recruiting is really a process of expanding and managing net-

works. Social media offers a natural bridge for connecting appli-cants and organizations. There are a number of practical benefits

4 Note that we present directions for future research in the same table(i.e., Table 3) as practical benefits and risks. This is intentional to reinforcethe idea that research needs and practice needs are closely aligned forsocial media. We hope this may in some modest way stimulate greateracademic-practitioner collaboration around social media.




and risks that social media contexts generate. The main benefitsinclude the potential to better source active and passive candi-dates in a manner that is more efficient, effective, faster, andoffers greater ROI. The potential risks mainly involve Title VIIEqual Employment Opportunity litigation caused by focusingon nonjob related factors or engaging in recruiting activities thatmay create disparate impact or disparate treatment.

Selection

Use of social media for selection is an area where there is a greatdiscrepancy between research and practice (Roth, Bobko, VanIddekinge, & Thatcher, 2013). A survey conducted in 2009 re-vealed that over 40% of the 2,600 managers who were surveyedindicated they used social media to help screen applicants(Haefner, 2009). HR personnel also frequently use social network-ing websites as reference checks for potential job candidates(Roberts & Roach, 2009). The prevalence of these practices isconcerning because, to the extent that employers are being influ-enced by content that is not job-related, they are opening them-selves to claims of disparate treatment and potentially disparateimpact.Despite growing use of social media in selection, there is little

scholarly research that examines how to make hiring decisions insocial media contexts (Roth et al., 2013). There have been threereview articles discussing social media for selection (Brown &Vaughn, 2011; Davison et al., 2011; Roth et al., 2013). Only threearticles have published empirical findings on social media inselection contexts. Van Iddekinge, Lanivich, Roth, and Junco (inpress) had recruiters view and rate Facebook pages. These ratingswere unrelated to performance or turnover, and actually producedsubgroup differences. Kluemper et al. (2012) found highercriterion-related validities for personality assessed via strangerratings of candidate Facebook pages than are typically found usingself-report personality measures. Finally, Kluemper and Rosen(2009) had raters view social networking profiles and found raterswere consistent in their ratings of the profiles and could typicallydistinguish high from low performers. In addition, raters who weremore intelligent and emotionally stable outperformed their coun-terparts.Clearly, research must consider whether scores obtained using

social media hiring methods produce reliability, validity, subgroupdifferences, applicant reactions, and ROI similar to alternativemethods. However, if history is any guide, such research will tendto be practice- or technique-focused and not necessarily addressthe deeper underlying theoretical issues that explain why. Forexample, Van Iddekinge et al. (in press) focus only on Facebook,and the review of Roth et al. (2013) is selection-practice focused.In contrast, our social media framework prompts broad, theory-driven questions because it identifies which specific discrete am-bient stimuli might affect hiring scores and decisions. For exam-ple, the permanence and verifiability dimensions of the socialmedia framework suggest that candidate information on socialmedia networks is easier to search and verify. Just as we knowverifiability tends to reduce response distortion on noncognitiveassessments (e.g., Schmitt & Kunce, 2002), so too might socialmedia verifiability reduce response distortion in selection. Anotherimportant area to consider is whether social media contexts offermore accurate or valid inferences about KSAOs. Research has

found that even laypeople can successfully interpret personalitytraits based solely on information included on an individual’ssocial networking website (Back et al., 2010; Kluemper & Rosen,2009). To the extent that social media postings are more “honest”because of increased feelings of anonymity, it may be possible forrecruiters to make valid inferences of applicant KSAOs.There are clearly several issues that relate to the use of social

media for making selection decisions, and these issues must beresearched because of the substantial risk and cost of discrimina-tion. The potential benefits of using social media for selectiondepend on a platforms’ ability to identify and measure job-relatedknowledge, skills, and abilities. If hiring managers and recruitersreview social media sites and use information that is not job-related as a basis of hiring, or use information found on these sitesthat is false, then the organization will be exposed to considerablelegal risk. Further, even if the organization does not intentionallyuse these sources to discriminate, perceptions of discriminationmay be difficult to eliminate. Thus, the risks of using social mediafor selection are potentially great, even though organizations seemlikely to use social media for hiring.

Training, Development, and Knowledge Management

The HR functions involving training, development, and knowl-edge management have in many ways been leading the applicationof social media to organizational settings (Jue et al., 2010). This isin part because the adjacent literature in education is currently atthe forefront of social media research. However, the nature ofeducational research questions is sometimes of limited generaliz-ability to organizational settings (e.g., education studies tend to bedominated with young people already using the technology). Fur-ther, there is still great variability because of a focus on specificplatforms and little integrated guidance on what makes socialmedia applications effective. To address this, Levy (2013) pro-posed that researchers use a common categorization of socialmedia platforms for knowledge management activities. These cat-egories are steps of social media involvement within knowledgemanagement activities, with the first category including more basicsocial media functions (e.g., the use of bulletin boards) and the laststep or category involving social media fully in knowledge man-agement in terms of both the tools used and the participation (e.g.,the use of wikis that can be amended by any organizationalmember). Although this approach is important, it fails to considerthe broader contextual environment that social media creates forthe employee.Training research is often criticized as being faddish (Kraiger,

McLinden, & Casper, 2004), but the social media framework helpsdirect future research in a programmatic manner. Each of the eightdiscrete ambient stimuli are expected to have direct and interactiverelationships on training, development, and knowledge manage-ment. For example, social media platforms can be used as wikis ordiscussion boards to ask questions and share knowledge. Theseknowledge sharing platforms may be more effective than tradi-tional practices because they are open (accessible) to more mem-bers (interdependent) from any location (physicality) in real time(latency and synchronicity), yet the posted content will be search-able (verifiable) in the future (permanence). Indeed, social mediawas instrumental in the response to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake.Yates and Paquette (2011) outline how three major U.S. agencies




Table2

Ove

rvie

wof

Impl

icat

ions

ofSo

cial

Med

iaC

onte

xts

onK

eyH

uman

Res

ourc

eF

unct

ions

Discreteambient

stimuli

Recruitment

Selection

Training,development,and

knowledgemanagement

Leadership,teamwork,and

organizationalculture

Socializationandengagement

Physicality

Geographiclocationnolonger

constraining


constraining

Geographiclocationno

longerconstraining


constraining


constraining

Accessibility

Greateraccesscanenhancethe

breadthandspeedof

candidatesourcing

Moreopenaccesstoall

employees;butpotential

forin-groupstoform

Moreopenaccessandexposure

toleader,team

members,and


Connectionswithmanyinternaland

externalmembersinfluences

identificationandengagement

Latency

Spreadofrecruiting

informationisnearlyinstant

Fasterreviewofapplicant

materials

Contentcanbepostedor

retrievednearlyinstantly


retrievednearlyinstantly

Socializationmayoccurmore

quickly;disengagementmayhave

fasternegativeeffects

Interdependence

Broadopportunitiestoshare

content;networksunfold

howeverappropriate;

broadnetworkofexperts

Fasteremergenceofgroup

processes(e.g.,cohesion,

trust);moresharedsenseof

culture

Increasedinterdependencemay

increasesocialization;increase

effectsof(dis)engagement

Synchronicity

Candidatescanbesourced,or

respondtorecruiting

messages,whenever

convenient

Applicantsmaybeassessed

wheneverconvenient


retrievedwhenever

personallyconvenient

Opportunitytowork

synchronouslyor

asynchronouslyasnecessary

Permanence

Candidate-relatedcontentis

searchablelongafterits

posted

Candidate-relatedcontentis

searchablelongafterits

posted

Contentisnearlypermanent

andexistslongafter

membersaregone

Contentisnearlypermanentand

existslongaftermembersare

gone

Greaterpermanencemayhelpor

hurtsocializationand

engagement,dependingon

whethercontentispositiveor

negative

Verifiability

Candidate-relatedcontentcan

beverified

Candidate-relatedcontentcan

beverified

Contentcanbeverified,

corrected,updatedas

appropriate

Contentcanbeverified,

corrected,updatedas

appropriate

Anonymity

Individualsmaybemorelikely

tospreadnegative

informationthathurts

applicantattraction

Individualsmaycompromise

testsecuritybyposting

interviewquestionsortest

items

Thesourceofinformation

maybedifficulttoverify;

anovicemaybe

misperceivedasanexpert

Membersmaybemorelikelyto

sharenegativeinformation

thatcouldhaveaneffecton


Opportunityforanonymitymaylead

tooffensiveornegativebehavior

Mainbenefits

Greaterspeed;moreefficiency;

higherconversionrates;

sourcingofpassive

candidates;greaterROI

Greaterspeed;moreefficiency;

greatervalidity;enhance

applicantreactions;greater

ROI

Greaterspeed;more

customization;greater

efficiency;greaterROI

Moreconsistentandwidespread

effectsofleadership;stronger

emergentgroupprocesses;

greatersharedsenseof

purposeandculture

Broaderandmoreconsistent

exposuretothefirmandits

peoplefacilitatessocializationand

engagement;connectionsto

broadergroups(e.g.,customers)

increasesengagement

Mainrisks

Disparatetreatment;unequal

access;chillingeffects

Disparatetreatment;disparate

impact

Unequalaccesstotraining;

lesseffectiverelativeto

traditionalapproaches

Creationofin-groupsandout-

groups;abusiveortoxic

leaderscausegreaterdamage

morequickly

Disengagedemployeesmorecapable

ofspreadingnegativeinformation,

morequicklyandbroadly




Table3

The

oret

ical

Que

stio

nsan

dP

ract

ical

Impl

icat

ions

ofSo

cial

Med

ia

Keytheoreticalquestions

Practicalbenefits

Practicalrisks

Recruiting

•Willresearchfindingsthatdemonstratehowspecific

featuresoftraditionalmediums(e.g.,jobpostings,

sourcing)affectapplicantreactionstoorganizations

(Heneman&Judge,2008)generalizetosocial

media?Aresocialmediafaster,lessexpensive,and

cantheyenhancecandidatequalityoroffergreater

ROIthantraditionalapproaches?

•Aredifferentsocialmediaplatformsdifferentially

usefulforrecruiting(e.g.,doesLinkedInproduce

higherqualitycandidatesthanotherplatforms)?Are

professionalnetworkingsites(e.g.,LinkedIn)less

likelytohavepersonalandirrelevantinformation

thatmaycontaminaterecruitingefforts?

•Whichcandidatesubgroupsusesocialmedia,or

prefertousesocialmedia?Forexample,even

thoughminorityindividualsmaybe

underrepresentedonLinkedIn,itispossiblethat

thoseminorityindividualsusingLinkedInareof

higherquality.

•Whatsourcesorsocialmediaplatformsdo

candidatesprefer?How

muchcontactisideal?Are

candidateslikelytobemoreorlesstrustingof

recruitingmessagespresentedoversocialmedia?

Arecandidateslikelytobemoreorlesshonest

whenfocusingtheirjobsearchusingsocialmedia?

•How

shouldorganizationscommunicatejob

openingswithindifferentsocialmediacontexts?

•How

shouldcandidatesmanagetheirsocialidentities

onsocialmedia(e.g.,personalbranding,Beal&

Strauss,2008)?

•Sourcequalifiedcandidatesmoreeffectively,efficiently,

inexpensively,andwithgreaterROI.

•Moreeffectivesourcingofpassivecandidatesnot

activelylookingfornewemployment.

•Providemore“hightouch”recruitingexperience.

•Greatercustomizationoftherecruitingmessagetoa

givencandidatebecauseonecanviewtheirpreferences,

content,postings,andrelatedinformation.

•Useofsocialmediatoleverage“friendsoffriends”or

crowd-sourcecandidatesfrom

friendsorrelationships.

Ineffect,theorganizationcanusesocialmediaasa

meanstogenerateemployeeorcustomerreferrals

(Brabham,2010,2008).

•Reinforcingandpromotingthecompany’sbrandmay

helpdifferentiateitselffrom

competitors.Such

promotionmaybeeasiertodowithsocialmedia,

particularlywhencontentfrom

marketingcanbe

leveragedforrecruitingpurposes.

•Potentialviolationsofequalemploymentopportunity(EEO)

policies,particularlywithrespecttoTitleVIIlegislationand

subsequentadditions.

•Differentdemographicgroups,orprotectedsubgroups,may

havedifferentialaccessorusageofsocialmedia(Elefant,

2011;Slovensky&Ross,2011).Totheextentthatdifferent

classesprotectedbyEEOlegislationdifferentiallyuseor

haveaccesstosocialmedia,anorganization’srecruiting

effortsmayresultinunequalaccessorsourcing.

•Customizationintherecruitingmessagebytheorganization

couldcreatedisparatetreatmentclaims.Forexample,

recruiterswishingtosourcecandidatesandtailortheir

recruitingmessagemaytreatsomecandidatesmoreharshly

orcriticallythanothers,forreasonsthathavelittletodo

withjobrequirements.Similarly,informationthatis

observedwhilesourcingusingsocialmedia(e.g.,potentially

offensivepersonalcontentonFacebook)mayviolatelaws

separatingpersonalandworklife.

•Recruitingusingsocialmediamaygeneratemorecontacts,

butnotnecessarilyhigherqualitycontacts.Forexample,

generatingmorecontactswhodonotapplytothe

organizationcancostadditionaltime,money,andother

resources.Totheextenttherecruitingprocessgenerates

moreapplicantswhoarenotqualified,ROIforrecruiting

willbediminished.




Table3(c

onti

nued)


Practicalbenefits

Practicalrisks

Selection

•Whatisthevalidity,reliability,subgroup

differences,andROI,whenscoresareobtainedfrom

reviewsofsocialmediasites?

•Iscontentpresentedonsocialmediasitesmore

accuratethaninformationprovidedviamore

traditionalapplicationmethods?

•Isinformationcollectedviasocialmediasites

consistentwithapplicationmaterials,andwhatare

theimplicationsofdiscrepancies?

•Whatspecificcontenthasthestrongesteffecton

subsequentemployerimpressions?Whattypesof

workornon-workpostingsleadtonegative/positive

impressions?

•CanvalidinferencesoftraitsorKSAOsbeobtained

from

socialmediacontent?Whichspecificfeatures

ofapplicantsocialnetworkingsitesmostinfluence

impressions?SeeBacketal.(2010)andKluemper

&Rosen(2009)forinitialfindingsontheseissues.

•How

doesa

lackofsocialmediainformationaffect

theperceptionsofapplicants?Peoplepreferwell-

understoodoptionsmorethanthosethatare

ambiguous(Ellsberg,1961).Arethoseapplicants

thatdonotengageinsocialmediaperceivedless

favorably?Thisisparticularlyimportantgiventhat

racialminoritiesarelessrepresentedinsocialmedia

outlets.

•How

doapplicantsreacttotheuseofsocialmedia

inthehiringprocess?Areapplicantsmorefavorable

whentheyaretoldbeforehandthatsocialmedia

informationwillbeusedinthehiringprocess?

Whichproceduraljusticerulesareviolatedor

satisfiedbyspecificsocialmediaprocedures?

•Itmaybepossibletocollectjob-relatedinformation

withoutactivelytestingthecandidate(Potosky,2008).

User-providedcontentonsocialmediasitesmayallow

recruitersorhiringmanagerstomakeinferencesabout

underlyingKSAOs.Theseinferencesmayhavevalidity

forpredictingperformancecriteria,notunlikescores

obtainedfrom

referencechecks.

•Itmaybepossibletocollectjob-relatedinformationina

mannerthatcapturesmorehonestresponses(Potosky,

2008).Ifcandidatesaremorelikelytopresenttheir

“true”personalitiesandpreferencesonsocialmedia

sites,thenitispossiblethatinformationobtainedby

reviewingsuchsitescouldbemoreaccuratethan

informationobtainedthroughtheuseofinterviewsor

personalitytests.

•Hiringmanagersandrecruitersmayfindmorevaluein

searchingsocialmediasites.Thoseinvolvedinhiring

oftenreactnegativelytotherequireduseofstructured

interviews,forexample,butitispossiblethatusing

structuredmethods(e.g.,ratingscorecards)toreview

socialmediasitesmaybeseenasmoreacceptableand

informative.

•Canhiringmanagersorrecruitersthatusesocialmedia

avoidlettingnon-job-relatedinformationaffecttheir

decision-making?Evenifanorganizationcanbesurethey

ignoresuchinformation,aretheystilllegallyvulnerable?

•Doestheuseofsocialmediaforselectionexposethe

organizationtomultipleformsoflegalrisk?Forexample,

notallprotectedsubgroupswillhaveequalaccesstosocial

media,norwillallgroupsbeequallyengagedwithsocial

media.Similarly,theinconsistentnatureofsocialmedia

searchesopensupfirmstoclaimsbasedondisparate

treatment.

•Scoresbasedonreviewsofsocialmediacontentmaynotbe

reliableorvalidfortheirintendedpurposes(seeKluemper,

Rosen&Mossholder,2012;andVanIddekingeetal.,in

pressforinitialfindingsregardingthisquestion).

•Theremaybeavarietyofsubgroupdifferenceswithrespect

tothepsychometriccharacteristicsunderlyingscoreson

socialmedia.PreliminaryresearchsuggeststhatFacebook

ratingsmaybebiasedinfavorofFemaleandWhite

applicants(VanIddekingeetal.,inpress).

•Twenty-ninestateshaveadoptedlifestylestatuesthatrestrict

employersfrom

consideringoff-dutyactivities,suchas

drinkingorsmoking,inhiringorterminationdecisionsas

longastheoff-dutyactivitieshavenoemploymentrelated

consequences(Elefant,2011).Doesthesameholdtrueifan

organizationcollectsinformationfrom

socialmediasources?

(tab

leco

ntin

ues)




Table3(c

onti

nued)


Practicalbenefits

Practicalrisks

Training,development,andknowledgemanagement

•How

dothesocialmediadiscreteambientstimuli

affectthebestpracticesfortraining,development,

andknowledgemanagement?Arethesepractices

moreeffective,resultingreaterROI,ormore

efficientthantraditionalapproaches?Arethere

specificfocifortraining,development,or

knowledgesharingthatarebettersuitedforsocial

mediacontexts?

•How

mightanorganizationensureeveryoneis

contributingandmaximizinguseofsocialmediafor

training,development,orlearning(Bechmann&

Lomborg,2013)?Isitpossibletoavoidthe

developmentof“ingroups?”Aresuchgroups

harmfultoknowledgesharingoversocialmedia?

•Whattypesofpre-existingorganizationalor

individualcharacteristicsmustexistforsocialmedia

platformstobeeffectivefortraining,development,

orknowledgesharing?

•Whatarethepersonal,social,orenvironmental

factorsthatmostinfluenceemployeemotivationfor

usingsocialmedia?

•Towhatextentdoesstatuswithintheorganization

influenceknowledgesharing(orviceversa)?

•Doessharingknowledgeviasocialmediacontribute

tojobsatisfactionororganizationalcommitmentand

identification?

•How

cananorganizationmonitordiscussionboards

andwhatmightanorganizationdowhensomeone

unqualifiedisemergingasaleader?Shouldthe

organizationappointadministratorswhoarelabeled

asknowledgeleaderstomonitoractivityandcorrect

misinformation?

•Socialmediamayallowforemployeedevelopmentand

knowledgesharinginamannerthatismoreeffective,

lessexpensive,faster,andmoreuser-friendlythan

traditionalapproaches(Ong,Lai,&Wang,2004;

Piccoli,Ahmad,&Ives,2001).

•Socialmediamayprovidegreateraccessandfaster

accesstoinformation,development,andknowledgefor

employeeslocatedindifferentgeographicregions,and

inamannerthat’smorepersonallyconvenient.

•Employeesusuallyrelyonsocialnetworksfor

knowledgeacquisitionwhenproblemsolving(Allen,

1977;Cross,Parker,Prusak,&Borgatti,2001),so

socialmedianetworkscouldeffectivelyreplace

traditionalmethods.Thismayprovidebroaderaccessto

morepeopleandissearchable(i.e.,lastsbeyondany

particularmemberswhomaycontributetothe

information).

•Discussionboardsareagoodwaytoshareknowledge

veryquicklyandamongalargegroupofpeople.

Someonemaypostaquestionorstartathreadabouta

usefulwayofdoingsomethingthattheydiscovered.

Discussionboardscanbepublicoraccessibilitycanbe

limited(Huffaker,2010).

•Thequalityoftraining,development,orknowledge

managementmaynotbeaseffectivewithsocialmediathan

withalternativeapproaches.

•Thesuccessofsocialmediafortraininganddevelopmentis

highlydependentonthequalityofinformationprovided,

andwhetherusersactuallyemploythevariousplatformsfor

productivepurposes.

•Someemployeesdonotlearnwellindigitalenvironments

(Lee,Hsieh,&Hsu,2011).Olderemployees,orthoseless

familiarwithcomputers,maynotknow

howtousesocial

mediaeffectively,orareunwillingtouseit.

•Notallemployeeswillhaveequalaccesstosocialmedia

(Elefant,2011).Totheextentaccessisrelatedtoprotected

subgroups(e.g.,asdefinedinEEOorTitleVIIlegislation),

thenuseofsocialmediacouldresultindiscriminationor

legalchallenges.

•Somesocialmediatoolscangrow

unwieldy,makingit

difficulttofindtheinformationneeded(Agichtein,Castillo,

Donato,Gionis,&Mishne,2008;Yates&Paquette,2011).

•Theremaybenegativepersonalororganizational

consequencesforusingsocialmediafortraining,

development,orknowledgesharing.Forexample,

individualswhocommunicateviasocialmediaaremore

likelytosharesimilarattitudes(Rice&Aydin,1991).This

cancreatein-groupsandout-groups,andcontributeto

feelingsofexclusion.Similarly,differentdemographic

groupshavedifferentaccess,whichcancontributetoEEO

andTitleVIIlitigation.




Table3(c

onti

nued)


Practicalbenefits

Practicalrisks

Leadership,teamwork,andorganizationalculture

•How

dothesocialmediadiscreteambientstimuli

influenceleadershipemergenceorleadership

effectiveness?

•Whatfeaturesofsocialmediaconveytheimpression

ofleadership?How

istheuseofsocialmediafor

thispurposerelatedtotrueleadershipability?

•How

doessocialmediainfluence,enhance,or

diminishteamwork?Manyoftheprinciplesthat

underliegroupdynamicsarebasedongroupsof

smallsizeinteractingprimarilyface-to-face.Will

thesesameprinciplesapplytosocialmedia

contexts?Aretherewaysofstructuringsocialmedia

exchangestofacilitateteamworkandcollaboration?

•Cansocialmediacreate,change,orenhance

organizationalculture?Cananorganizationuse

socialmediatoperpetuateitscultureandcreate

morepositivesupportforprogramsmorequickly?

How

canleadersusesocialmediatocreateor

changeaculture?

•Canorganizationalculturebeidentifiedand

managedbyobservingexchangesonsocialmedia?

Leadersmayespouseonetypeofcultureorvision,

butitdoesnotmeanemployeesnecessarilybuyinto

it.Couldmonitoringsocialmediahelpmanagers

identifytheextenttowhichtheirvisionsare

supportedorendorsed?Canmonitoringsocialmedia

beusedasadiagnostictoolfororganizational

changeanddevelopment?

•Leadersmaybemoreeffectiveunderdifferentsocial

mediacontexts.Forexample,socialmediacangive

morefollowersaccesstoinformationinamore

consistentmanner.Socialmediacontextscouldallow

greatertransparencybetweenleadersandfollowers.At

theveryleast,socialmediamaymakeiteasierforthe

leadertoconveyhisorhervision.

•Socialmediamaycontributetohigherquality

collaborations.Teamemergentprocessessuchas

cohesion,trust,transactivememory,andsoon,may

emergemorequicklyandmorestronglyinsocialmedia

contexts.

•Groupproblemsolvingorinnovationmayhappenmore

quicklyinsocialmediacontexts.Crowdsourcingmay

leverage“thewisdomofcrowds”andhenceleadto

higherqualitysolutions(Estellés&González,2012).

•Socialmediamaycontributetoreinforcingorenhancing

thecompanyculture.Becausesocialmediacreatea

communityofmemberswhointeractandshare

information,thevaluesrepresentingthecompany’s

culturemaybecomemorewidelyknownandshared.

•Leaderswhoarenarcissistic,incompetent,orotherwise

ineffective,mayusesocialmediatospreaddestructive

visionsanddirection.

•Leaderemotionalcontagionmayspreadmorequicklyin

socialmediacontexts.Theeffectsofatoxicindividualmay

bemoreimpactfulandhardertoovercomeinsocialmedia

networks,becausethenegativeinformationcanbespread

farther,faster,andwithgreaterpermanence.

•Socialmediamaystifleteamworkorteam

effectiveness.

Socialmediamayresultingroupthink(Janis,1972)and

producepoordecision-making(Esser,1998;Turner&

Pratkanis,1998).Similarly,ifhighlyparticipativemembers

onsocialnetworksbecomeequatedasbeingthoughtleaders

(Wengeretal.,2002),thenotherwiseincompetentpeople

havetoomuchinfluence.Socialmediamayalsoslow

down

decisionmakingwhentoomanyideasofquestionable

qualityarepursued.

•Socialmediacandamagetheorganization’sculture.Social

mediamaybeusedtogripeandcomplain(Gossett&

Kilker,2006).Thesecomplaintsmaybevisibletoothers

withintheorganizationorthebroadercommunity,are

searchable,andmayexistforyearsontheInternet.

•Socialmediamaycontributetotheformationofsubgroups

of“in-group”members,henceleadingtolowerinclusion.

(tab

leco

ntin

ues)




Table3(c

onti

nued)


Practicalbenefits

Practicalrisks

Socializationandengagement

•How

cansocialmediabeusedtoeffectivelyand

efficientlysocializenewemployees?Whatarethe

bestpracticeswithsocialmediathatproduce

positiveoutcomesforindividualsandorganizations?

How

doessocializationthatisconductedinsocial

mediacontextscomparetosocializationconducted

intraditionalcontexts?

•Isitpossibletoprovideeffectivementoringover

socialmedia?Forwhichtypesofemployees,

mentors,ormentor-menteerelationshipsmightthis

approachbebest?

•How

mightsocialmediacontextsfacilitateemployee

engagement?Doeshavingmoreformaland/or

informalsocialmediaconnectionsincreasejob

embeddedness?

•Doessocializationinsocialmediacontextsbroaden

opportunitiesfornewemployeestolearnmoreabout

theorganization,itsleaders,orothercoworkers?

Doessocialmediaallowmoreequalaccesstothe

organization’sleadership?

•How

shouldorganizationsdealwithunaffiliated

forumsthatallowemployeesfrom

theirorganization

toventpublicly?Whatkindofdamagecontrolis

mosteffective?Isitbestfortheorganizationto

addresstherumorsdirectlyornottoacknowledge

them?

•Aretherebenefitstoemployersanctionedventing

websites?How

cantheybestbemanagedtoensure

theyleadtopositiveoutcomesfortheorganization

andtheemployees?Areanypositivebenefitsof

ventingdependentonhowitisused?

•Socialmediacontextsmayhelpsocializationoccur

morequicklyandconsistently.Havingnewemployees

joinsocialmedianetworkscanincreasethespeedof

socializationbecauseemployeeswillhaveaccesstoa

muchbroadernetwork.Further,theinformationis

searchableandcanbeusedforlatercohortsof

employees(e.g.,anongoing“frequentlyasked

questions”page).

•Useofsocialmediaformentoringcanexpandthe

opportunitiesforlearningandexposuretobroaderparts

oftheorganization(DiRenzo,Linnehan,Shao,&

Rosenberg,2010).Achallengewithmentoringprograms

isensuringthatthementorhastheexpertiseandability

tobeeffective,andthetimetobefullyengaged.

Movingsomefeaturesofmentoringtosocialmedia

contextsmayallowanemployeetohaveaccessto

multiplementorssimultaneously,andinturn,each

mentorbeingengagedwithouthavingtobeartheentire

responsibilityoftheemployee’sdevelopment.

•Socialmediacanenhanceengagementbyconnecting

userstootherswithinthefirm,aswellascustomersand

end-users(Grant,2007).

•Internalboardsthatallowemployeestovent

anonymouslymayallowmanagerstogainimportant

information(Gossett&Kilker,2006;Simons,2001;

Wong,2009)andtheseoutletsmaybegoodfor

employeewell-beingastheyallowemployeestoletout

negativeemotions(Kulik,Pepper,Shapiro,&Cregan,

2011).

•Socialmediacontextsmaynotprovidesufficient

opportunitiesforsocialization.Itispossiblethatsocial

mediacontextsonlyprovidesuperficialinformationthat,

whilevaluable,lacksthedepthneededtogetemployees

assimilatedandidentifiedwiththefirm.Further,if

inconsistentinformationispresented,thennewemployees

maybecomeconfusedandtheirsocializationmaytake

longer.

•Socialmediacontextsmaynotprovidethekindof

individualizedattentionneededforeffectivementoring.If

thementor-menteerelationshipoccursprimarilyoversocial

media,thenitispossiblethatthecommunicationwillbe

primarilyone-sidedandcomingfrom

thementor.Further,

thementormaynotlearnasmuchaboutthementeeaswith

moretraditionalapproaches,whichcouldreduce

opportunitiesforlearningandexposuretothebroader

organization.Forexample,socialmediacontextsmaynot

provideopportunitiestodeveloptrustandcommitmentto

eachother.

•Socialmediacontextsmaycontributetodisengagement.

Allowingforumsforemployeestoventmightbackfireand

resultinunproductivecommunicationthatwouldinvolve

nothingmorethancomplaintsandpersonalattacks.These

mayultimatelyleadtonegativeemotionalconsequencesand

actsofretaliation.Thismightcontributetotheerosionof

organizationalculture,leadingtoincreasedturnoverand

lowerengagement.




coordinated their efforts with the Haiti government and the UnitedNations by using wikis and collaborative technologies (such asSharePoint). It allowed the agencies to quickly share importantinformation that may have ultimately saved lives. On the otherhand, so many people were sharing information about the disasterit quickly became redundant, making it more difficult to search thedatabase and find relevant information quickly. Further, researchsuggests that members of discussion boards tend to break off intosmaller groups. These smaller groups are more likely to share theirknowledge with each other than with the larger discussion group(Lin & Chiou, 2010). This can stifle knowledge sharing at thedetriment of those not in the “in” group.Similarly, research needs to identify the individual and organi-

zational characteristics that relate to social media use for training,development, or knowledge sharing purposes. With respect topersonal characteristics, preliminary research suggests that em-ployee attitudes toward social media technology may relate to theextent to which employees engage in social media for knowledgesharing (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Pelling & White, 2009). Indi-viduals are more likely to contribute knowledge to social mediasites when they feel their input is being recognized or used byothers (Greenhow, 2010; Liang, Ho, Li, & Turban, 2011; Lin &Chiou, 2010). Further, individuals who feel supported by otherusers are more likely to contribute to online discussions (Liang etal., 2011). Thus, it seems different motivations are present whenone seeks information than when one contributes information tosuch sites (Boh, Ren, Kiesler, & Bussjaeger, 2007; Wilkesmann,Wilesmann, & Virgillito, 2009).Organizational characteristics are also important to consider

(Decarie, 2010). For example, Magnier-Watanabe, Yoshida, andWatanabe (2010) examined how the use of an intranet-based socialnetworking platform affected business connections and cost-savings across several industries and occupations. It was found thatcompanies that benefited the most from the use of such platformsinitially had higher social capital and innovativeness. Further,Flanagin (2002) noted that technology used to manage and shareknowledge should consider not only the types of knowledge theyare designed to capture, but also the features of the technologicalplatforms and the social dynamics among organizational members.Overall, the benefits of social media rely primarily on enabling

a broader network of relevant expertise and making it accessible tomore people, and available whenever (asynchronous, latency) andwherever (physicality) they need it. Legal risk is certainly presentwith social media in training. For example, if employees consultsocial media for solutions that later prove to be catastrophic, it mayresult in serious liability on the part of the organization. However,most of the risk has to do with ensuring access is equal andconsistent (e.g., accessibility).

Leadership, Teamwork, and OrganizationalCulture/Climate5

This section combines leadership, teamwork, and culture/cli-mate for two reasons. First, they are highly interrelated. Leadershipis fundamentally about setting direction, managing meaning, andcreating change (Avolio, Sosik, & Berson, 2013). Second, wecould not find any theory or research that speaks directly toexamining social media’s impact on leadership, teamwork, orculture. That said, there is a relevant literature on virtual teams that

is closely related and can be used to help inform research on socialmedia (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014;Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).Social media are relevant to leadership, teamwork, and culture

because they are fundamentally about connecting people and in-formation through relationships. The highly accessible, interde-pendent, and asynchronous nature of social media environmentsmay facilitate the building of teamwork, culture, and a sharedsense of purpose. For example, CEO blogs describing the compa-ny’s strategy, challenges, and financial information may raisesupport for the strategy and build rapport with the leader. How-ever, a key question is whether the digital environment can byitself create such shared identity, or whether it can only supple-ment direct (face-to-face) interactions (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski,2002; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Similarly, because socialmedia contexts are more accessible, leadership and leader emer-gence may take on a different nature (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014).For example, some literature in nonorganizational settings sug-gests that those who are most active and answer questions are morelikely to be perceived as a leader (Lin & Chiou, 2010). Informalleadership may be more likely to evolve in social media contexts.Relatedly, the ambient stimuli of physicality, asynchronicity,

and interdependence suggest that group dynamics may be quitedifferent in social media contexts (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). For example, social media contextsoffer greater potential for interdependence, access, and timeliness(latency and synchronicity), regardless of physical location. Thesecontextual attributes should foster many emergent group processeseven when group members are geographically distributed (Bell &Kozlowski, 2002). And yet, the nature of social media contextswill shape the nature of group interactions and these emergentprocesses in ways different from those considered in past virtualteams research because different platforms enable or constraindifferent patterns of member interactions. Finally, social mediacontexts may shape culture or produce culture change. Formalorganizational policies and practices may seek to create a partic-ular culture, but informal interactions over social networks coulddistort this culture or even lead to the presence of multiple sub-cultures; particularly if postings are anonymous.Overall, social media contexts offer many potential benefits for

leadership emergence, effectiveness, facilitating teamwork, andbuilding or changing culture. The ability to communicate andcollaborate anywhere, anytime, with all relevant parties, and onone’s own schedule, offers tremendous potential for leadership andteambuilding. On the other hand, the widespread access to peopleand information may also create risks. For example, the negativeeffects of one toxic or abusive individual can be spread morequickly and more widely in social media contexts. Similarly, socialmedia contexts may facilitate the fracturing of groups into sub-groups and hence the creation of in- and out-groups. Organiza-tional leaders may lose their ability to control or influence cultureand norms, as informal social media networks may undermineorganizationally sanctioned networks. The main benefits—as wellas risks—have to do with inclusion.

5 Note that we discuss culture and climate together. Although they aredifferent phenomena, there is so little social media research on either topicthat we refer to them jointly as culture for convenience.




Socialization and Engagement

Socialization and engagement relate to how employees come tounderstand and become assimilated into the organization. Assim-ilation occurs in terms of aligning values and identifying with thecompany, its leadership, and its employees. Socialization includesthose formal and informal interactions that contribute to newemployees becoming assimilated into the organization. Engage-ment captures the range of employee attitudes, such that morestrongly identified and assimilated employees should becomemore engaged and hence more productive.The proposed social media contextual framework provides

many new questions for understanding socialization and engage-ment. For example, the fact that social media contexts are unaf-fected by physical location means more employees may be social-ized with more consistent messages and experiences. Increasedaccessibility and interdependence might facilitate identity with thefirm because employees can interact with more members, and attimes when it is convenient (i.e., asynchronously). Engagementmay increase because employees have more opportunities to shareexperiences and interact with others, including customers (e.g.,Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). For example, research by Grant(2007) suggests that being able to communicate with the recipientsof one’s work enhances engagement, and the ability of suchcommunication is more possible within social media contexts. Onthe other hand, when users remain anonymous, more destructivetypes of behavior and content are manifested (Douglas & Mc-Garty, 2001). Disengaged employees may spread such informationquickly and widely, and hence increase disengagement more thanif it was localized.Thus, the potential benefits with using social media primarily

involve more widespread and consistent exposure to organiza-tional information, and the establishment of social networks withinthe firm that enhance engagement. The biggest danger is thatnegative information can spread quickly and on a massive scale.This can in turn erode new employees’ assimilation into theorganization, perhaps contributing to earlier turnover and lowmorale. Some of the most interesting social media topics have todo with employees spreading negative information about theirorganization, coworkers, or supervisor. Using social media forspreading discontent blurs the line between personal and profes-sional. This topic can have important organizational ramifications,but there is little scientific research addressing it in the literature.

Implications. Social media contexts clearly overlap, interre-late, and interact with organizational contexts. Employers want toleverage social media for competitive advantage, but doing so mayincrease risk until scholarly research has identified appropriatepractices and guidelines for effective use. The field of appliedpsychology has great scientific sophistication and appreciation ofpractical and legal considerations in nondigital contexts, and thisknowledge should be integrated with social media contexts tobetter inform practice. Identifying the major opportunities, threats,and theoretical questions about social media use in organizationsthus offers an important contribution in guiding future research.

A Critical Concluding Question

We end the discussion of social media by considering a broadlycritical question, but one that speaks to the heart of issues aroundsocial media: To what extent do social media contexts require

significant revision of organizational theories and practices? Weanswer this question by going back to the proposed framework andrestating its major contributions, but this time starting with thepractical and moving to the theoretical.First, while EEO and Title VII legislation still apply to social

media, as do psychometric and technical standards such as reli-ability and validity, it is clear that social media contexts requirenew interpretations of these standards, principles, and practices.Employers are using social media on a widespread scale (Societyfor Human Resource Management, 2011). Never in history has itbeen so easy for an employer to learn so much about an employeeor potential employee. It is because of these profound differencesthat organizations such as the National Labor Review Board havetaken aggressive initiatives to influence the evolving legislationaround social media, and regulatory agencies such as the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission have released reports andpress statements to assist employers (Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission, 2014). Thus, one important contribution ofthis article is to consider from a scientific perspective the oppor-tunities and threats social media creates in a manner that caninform responsible professional practice.Second, social media contexts may offer new insights, and

possibly require significant revisions, of existing theories of orga-nizational behavior. Critiques of research in organizational psy-chology and organizational behavior have routinely bemoaned thelack of context (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Heath & Sitkin, 2001;Johns, 2006; Mischel, 1969; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Rousseau &Fried, 2001). One common theme in these critiques is that aconsideration of context will transform the nature of more person-focused theories. Manipulating or varying the eight ambient stim-uli that distinguish social media from other contexts may offermany new and interesting tests of existing theories, and perhapseven the revision of commonly accepted findings. For example,those wanting to conduct a laboratory study can now identifywhich specific features they want to manipulate. Those wanting toconduct a field study can compare and contrast platforms based ontheir underlying attributes (perhaps even administering measuresof the eight ambient stimuli in a manner similar to manipulationchecks in experiments). An understanding of these contextualfeatures thus allows scholars to make meaningful comparisonsacross contexts; an approach that has proven to be vital for under-standing small group behavior (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kozlow-ski & Bell, 2003; Steiner, 1972).Finally, developing the proposed social media contextual frame-

work illuminates what is unique and what is shared across othercontexts. The proposed contextual framework offers an organized,holistic, and programmatic way for social media research andpractice to proceed. Lacking such a framework, research willlikely be practice or technique-driven. Research findings are likelyto be piecemeal and poorly integrated. For example, will a studyon recruiting using LinkedIn generalize to a study on recruitingusing Facebook, and will either study differ from research usingtraditional recruiting methods? Few new theoretical insights arelikely to be gained by this approach because the underlying attri-butes that explain differences are not part of the design or theory.Furthermore, because the platforms are those that are human-constructions, changes in technology (such as moving to Web 3.0)may lead to platforms like Facebook or LinkedIn disappearing . . .along with the scientific research that was based on them. Thus, a




theory-based understanding of social media offers a scientificfoundation that is useful regardless of what platforms are popularat the moment. It also will prove useful for understanding how newtechnologies may be similar or different to existing platforms, andpredicting how those differences may influence cognition, affect,and behavior. A major contribution of the proposed framework isthat it identifies those underlying contextual features—the eightdiscrete ambient stimuli—that explain why any such differencesmight exist.Of course, the proposed framework is only a starting point.

Future theoretical and empirical research will be needed to movefrom propositions to testable hypotheses. For example, it may wellbe that the eight discrete ambient stimuli need refinement. Thestimuli may be deficient or contaminated, or they may be too fewor too many. Based on the limited literature that currently exists,we purposely chose to err on the side of inclusion, but futureresearch needs to consider this issue further. A particularly impor-tant issue that is beyond the scope of this article, is how contentmay interact with context. For example, does conveying or re-sponding to negative information benefit from face-to-face con-texts more than social media contexts? Finally, understanding hownondigital and social media contexts interrelate is a critical direc-tion for future research. Most employees slide between these twoextremes multiple times every day. Does bouncing between thesecontexts have consequences on cognition, affect, or behavior?Does bouncing between contexts make one more productive, morestressed, or more creative? Research should examine multiplecontexts simultaneously.We also only briefly considered the multilevel nature of social

media contexts. We noted that the omnibus and discrete ambientstimuli are nested, that social media stimuli may influence thenature of emergence, and that the ambient stimuli may producedirect and cross-level interactions on lower level cognition, affectand behavior. However, research needs to develop richer theoret-ical models of how this occurs for different theories and phenom-ena. Indeed, social media contexts might often be nested within thenondigital (physical) context. For example, different nondigitalcontexts (e.g., organizational, home, or church) may influence orinteract with the omnibus social media context and stimuli. Effectsizes and relationships for social media practices could changedepending on the nature of the nondigital contexts. Such possibil-ities are beyond the scope of this article, but we think this is aninteresting avenue for future research.Similarly, we did not touch upon methodological and analytical

issues. We suspect traditional methods will apply, but the contex-tual nature of social media will obviously require greater use ofmultilevel models such as hierarchical linear modeling and multi-level structural equation modeling. However, we suspect the net-worked nature of social media will also require adapting or ex-tending social network analysis methodologies. For example,many firms are now analyzing social media interaction patternsunder the rubric of “big data.” These analyses are based onmillions of pieces of data obtained from within an evolving net-work of relationships. We speculate that fully understanding andanalyzing social media networks will require a fusion of multileveland network analysis modeling; a fusion that will require thedevelopment of new methods.Thus, there are many important questions that need to be ad-

dressed, and the proposed framework offers an introduction into

such research. A lack of research-based best practices limits theability to capitalize on the benefits and avoid the risks, for bothindividuals and organizations. This is an area that is complex,intersects many disciplines, and is quickly evolving. Researcherswill need to blend a variety of theoretical, methodological, andanalytical approaches. These challenges are not to be avoided butembraced. Social media has the potential to offer benefits fororganizations that develop appropriate policies and practices. It isvital that scholarly research begin to identify these best policiesand practices to help organizations do so. We believe a broad,theoretical understanding of social media as a distinct context hasthe potential to strongly direct future research and practice formany years, and provide the impetus for more systematic scholarlyattention on this important global phenomenon.

References

Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008,February). Finding high-quality content in social media. In Proceedingsof the international conference on Web search and web data mining (pp.183–194). ACM.

Alderman, D. H. (2012). Cultural change and diffusion: Geographicalpatterns, social processes, and contact zones. In J. Stoltman (Ed.), 21stcentury geography: A reference handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 123–134). Lon-don: Sage Publications.

Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transferand the dissemination of technological information within the R&DOrganization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anonymous [Author is C. R. Scott]. (1998). To reveal or not to reveal: Atheoretical model of anonymous communication. Communication The-ory, 8, 381–407.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., & Berson, Y. (2013). Leadership models,methods, and applications: Progress and remaining blind spots. Hand-book of Psychology, 12, 367–389.

Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff,B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality,not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360756

Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as asignaling game. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 719–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026078

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotionalcontagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 47, 644–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of workgroup moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667070

Beal, A., & Strauss, J. (2008). Radically transparent: Monitoring andmanaging reputations online. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Bechmann, A., & Lomborg, S. (2013). Mapping actor roles in socialmedia: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of userparticipation. New Media & Society, 15, 765–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444812462853

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams:Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 27, 14–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.Boh, W. F., Ren, Y., Kiesler, S., & Bussjaeger, R. (2007). Expertise andcollaboration in the geogrphyacally dispersed organization. Organiza-tion Science, 18, 595–612.

Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle,J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social




influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11421

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Networkanalysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892–895.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition,history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-tion, 13, article 11.

Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem-solving:An introduction and cases. Convergence, 14, 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354856507084420

Brabham, D. C. (2010). Moving the crowd at threadless: Motivationsfor participation in a crowdsourcing application. Information, Com-munication & Society, 13, 1122–1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691181003624090

Breaugh, J. A. (2012). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge andsuggestions for future research. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford hand-book of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 68–87). Oxford: Ox-ford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199732579.013.0005

Brett, J. M., Tinsley, C. H., Janssens, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Lytle, A. L.(1997). New approaches to the study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), Newperspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp.75–128). San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.

Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communi-cation within online communities: Conceptualizing the online socialnetwork. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 2–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20082

Brown, V., & Vaughn, E. (2011). The writing on the (Facebook) wall: Theuse of social networking sites in hiring decisions. Journal of Businessand Psychology, 10, 11–21.

Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition.Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in ob: Theneed for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior,13, 55–111.

Caren, N., & Gaby, S. (2011). Occupy online: Facebook and the spread ofOccupy Wall Street. Available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract�1943168 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1943168

Carley, K. M., & Kaufer, D. S. (1993). Semantic connectivity: An ap-proach for analyzing symbols in semantic networks. CommunicationTheory, 3, 183–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00070.x

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organiza-tional psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1062

Chiou, W. B. (2006). Adolescents’ sexual self-disclosure on the internet:Deindividuation and impression management. Adolescence, 41, 547–561.

Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networksand new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.),Organizations and communication technology (pp. 143–172). NewburyPark, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483325385.n7

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing whatwe know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social net-works. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 100–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00046-8

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C. C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend or foe? Thepromise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR activities.Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 153–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9215-8

Decarie, C. (2010). Facebook: Challenges and opportunities for businesscommunication students. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 449–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569910385383

Derks, D., & Bakker, A. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of digital media atwork. Hove: Psychology Press.

Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, andgroup presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 33, 497–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.497

DiRenzo, M. S., Linnehan, F., Shao, P., & Rosenberg, W. L. (2010). Amoderated mediation model of e-mentoring. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 76, 292–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.003

Dominick, J. R. (1999). Who do you think you are? Personal home pp. andself-presentation on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Commu-nication Quarterly, 76, 646 – 658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600403

Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated communication and intergroup inter-action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164894

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). The social brain: Psychological underpinnings andimplications for the structure of organizations. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 23, 109 –114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413517118

Elefant, C. (2011). The “Power” of social media: Legal issues and bestpractices for utilities engaging social media. Energy Law Journal, 32,1–56.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Face-book “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online socialnetwork sties. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, arti-cle 1.

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quar-terly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884324

Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American SociologicalReview, 27, 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089716

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (March 12, 2014). Socialmedia is part of today’s workplace but its use may raise employmentdiscrimination concerns. Press Release.

Erickson, B. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In S. D. Berkowitz &B. Wellman (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 99–121). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Esquivel, A., Meric-Bernstam, F., & Bernstam, E. V. (2006). Accuracy andself correction of information received from an internet breast cancerlist: Content analysis. British Medical Journal, 332, 939–942.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthinkresearch. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73,116–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758

Estellés, A. E., & González, L. D. (2012). Towards an integrated crowd-sourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38, 189–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638

Flanagin, A. J. (2002). The elusive benefits of the technological support ofknowledge management. Management Communications Quarterly, 16,242–248.

Freedman, J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. San Francisco, CA: WHFreedman.

Funabashi, H. (2012). Why the Fukushima nuclear disaster is a man-madecalamity. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 21, 65–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6781.2012.01161.x

Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counterin-stitutional web sites as locations for organizational member voice, dis-sent, and resistance.Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 63–90.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318906291729




Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal ofSociology, 78, 1360–1380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225469

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theoryrevisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure andnetwork analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make aprosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24351328

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110

Greenhow, C. (2010). The role of youth as cultural producers in a nichesocial network site. New Directions in Youth Development. Theory,Research & Practice, 128, 55–64.

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009a). Informal learning and identityformation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology,34, 119–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923580

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009b). Old communication, new literacies:Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1130–1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01484.x

Haefner, R. (2009). More employers screening candidates via social net-working sites. CarerrBuilder.com Available at www.careerbuilder.com/artcile/cb-1337-Interview-Tips-More-Employers-Screening-Candidates-via-Social-Networking-Sites

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. (2001). Big-B versus big-O: What is organizationalabout organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,43–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.77

Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Staffing organizations (6th ed.).Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hier-archical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 390–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030264

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal ofSociology, 63, 597–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/222355

Hopkins, T. (1889). Anonymity? Naval Review, 1, 513–531.Howe, J. (2009). Crowdsourcing. Why the power of the crowd is driving

the future of business. New York, NY: Random House.Huffaker, D. (2010). Dimensions of leadership and social influence inonline communities. Human Communication Research, 36, 593–617.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01390.x

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sensemaking: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee per-ceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393414

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jobvite. (2012). Social recruiting survey results. Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com/ext/resources/Resource-Center-Downloads/WFM_Assets_Roadmap/Jobvite/Recruiting/Jobvite_2012_Social_Recruiting_Survey.pdf?1372871758

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behav-ior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687

Jue, A. L., Marr, J. A., & Kassotakis, M. E. (2010). Social media at work:How networking tools propel organizational performance. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Kwok-Kee, W. (2005). Understandingseeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An emircial study.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technol-ogy, 56, 1156–1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20219

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! Thechallenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53,59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and Emotions in Small Groupsand Work Teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 86, 99–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011).Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocksof social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B., & Kim, K. (2012). Across borders andtechnologies: Advancements in virtual teams research. In S. W. J.Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (Vol. 1, pp. 789–858). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928286.013.0025

Kluemper, D. H., & Rosen, P. A. (2009). Future employment selectionmethods: Evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of Mana-gerial Psychology, 24, 567–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910974134

Kluemper, D. H., Rosen, P. A., & Mossholder, K. W. (2012). Socialnetworking websites, personality ratings, and the organizational context:More than meets the eye? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42,1143–1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00881.x

Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams inorganizations. Handbook of Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1214

Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theoryand research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro-cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, andnew directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kraiger, K., McLinden, D., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Collaborative planningfor training impact. Human Resource Management, 43, 337–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20028

Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Under-standing effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technol-ogies to support remote collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler(Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behaviour and group size oncollective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identitymodel and deindividuation theory. British Journal of Social Psychology,40, 575–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164993

Kulik, C. T., Pepper, M. B., Shapiro, D. L., & Cregan, C. (2011). Theelectronic water cooler: Insiders and outsiders talk about organizationaljustice on the Internet. Communication Research. [Advance OnlinePublication].

LeBon, G. (1896). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. New York,NY: Macmillan.

Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., & Hsu, C. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theoryto the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentionsto use E-Learning Systems. Journal of Educational Technology & So-ciety, 14, 1–24.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zichuhr, K. (2010). Social media andyoung adults. PEW Report.

Levy, M. (2013). Stairways to heaven: Implementing social media inorganizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 741–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2013-0051

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10019-000

Liang, T., Ho, Y., Li, Y., & Turban, E. (2011). What drives socialcommerce: The role of social support and relationship quality. Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16, 69–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160204




Lin, F., & Chiou, G. (2010). Prestige as an indicator of knowledgeexchange in the community of school technology coordinators. OnlineInformation Review, 34, 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521011024092

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections,22, 28–51.

Magnier-Watanabe, R., Yoshida, M., & Watanabe, T. (2010). Social net-work productivity in the use of SNS. Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment, 14, 910–927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011084934

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally basedframework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 356–376.

Marx, G. T. (2004). Internet anonymity as reflection of broader issuesinvolving technology and society. Asia-Pacific Review, 11, 142–166.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13439000410001687797

Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time:Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science,11, 473–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200

McFarland, L. A. (2012). The science and practice of social media: Areview and directions for future research. Report Provided for theSociety of Human Resource Management.

Merry, S. E. (1987). Crowding, conflict, and neighborhood regulation. InI. Altman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and communityenvironments (pp. 35–68). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1962-5_2

Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. AmericanPsychologist, 24, 1012–1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0028886

Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time andthe specification of when things happen. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 530–547.

Morris, P. E. (1983). The validity of subjective reports on memory. In J. E.Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions absent- mind-edness (pp. 153–172). London: Academic Press.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linkingindividuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review ofPsychology, 44, 195–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.001211

Newcomb, T. M. (1960). Varieties of interpersonal attraction. In D. Cart-wright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nded., pp. 104–119). Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & Berg, J. M. (2013). When worldscollide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online social networksimpacts professional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38,645–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0235

Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies.Information & Management, 41, 795–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.012

Pelling, E. L., & White, K. M. (2009). The theory of planned behaviorapplied to young people’s use of social networking Web sites. Cyber-Psychology & Behavior, 12, 755–759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0109

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learningenvironments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment ofeffectiveness in basic skills IT training. Management Information Sys-tems Quarterly, 25, 401–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3250989

Ployhart, R. E. (2012). SHRM foundation executive briefing: Social mediain the workplace: issues and strategic questions. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/products/documents/social%20media%20briefing-%20final.pdf

Porter, L. W. (1966). Personnel management. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 17, 395–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.17.020166.002143

Potosky, D. (2008). A conceptual framework for the role of the adminis-tration medium in the personnel assessment process. Academy of Man-agement Review, 33, 629–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.32465704

Rains, S. A., & Scott, C. R. (2007). To identify or not to identify: Atheoretical model of receiver responses to anonymous communication.Communication Theory, 17, 61–91.

Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizationaltechnology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social informationprocessing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393354

Roberts, S. J., & Roach, T. (2009). Social networking web sites andhuman resource personnel: Suggestions for job searches. BusinessCommunication Quarterly, 72, 110–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569908330380

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do:The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256963

Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology. European Psychologist,13, 37–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.37

Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Thatcher, J. B. (2013).Social media in employee-selection-related decisions a research agendafor uncharted territory. Journal of Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503018

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Con-textualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 22, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.78

Sacks, M. A., & Graves, N. (2012). How many “friends” do you need?Teaching students how to network using social media. Business Com-munication Quarterly, 75, 80 – 88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569911433326

Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effects of required elaboration ofanswers to biodata questions. Personnel Psychology, 55, 569–587.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00121.x

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W. P. (2000). Personnel selectionpsychology: Multilevel considerations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Koz-lowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza-tions: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 91–120). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sherman, M. A. (2007). Webmail at work: The case for protecting againstemployer monitoring. Touro Law Review, 23, 647.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In H. H. Pattee(Ed.), Hierarchy theory (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Braziller.

Simons, J. (2001, April 2). Stop moaning about gripe sites and log onmanagers may be horrified by online complaining. But if you canstomach the vitriol, you just may learn something. Fortune Magazine.Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/04/02/300115/index.htm

Sivertzen, A., Nilsen, E., & Olafsen, A. H. (2013). Employer branding:Employer attractiveness and the use of social media. Journal of Productand Brand Management, 22, 473–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0393

Slovensky, R., & Ross, W. H. (2012). Should human resource managersuse social media to screen job applicants? Managerial and legal issues inthe USA. Info, 14, 55–69.

Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2007). Social identity and theattitude-behavior relationship: Effects of anonymity and accountability.European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 239–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.356

Smith, S. (1979). Remembering in and out of context. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 460–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.5.460




Society for Human Resource Management. (2011). SHRM researchspotlight: Social networking websites and staffing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Documents/Social%20Networking%20Flyer_Staffing%20Conference_FINAL1.pdf

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York, NY:Academic Press.

Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact ofthe leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone,and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. In J. M. Shafritz & J. S.Ott (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 491–504). Orland, FL:Harcourt Brace.

Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of group thinktheory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2756

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in asocial network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction,trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-tions, 14, 875–901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lanivich, S. E., Roth, P. L., & Junco, E. (in press).Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of aFacebook-based assessment. Journal of Management.

Wayner, P. (1999). Technology for anonymity: Names by other nyms. TheInformation Society, 15, 90 –97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/019722499128556

Wei, L. (2012). Number matters: The multimodality of Internet use as anindicator of the digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 17, 303–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01578.x

Wei, L., & Hindman, D. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more?Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication & Society, 14, 216–235.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205431003642707

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating com-munities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School of Publishing.ISBN 978-1-57851-330-7.

Wilkesmann, U., Wilesmann, M., & Virgillito, A. (2009). The absence ofcooperation is not necessarily defection: Structural and motivationalconstraints of knowledge transfer in a social dilemma situation. Orga-nization Studies, 30, 1141–1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840609344385

Wong, W. (2009, June 11). Employees linking work, social media. Chi-cago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-11/news/0906100635_1_social-media-facebook-employees

Wright, P. M., & Haggerty, J. J. (2005). Missing variables in theories ofstrategic human resource management: Time, cause, and individuals.Management Review, 16, 1–17.

Yates, D., & Paquette, S. (2011). Emergency knowledge management andsocial media technologies: A case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake.International Journal of Information Management, 31, 6–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.001

Zhao, W. X., Jiang, J., Weng, J., He, J., Lim, E. P., Yan, H., & Li, X.(2011). Comparing twitter and traditional media using topic models. InP. Clough et al.. (Eds.), Advances in information retrieval (pp. 338–349). Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_34

Received August 6, 2013Revision received February 27, 2015

Accepted March 23, 2015 �

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be availableonline? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will benotified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!T

hisdocumentiscopyrightedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationoroneofitsalliedpublishers.



Social Media: A Contextual Framework to Guide Research · PDF fileSocial Media: A Contextual...

Documents

Transcript of Social Media: A Contextual Framework to Guide Research · PDF fileSocial Media: A Contextual...