MESSAGE FRAMING OF FACEBOOK POSTS: AN ANALYSIS OF NON

GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs)

Özge Özgen1

Banu Atrek2

Sumeyra Duman Kurt3

Canan Madran4

1Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business, Department of International Business and Trade, Kaynaklar / Buca İzmir Turkey,

ozge.ozgen@deu.edu.tr, +902323018107(contact person) 2Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business, Department of Business Administration 3Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business, Department of Business Administration 4Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business, Department of International Business and Trade

MESSAGE FRAMING OF FACEBOOK POSTS: AN ANALYSIS OF NON

GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs)

Abstract

Creative and efficient usage of social media communications of NGOs, is now one of the ways to

foster their public relation activities, to interact, educate public about their existential objectives

and to facilitate multi-directional information exchange. Therefore, it is vital for them to

structure the determinants of message framing accurately to facilitate their goals. To the extent of

the authors’ knowledge, there is no study in Turkey that focuses on this issue for NGOs. Thus,

this study aims to explore message framing determinants on Facebook through a content

analysis. Moreover, the types of message framing determinants which elicit more Facebook

responses are identified. Results are also compared with the Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs

and Greenpeace which is one of the most powerful NGOs on international base. Findings reveal

that Turkish NGOs share posts on Facebook with a limited usage of public education and call to

action content, lower usage of rich media solutions, and prevention focus. Besides, it is found

that posts on special occasion days, “single” messages, having an “informational”, “community

building” content, “altruistic” focus receive more likes. It is also remarkable that volunteer

testimonials trigger more response from the followers of these pages. Additionally the

comparison between Turkish NGOs and Greenpeace International revealed some notable

differences in terms of message determinants.

Introduction

Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which are the promising actors in global economy

and politics, are playing an important role in creating a social influence over the world leaders

and policy makers to pay attention to social welfare problems of humanity. The introduction of

social media applications has provided new communication tools for NGOs to reach their

objectives like raising awareness, community building, fund raising and call to action. Therefore,

considering the importance of disseminating the messages of NGOs and the manner in which to

engage supporters and influencers, as well as the types of content to disseminate, this study

analyzes NGOs’ usage of social media to enhance their communicative functions. Social media

engagement of NGOs is a recent issue in Turkey and the literature review reveals that studies in

this area are limited. But the field of social media applications of NGOs seems to have a growing

interest for researchers, considering their contributions for the enhancement of interactive

communication opportunities with the public. It is also observed that there is a gap in the Turkish

literature about how NGOs frame and form the content of their messages within their social

media posts, which is deemed as an important issue to attract the attention of public and to build a

community. Hereby, the aim of this research is to analyze the Facebook posts of the NGOs and

to explore their message framing determinants. It is also aimed to identify whether responses

(like, share, comment) differ according to the types of framing determinants. Facebook, which is

one of the most popular social networking sites in Turkey, is chosen as the basis for the research

and a content analysis is conducted on posts of Facebook pages of five NGOs’ with various fields

of interest.

1. Social Media and NGOs

A global transformation in various leading areas as; political decisions and applications,

economic and business dynamics, consumption of the global consumer and social networking is

needed to solve the current social, economic and ecologic problems globally. Grant (2010, p.172)

suggests a paradigm shift "from consumer to citizen", in order to put co-operative responsibility

into action. NGOs, which are private, non-profit, professional organizations, with a distinctive

legal character, concerned with public welfare goals (Clarke, 1998, p.36) play an important role

in the society to facilitate this paradigm shift. NGO networks share new information, reframe

existing problems, and inform public opinion by engaging the news media in order to raise global

awareness thereby encouraging governments to take action (Bob 2005, 2009; Bogert 2011;

Burgerman 2001; Froehling 1997; Keck & Sikkink 1998; Khagram & Sikkink 2002; Price, 1998,

2003; Risse-Kappen et al. 1999; Ron et al. 2005; Shipper, 2012 as cited in Thral et al., 2014, p.2).

Due to the advancement in information technologies, creative and efficient usage of social media

communication of NGOs, has become one of the ways to transform the society.

Social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr and MySpace are among the

popular brands of social networking. They are web-based services that allow individuals to

construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users

with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those

made by others within the system (Boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211). There are various marketing

practices of companies embracing social networks, but the applications are not restricted to for-

profit organizations. Not-for profit organizations are also engaged with social media to foster

their public relation activities, to streamline their management functions, interact with volunteers

and donors, educate others about their programs and services and to facilitate multi-directional

information exchange, and location-based tracking and messaging. (Waters, 2009; Waters et al.,

2009; Bernhardt et al., 2012; Yağmurlu, 2013). A research conducted on largest 200 charities of

US has shown that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogging are now the most common tools

used for social marketing (Barnes, 2010). There are many evidences that NGOs are engaged in

social media enabling them to disseminate their campaigns and to call the society to action (Seo

et al., 2009; Silva, 2012; Zbuchea & Bira, 2012; Lambert, 2014; Thrall et al., 2014; Paturyan et

al., 2014; Shim, 2014). On the other hand, the NGOs engagement in social media is a recent issue

in Turkey. The importance of social media in public relation activities is appreciated by the

professionals but the virtual world applications are the least adopted modes of communication

(Marangoz, 2007; Alikiliç & Atabek, 2012). Akdoğan et al. (2012) reported that respondents find

TV social marketing campaigns (72.6%) more attractive than campaigns on internet (18.9%).

Besides, the most common and trusted source of information for NGOs in Turkey has been found

as “friends and peers”, where the least trusted source was "social media" (Özel, 2011). A

research on two woman associations questioning the existence of these NGOs in social media

points out that there is no directly responsible person for social media management and their

existence is weak (Solmaz & Gorkemli, 2012). Another study examining the Facebook and

Twitter pages of five NGOs in Turkey puts forward that NGOs reach their aims of raising

awareness, increasing recognition, building communication and dissemination of information.

However, the research also concludes that social networking sites are “partially” motivating for

activation in the real world and fund-raising (Onat, 2010). Considering the importance of

evaluating the appropriate platforms to disseminate the messages of NGOs and the manner in

which to engage supporters and influencers as well as the types of content to disseminate

(Villarino, 2011), it can be concluded that online social networking is a very new media for

NGOs to perform their social marketing activities in Turkey.

2. Message Framing Determinants in Social Marketing

Several authors have discussed the framing paradigm in the literature. It is defined as a way of

selecting some aspects of perceived reality and making them more noticeable, meaningful, or

memorable to the audience in a communicating text (Entman, 1993). Empirical studies about

message framing have been carried out regarding different fields of individual behavior. For

example, Ganzach & Karsahi (1995) analyzed the impact of message frame on credit card usage.

Furthermore, some of the existing studies focused on the role and influence of framing on social

marketing (e.g., Kolandai-Matchett, 2009, Zhao, G., & Pechmann, 2007). Primary framing

determinants in social marketing within a holistic model are identified as “content, time horizon,

focus, direction, and tonality” by Helmig & Thaler (2010).

First, “content” determinant was categorized as informational/promotional/community building

messages, messages focusing on prevention/detection behavior, qualitative/quantitative

messages, single/multiple message(s), and messages with unknown/known facts (e.g., Guidry,

Waters & Saxton, 2014; Helmig & Thaler, 2010; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). In the context of

informational messages, several information are shared with an organization’s stakeholders

related to the organization’s activities, events or any other news, facts, or reports relevant to

stakeholders (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Informational messages are classified as “marketing

messages” which focus on giving information about organization and past events and “public

education messages” which concentrate on educating the public about the issues advocated by the

organization (Guidry et al., 2014). Promotional messages are taken into consideration as “call-to-

action messages” which direct the stakeholders to become involved with the organization through

methods that were not contributing financially to the organization or attending events; “events

and promotion messages” which underline the opportunities for stakeholders to become engaged

with the organization by participating in future online or offline activity hosted by the

organization; and finally “fundraising messages” which focus on raising money for the

organization (Saxton & Waters, 2014). Second determinant is time horizon of the message in

terms of emergence of consequences (Thaler & Helmig, 2013). Therefore, aligned with the

objectives of this study, the following research questions are proposed:

Research Question 1: What is the message content of Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs?

Research Question 2: What is time horizon of Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs?

Third, “focus” determinant of social marketing messages includes egoistic(self-

oriented)/alturistic(other-oriented)/biospheric(other oriented) messages and testimonial

dimension which consists of celebrity, expert, volunteer testimonials (Helmig & Thaler, 2010;

Reinard, 1998 as cited in Stewart, 2014). While egoistic messages focus on self, and self-oriented

goals such as health, quality of life, prosperity, convenience; altruistic messages concentrate on

other people such as children, family, community, humanity. Lastly, biospheric messages give

attention to the well-being of living things such as plants, animals, trees. (Schultz & Zelezny,

2003) On the basis of these arguments, the following research question is offered:

Research Question 3: What is the message focus of Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs?

Fourth, “direction” determinant of the messages is identified as positive or negative and gain or

loss framed in the literature (e.g., Block & Keller, 1995, Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Prospect

theory is the fundamental theory of message framing research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979,

1982; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) which states that individuals’ decisions change across options

framed as gains or losses under risky conditions. Tversky & Kahneman (1981) introduced this

theory through framing an Asian Disease problem. The possible outcomes of the outbreak of an

Asian disease were framed as gains in one scenario and as losses in the other scenario.

Individuals chose the certain outcome of saving people in the gain framed version whereas they

chose to take risk of losing certain amount of people in the loss scenario. Social marketing

research benefits from these framing effects in the aim of persuading people to encourage for the

desired outcome (e.g., Wymer 2010, Arthur & Quester 2004; Bennett 1996, Banks et. al. 1995).

In the literature, some argue that when persuading individuals for a certain action positive

framing is more effective (Levin & Gaeth, 1988), whereas other state that negative framing can

induce more action (Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987). Rothman & Salovey (1997) reviewed how

prospect theory can be utilized for developing maximally persuasive health messages and

revealed that loss framed appeals were more effective in motivating behavioral outcomes.

Therefore, the previous discussion above leads to the following research question:

Research Question 4: What is message direction of Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs?

Last but not least, “message tonality” as fifth determinant identifies the intensity of gain and loss

frames. Gains and losses emphasized in the message can be emotional or rational (Helmig &

Thaler, 2010). Emotions are important predictors of voluntary actions and some emotions such

as pride, hope, optimism, guilt relief are mentioned in the social marketing literature (Laverie &

McDonald, 2007). Additionally, Brennan & Binney (2010) mention that social marketers need to

consider the use of fear, guilt and shame as negative emotional appeals to gain voluntary

compliance. Based on these studies, the following research question is generated:

Research Question 5: What is message tonality of Facebook posts of Turkish NGOs?

Persuasion process may vary within and across nationalities and people may display various

responses when exposed to message frames (Orth et al., 2007). With insufficient evidence for

comparing the social media posts of NGOs from different countries, the following research

question is put forward:

Research Question 6: How does the use of message framing determinants on Facebook with

respect to (a) message content, (b) time horizon, (c) message focus, (d) message direction (e)

message tonality differ between the Turkish NGOs and Greenpeace International?

Responses toward different message framing determinant differ apart from types of media. While

Guidry et al., (2014) focused on social marketing efficiency on Twitter; Saxton & Waters (2014)

analyzed stakeholders’ attitude toward social marketing on Facebook. In this context, the

following research question and the derived hypothesis are proposed:

Research Question 7: Which types of message framing determinants elicit more Facebook

responses with respect to (a)like, (b)comment, and (c)share?

3. Methodology

The main goal of this study is to analyze the Facebook posts of the NGOs and to explore their

message framing determinants. In this framework, the first part of research was planned as an

exploratory study and content analysis is conducted to investigate the posts in Facebook. Besides,

it is also aimed to find out whether responses (like, share, comment) differ according to the types

of these framing determinants and hypotheses tests were applied to reach this objective. The list

of all NGOs that operate in Turkey was attained through the government’s official site “e-

government”. The list of 56 foundations concerned with several social welfare issues was

categorized by the authors under 5 groups: health, culture and education, environment, society

and profession. Foundations for professionals are disregarded from the analysis within the scope

of this study.

There were 8 NGOs engaged in health issues; 18 in culture and education; 5 in environment and

17 NGOs in the field of society. Facebook pages of all these NGOs are visited and the number of

followers of each page is recorded. “Foundation for Children with Leukemia-LÖSEV” (health)

(519,845 followers), “İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts -İKSV” (culture and education)

(120,343 followers) and “Educational Volunteers Foundation of Turkey-TEGV” (culture and

education) (178,099 followers), “The Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for

Reforestation and the Protection of Natural Habitats-TEMA” (environment) (346,174 followers)

and “Community Volunteers Foundation (TOG)” (society) (140,000 followers) were found to be

the NGOs with the highest number of followers in Facebook in each category (as of February

2015). Additionally to compare the results with an international NGO, Greenpeace which is

established 40 years ago and defined as the world’s most powerful NGO by “The Times”

(Greenpeace, 2011) was selected and the international Facebook page of Greenpeace (2.073.512

followers as of February 2015) was examined. Further analyses were conducted on the

mentioned sample of 6 NGOs. Each post shared by NGOs between the dates of 01.10.2014 –

31.12.2014 are analyzed. The database contained the 152 posts for this period. The classification

scheme was designed based on message framing determinants of Helmig and Thaler (2010),

which proves content validity of this study. Two authors coded the first 10 posts of each NGO

based on the coding protocol separately. Discrepancies between codings were discussed and

coding protocol was revised until 100% agreement was reached. Using the refined coding

protocol, two scholars coded all posts with 90% inter-coder agreement.

4. Findings

112 posts were shared by 5 Turkish NGOs during the selected time period on Facebook. During

that period, LÖSEV has highest total number of likes (NL=138,978), comments (NC=1,099), and

shares (NL=13,637) among the Turkish NGOs. Greenpeace International (Greenpeace Int.) shared

40 posts in 3 months period and leads these findings by having the highest number of

likes/comments/shares per post (Table 1).

Table 1: Reactions toward the Social Media Posts of Selected NGOs NGOs Number of

Posts in 3

Months

Period

Number

of Likes

(NL)

Number

of likes

per Post

Number of

Comments

(NC)

Number of

Comments

per Post

Number

of Shares

(NS)

Number

of

Shares

per Post

LÖSEV 26 138,978 5345.31 1099 42.27 13,637 524.50

TEMA 26 31,424 1208.62 213 8.19 3,175 122.12

TEGV 30 13,806 460.20 79 2.63 759 25.30

TOG 14 2,008 143.43 17 1.21 102 7.29

İKSV 16 1,458 91.13 17 1.06 162 10.13

Sub-total for

Turkish NGOs 112 187,674 1675.6 1425 12.7 17835 159.2

Greenpeace Int. 40 250,969 6274.22 15,656 391.40 147,097 3677.42

When the dates of posts shared on Facebook pages are analyzed, it can be seen that posts shared

by both groups of NGOs are during ordinary days (Turkish NGOs 75%-Greenpeace Int. 95%)

whereas the percentage is much higher for Greenpeace Int. since they target a wider variety of

audience worldwide. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that Turkish NGOs are giving

special attention to feasts and public holidays and celebrate these days on Facebook pages. They

are also sometimes organizing special events by targeting their communities.

Table 2: Message Content and Time Horizon of the Social Media Posts of Selected NGOs Turkish NGOs Greenpeace Int.

f (n=112) %a

f (n=40) %a χ2

Posts with Informational Content 82 73.2 37 92.5 6.450*

Posts with Promotional Content 49 43.8 13 32.5 1.545

Posts with Community Building Content 85 75.9 30 75 .013

Posts with Marketing Content 75 67 33 82.5 3.459**

Posts with Public Education Content 22 19.6 27 67.5 30.902*

Posts with Call-to-action Content 4 3.6 12 30 21.858*

Posts with Events and Promotion Content 42 37.5 7 17.5 5.397*

Posts with Fundraising Content 26 23.2 - - -

Posts with qualitative information 110 98.2 35 87.5 7.702*

Posts with quantitative information 14 12.5 11 27.5 4.826*

Posts with texts 96 85.7 39 97.5 4.121*

Posts with photos 70 62.5 19 47.5 2.733

Posts with videos 39 34.8 20 50 2.859

Posts with tags 24 21.6 5 12.5 1.577

Posts with links 28 25 32 80 37.317*

Posts with hashtags 27b 24.1 4 10 3.613

*

Short-term oriented posts 95 84.8 29 72.5 2.978

Long-term oriented or timeless posts 17 15.2 11 27.5 a Note that these are the percentages within overall posts; b 23 of hashtags refer directly to the related issues with post; 11 of them

refer to broader issues; *p<.05; **p<.01

The message content of the posts classified under subgroups can be seen on Table 2. According

to chi-square analysis, Turkish NGOs and Greenpeace Int. differ through some message content

determinants of informational, marketing, public education, call-to-action, events and promotion

content, qualitative and quantitative information, post with texts, links and hashtags. Most of the

posts shared by Greenpeace Int. have informational content (92.5%), which is in accordance with

Turkish NGOs (73.2%). Both Greenpeace Int. (82.5%) and Turkish NGOs (67%) mostly share

posts with marketing content. Although Turkish NGOs share posts that include events and

promotion content (37.5%), most of the posts shared by Greenpeace Int. cover call-to-action

content (30%). Both groups of NGOs share posts mostly with text (Greenpeace Int. 97.5%,

Turkish NGOs 85.7%) and qualitative content (Greenpeace Int. 87.5%, Turkish NGOs 98.2%)

whereas Greenpeace Int. significantly has more links within its posts (80%). Lastly, 24.1% of

posts shared by Turkish include hashtags in which most of them refer directly to the related

issues with the post.

Table 3: Message Focus of the Social Media Posts of Selected NGOs

Turkish NGOs Greenpeace Int.

f (n=112) %a f (n=40) %

a χ2

Posts with egoistic focus (self oriented) 33 29.5 2 5 9.953*

Posts with altruistic focus (other oriented) 78 69.6 15 37.5 12.822*

Posts with biospheric focus (other oriented) 17 15.2 35 87.5 68.494*

Posts focusing on prevention behavior 6 5.4 22 55 48.334*

Celebrity testimonial 36 32.1 3 7.5 9.383*

Expert testimonial 14 12.5 6 15.0 .161

Volunteer testimonial 52 46.4 20 50.0 .151 a Note that these are the percentages within overall posts; *p<.05; **p<.01

When the message focus of the NGOs are analyzed, while Turkish NGOs focus on altruistic

messages (69.6%), Greenpeace Int. focuses on biospheric posts (87.5%) which is an expected

outcome due to the organization’s mission. Both groups share posts focusing on prevention

behavior and Turkish NGOs share significantly higher number of posts that have celebrity

testimonials (32.1%) compared to Greenpeace Int. (7.5%) (Table 3).

Table 4: Message Direction of the Social Media Posts of Selected NGOs Turkish NGOs Greenpeace Int.

f (n=112) %a f (n=40) %

a χ2

Positively framed posts 45 40.2 14 35.0 .333

Negatively framed posts 7 6.3 12 30.0 15.200*

One sided posts 49 43.8 24 60.0 3.118**

Two sided posts 1 0.9 1 2.5 .586

Gain framed posts 48 42.9 9 22.5 5.211*

Loss framed posts 3 2.7 13 32.5 27.830*

a Note that these are the percentages within overall posts; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 4 indicates that Greenpeace Int. shares significantly more posts with a negative frame

(Greenpeace Int. 30%-Turkish NGOs 6.3%) and one-sided message (Greenpeace Int. 60%-

Turkish NGOs 43.8%). While Turkish NGOs focus more on gain-framed posts (42.9%),

Greenpeace Int. focuses on loss-framed posts (32.5%). Greenpeace Int. shares significantly

higher number of posts that are positively framed and have an “avoid loss” direction (Greenpeace

Int. 10%-Turkish NGOs 0.9%) and negatively framed with “suffer loss” direction (Greenpeace

Int. 27.5%-Turkish NGOs 2.7%).

Table 5: Message Tonality of the Social Media Posts of Selected NGOs

Turkish NGOs Greenpeace Int.

f (n=112) %a f (n=40) %

a χ2

Emotional gain framed posts 34 30.4 3 7.5 8.361*

Rational gain framed posts 26 23.2 10 25 .052*

Emotional loss framed posts - - 3 7.5 -

Rational loss framed posts 3 2.7 12 30 24.735*

a Note that these are the percentages within overall posts; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 5 shows that message tonality of the Facebook posts shared by Turkish NGOs reveal that

they are mostly emotional gain framed (30.4% compared to 23.4%), whereas posts shared by

Greenpeace Int. are mostly rational gain framed posts (25% compared to 7.5 %). Another notable

finding is that Greenpeace Int. shares significantly higher number of posts with rational loss

frame (30%) than Turkish NGOs (2.7%).

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is employed to observe differences between Facebook

posts shared by Turkish NGOs and responses towards these posts in terms of likes, comments

and shares (Table 6).

Table 6: ANOVA Results for Turkish NGOs LIKE COMMENT SHARE

µ (σ) F µ (σ) F µ (σ) F

Informational 1728.0

(2810.3)

3.464*

16.9

(33.3)

1.334

170.6

(233.4)

.361 Promotional 590.0

(850.3)

7.0

(7.8)

135.2

(214.9)

Community Building 1567.2

(2798.7)

16.6

(34.0)

148.3

(229.4)

Special occasion day post 3419.5

(4026.5) 31.712*

33.0

(49.9) 15.855*

322.2

(270.4) 34.693*

Ordinary day post 707.2

(1087.2)

6.5

(6.8)

77.5

(139.2)

Egoistic 437.7

(688.8)

2.546**

5.2

(5.2)

1.497

100.0

(162.3)

.991 Altruistic 1508.9

(2846.0)

17.5

(36.2)

165.9

(240.2)

Biospheric 1160.4

(957.2)

7.7

(6.1)

120.8

(146.0)

Celebrity 545.0

(733.7)

4.978*

5.9

(7.5)

2.371

90.5

(213.4)

1.864 Expert 826.7

(634.8)

7.5

(5.9)

152.7

(149.8)

Volunteer 2167.4

(3394.9)

22.0

(40.3)

192.6

(245.3)

Single 1906.0

(3180.4) 6.346*

19.7

(39.3) 3.154

147.5

(221.0) .000

Multiple 739.6

(853.0)

8.0

(8.2)

147.3

(211.3) *p<.05 **p<.01

Posts that are significantly liked more are; informational (µ=1728, F=3.464, p<.05), special

occasion day posts (µ=3419.5, F=31.712, p<.05), altruistic (µ=1508.9, F=2.546, p<.01), posts

with volunteer testimonial (µ=2167.4, F=4.978, p<.05), posts with single message (µ=1906,

F=6.346, p<.05). Posts that are significantly commented and shared more are special occasion

day posts (µ=33, F=25.855, p<.05; µ=322.2, F=34.693, p<.05).

6. Conclusion

Social media enhances the interactive communication opportunities with the public; therefore it is

believed that creative and efficient usage of social media of NGOs is an important key to

transform the society from “consumer to citizen". The content, focus, direction and tonality of

messages, which are determinants of message framing, are claimed to have a persuasive and

influencing effect on objectives of NGOs like raising awareness, community building, call to

action or fundraising. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the current usage of these determinants to

enhance the communicative functions of Turkish NGOs. Regarding the number of posts shared, it

can be concluded that Turkish NGOs do not facilitate Facebook effectively. The findings

pinpoint that Turkish NGOs share posts on Facebook with a limited usage of public education

and call to action content, less usage of rich media solutions, and prevention focus. Moreover,

another important conclusion of this study within international context is that Greenpeace uses

more negatively framed and loss framed messages while Turkish NGOs prefer positively framed

and gain framed messages. The rationale behind this fact can be the level of involvement in

NGOs and cultural differences which needs further research. The findings also revealed that posts

on special occasion days, “single” messages, having an “informational”, “community building”

content, “altruistic” focus get more likes. It is also remarkable that volunteer testimonials trigger

more response from the followers of these pages.

Turkish NGOs should recognize the need to go beyond the aim of not only existing on Facebook

but also facilitating the necessary usage of message framing and social media communication

functions. The impact of this study stems from being a pioneer attempt to use message framing

determinants within a holistic approach. This study can be extended by analyzing the content of

comments and its relationship with message frame determinants with larger scales of posts and

NGOs from different fields.

References

Alikiliç, Ö. & Atabek, Ü. (2012). Social media adoption among Turkish public relations professionals: A survey of

practitioners, Public Relations Review, 38, 56– 63.

Akdoğan, M.Ş., Çoban, S. & Öztürk, R. (2012). Medyada Yer Alan Sosyal Pazarlama Kampanyalarina Yönelik

Tüketici Değerlendirmeleri: Konya İlinde Bir Uygulama, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi

Dergisi, 39, Ocak-Haziran, 1-18.

Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Who’s afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation

model. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 671–696.

Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of

message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184.

Barnes, (2010). Social Media Usage Now Ubiquitous Among US Top Charities, Ahead of All Other

Sectors.http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmediaresearch/socialmediatopcharities/ Accessed at 22.02.2015.

Bennett, R. (1996). Effects of horrific fear appeals on public attitudes towards AIDS. International Journal of

Advertising, 15(3), 183–202.

Bernhardt, J. M., Mays, D. & Hall, A. K. (2012). Social marketing at the right place and right time with new media,

Journal of Social Marketing, 2(2), 130 – 137.

Bob, C. (2005). The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism.Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bob, C., ed. (2009). The International Struggle for Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bogert, C. (2011). Whose News? The Changing Media Landscape and NGOs. In World Report (Events of 2010),

24–36. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Boyd, D.M. & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. Journal of business

Research, 63(2), 140-146.

Burgerman, S. (2001). Moral Victories: How Activists Provoke Multilateral Action. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Clarke, G. (1998). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)and Politics in the Developing World, Political Studies,

XLVI, 36-52.

Entman R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4),

51–58.

Froehling, O. (1997). The Cyberspace ‘War of Ink and Internet’ in Chiapas, Mexico. Geographical Review, 87, 291–

307.

Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business

Research, 32(1), 11-17.

Grant, J. (2010). CO-OPPORTUNTY Join up for a Sustainable, Resilient, Prosperus World, John Wiley &Sons,

UK

Greenpeace (2011) London Times: Greenpeace is now the world’s most powerful NGO, Retrieved from:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/london-times-greenpeace-is-now-the-worlds-

mos/blog/34767/

Guidry, J. PD, Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Moving social marketing beyond personal change to social

change: Strategically using Twitter to mobilize supporters into vocal advocates. Journal of Social Marketing, 4(3),

240-260.

Helmig, B., & Thaler, J. (2010). On the effectiveness of social marketing—what do we really know?. Journal of

Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 264-287.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) . (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky, (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2),

263-292.

Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Khagram, R. & Sikkink, K. (2002). Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and

Norms, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kolandai‐Matchett, K. (2009). Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’in the alternative media: A

case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 113-125.

Lambert, K. (2014). Environmental Law NGOs and Social Media Use: An Analysis of Strategies and Organizational

Impacts, University of Michigan Department of Political Science In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree ofHonors Bachelor of Arts. Retrieved from:

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/107752/katelamb.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Laverie, D. A., & McDonald, R. E. (2007). Volunteer dedication: Understanding the role of identity importance on

participation frequency. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(3), 274-288.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical

analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social

media. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353.

Marangoz, M. (2007). Kar Amacı Gütmeyen Kuruluşlarda Sosyal Pazarlama ve Çevre Gönüllü KuruluşlaraYönelik

Bir Araştırma", Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 275-297.

Meyerowitz, B. E. & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes,

intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.

Onat, F. (2010). Bir Halkla İlişkiler Uygulama Alanı Olarak Sosyal Medya Kullanımı: Sivil Toplum Örgütleri

Üzerine Bir İnceleme, İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, Güz, (31), 103-121.

Özel, A.P. (2011). Sosyal Medya ve Güven: Hükümet, Sivil Toplum Örgütleri ve Ticari Kuruluşlara Yönelik

Ampirik bir Araştırma, Academic Journal of Information Technology, 1-31.

Paturyan, Y., Gevorgyan, V. & Matevosyan, M. (2014). Is ‘Googling’ a Technique? What the Internet Can Tell Us

about the Non-Governmental Sector in Armenia. Haigazian Armenological Review, 34 (July), 257–67.

Price, R. (1998). Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets LandMines,International

Organization, 52:613–44.

Price, R. (2003). Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics, World Politics, 55, 579–606.

Reinard, J. C. (1998). The persuasive effects of testimonial assertion evidence. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.),

Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 69–85). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.

Risse-Kappen, T., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K. (1999). The Power of HumanRights. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Ron, J., Howard R., & Rodgers, K. (2005). Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting,

1986-2000, International Studies Quarterly, 49, 557–87.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message

framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.

Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook? Examining Public Reactions to

Nonprofit Organizations’ Informational, Promotional, and Community-Building Messages. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 26(3), 280-299.

Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American

values. Human ecology review, 10(2), 126-136.

Seo, H., Kim, J.Y. & Yang, S. (2009). Global activism and new media: A study of transnational NGOs’ online public

relations, Public Relations Review, 35(2), 123–126.

Silva, A.C. (2012). The positioning of international NGOs on Facebook: communicating trough social network sites,

Lisboa: ISCTE, 2012. Dissertação de mestrado. [Consult. Dia Mês Ano] Disponível em

www:<http://hdl.handle.net/10071/7822>.

Shim, K. (2014). Impact of Social Media on Power Relations of Korean Health Activism, Media and

Communication, 2(2), 72-83.

Shipper, A. R. (2012). Influence of the Weak: The Role of Foreigners and NGO Networks in Democratizing

Northeast Asia, International Studies Quarterly, 56,689–703.

Solmaz, B. & Görkemli, H.N. (2012). Use of Social Media As A New Communication Tool: The Case Of Konya

Woman Associations, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28, 183-189.

Stewart, D. W. (Ed.). (2014). The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO.

Thaler, J. & Helmig, B. (2013). Promoting Good Behavior: Does Social Temporal Framing Make a Difference.

Voluntas, 24:1006-1036.

Thrall, A.T., Stecula, D. & Sweet, D. (2014). May We Have Your Attention Please? Human-Rights NGOs and the

Problem of Global Communication, The International Journal of Press/Politics, April, 1-25.

doi:10.1177/1940161213519132.

Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman, (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 211(4481),

453-458.

Ulrich, R., Orth, H., Koenig, F. & Firbasova, Z. (2007). Cross-national differences in consumer response to the

framing of advertising messages, European Journal of Marketing, 41(3/4), 327 - 348.

Villarino, E. (2011). Top humanitarian agencies on social media, https://www.devex.com/news/top-humanitarian-

agencies-on-social-media-76423 accessed at 28.02.2015.

Waters, R.D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A. & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How

nonprofit organizations are using Facebook, Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.

Waters, R. D. (2009). The use of social media by nonprofit organizations: An examination from the diffusion of

innovations perspective. In press in: Dumova, T., &Fiordo, R. (Eds.), Handbook of research on social interaction

technologies and collaboration software: Concepts and trends (pages TBD). IGI Publishing: Hershey, PA.

Wymer, W. (2010). Rethinking the boundaries of social marketing: Activism or advertising? Journal of Business

Research, 63(2), 99–103.

Yağmurlu, A. (2013). Diyalojik İletişim Çerçevesinden Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi Sosyal Medya Uygulamalari,

Selçuk İletişim, 8(1), 95-115.

Zbuchea, A. & Bira, M. (2012). The Romanian Cultural NGOs and the Online Citizen: A Rendezvous Manqué?, in

M. Botan, T. Vlad, D. Popescu-Jourdy, Rethinking the Public Sphere: Theoretical Conceptualization, New

Challenges, and Dynamics, Bucharest: comunicare.ro, 2013, pp. 468-497.. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2544684

Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents' response to antismoking

advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671-687.