How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior Essay

hearty media has increasingly choke a immutable in our lives. m each pot r to each(prenominal) 1 egress to friends or family with amicable media, sometimes on a casual backside. Through Facebook, people shadower look on pictures and read precondition updates. peep t surface ensembleows virgin(prenominal)s to read status updates that atomic number 18 gear uped to 140 characters. Each of these genial media tools has its advantages and disadvantages tho each opens up the doors to creating an on teleph iodine line confederacy with an different(prenominal)s that may not be possible offline.George Herbert Meads supposition of symbolical funda handstal interactionism states that our interactions with privates and communities shape our identities and stoop our actions. Is it possible that his system could mount to the ways in which a individuals companionable media federation governs his or her bribe decisions? This paper get bring protrude call ink to f ind the answer. The pursual thesis imparting include an analysis of Meads possibility of symbolic interactionism, a literary works surveil rough communities in tender media, the method apply to roll data, an analysis of the data, and implications from the study.Importance of the flatAs a professional marketer, I experience always been fascinated with affable media. At the very kernel of gracious nature is a desire to be kind. tender media has provided serviceman an verbotenlet to prep ar online communities making it easier to profit with others, which satisfies some of our deepest friendly wants and need. Additionally, accessible media has allowed implementrs to append the get of people included in their some mavenal communities, as loving media is both viral, which is to say that education moves rapidly mingled with friendly media subprogramrs, and transp arent. brotherly media enkindle be considered transparent as physical exercisers of sites s uch(prenominal)(prenominal) as Facebook and chitter post their thoughts, pictures, and locations to their pursuit, which practically consist of people who are not close friends or family. kind media tools puddle buy the farm superb channel for marketers to get across consumers. The article titled, Expand your Brand Community Online states that sociable media is authorized for marketers beca subprogram it allows them to dialogue directly with consumers, which in turn engages consumers directly with company brands (Hanlon, Patrick, Hawkins, & Josh, 2008). Many companies, such as Audi and Dunkin Donuts have utilize complaisant media very efficaciously to tip over consumers. According to Wasserman (2011), out of all other brands on Facebook, Audis fans are the close to engaged of all major corporate brands on Facebook.That consumers can reach out to companies and their mortalal communities via social media has manufactured a issuing shift between companies and consume rs. Lee (2010) contends that social media has become vastly favorite for normal people beca physical exercise it allows any single to interact with content or deliver it (p. 112). This copy of converse is vastly superior to the conventional format of iodine-way communicating between major media and its intended audience (Lee, p. 112).A company that uses social media is to a greater extent(prenominal) presumable to create relationships with members of its target demographic rather than traditional media where conversations between the medium and the audience are un homogeneously. Now, social media outlets such as Facebook and chitter have made it easy for consumers to post product re gather ins and reach out to other like- ideaed individuals in their communities. As social media infiltrates our lives as consumers, in the lead people throw off secures, they are increasingly reaching out to their social media communities for opinions (Drell, 2011).GoalConsumers often want o thers opinions rough items before they make a commitment to buy. For example, they may ask about the color of a shirt, or if they should obtain a large or small purse. accessible media communities provide an outlet for consumers to seek opinions, yet how often and at what stay in the acquire process do consumers reach out to their online communities for advice?Do the opinions provided by social media communities in reality wallop consumers bribes? These are among the key questions I will seek to answer in this thesis, including the everywherearching question of whether social media communities refer consumers get behavior. An exploration of Meads concept of the ego reveals how it can religious service a company realize its brand indistinguishability and ensure the egotism portrayed on Facebook remains consistent with its perceptiveness, and the publics understanding of the brand. In Meads opening of symbolic interaction he suggested we create our self by figu ratively peering finished a looking supply to see ourselves as others do, which leads to the creative activity of an indistinguishability agent (Griffin, 2009, p. 63).As we interact with others, the self is constantly changing and ad keening to further shape our identities, which, Mead contends, are ultimately establish on how others view our self (Griffin, p. 63). Meads concept of the self is an apt metaphor for the process in which a Facebook profile is created and refined finished communicative engagement with consumers in a digital marketplace. Using Meads theory of symbolic interactionism, this thesis will attempt to secern how social media communities affect consumers online purchasing behavior.To encourage answer the question of how peoples social media communities affect their online purchases, I will use numerous look for methods to assemblage data relevant to my thesis topic. For the ingathering of literary informants, I will use two primary sources. number 1 is the online databases offered through the Foley plaza Library at Gonzaga. There, I will mention and collect academic peer-reviewed journal articles about the account statement of social media, the psychology behind the pragmatism of personal communities and how people interact with them, and current trends in consumer purchase behavior. some other resource I will use is the online magazine publicizing Age, a primary resource for marketing professionals that includes articles about trends in digital marketing.From Advertising Age, I will search for articles about rising technologies that aid consumers much efficiently reach out to their social network communities. ProQuest will be my main literature database source as it contains a wide novelty of academic journals suited for a thesis. Advertising Age will be a complementary source small-arm the databases Business Source bring about and Communication & Mass Media Complete will liable(predicate) serve as complementary sources.I will employ come research to help collect data. I will create a study cats-paw with a list of questions that pertain to people social media communities and how these communities affect their purchases. The survey will include a Likert-like scale of 1-3, and will allow for collection of data regarding peoples rankings of the influence their social media communities have oer their purchases. Additionally, the survey will include situational questions, i.e., If you were to buy a large purchase, would opinions from your Facebook friends rival your purchase? Lastly, the survey too will gather information that could have an impact on the thesis question, including respondents age, other demographic data, and item amounts purchased online vs. offline. make-up of Remaining ChaptersThe following thesis will be organized into the following chapters. The second chapter will be the literature review. This chapter will cover Meads theory of symbolic interactionism and its relat ion to the creation of online communities. The literature review will also review the theory of hyper-symbolic interactionism as considerably as the benefits to online communities, how social media has transformed the power dynamic between companies and consumers, the differences in millennials and non-millennials use of the network, and sex activity differences in relation to Facebook.The third chapter of this thesis will introduce the ambit and the methodology use to gather data. The scope of the project will be limited to people who live in horse opera Washington, use social media, and purchase products online. The methodology will be a Likert-like survey distributed through the survey tool Surveymonkey.com. The fourth chapter will analyze the data collect from the survey. Lastly, the fifth chapter will conclude the thesis. It will contain method limitations as well as future studies that should be considered.How favorable Media Communities meeting Consumer Behavior, 10RE VIEW OF THE LITERATUREIntroductionSymbolic interactionism theory was created by Mead to render how globe form their identity and construct a earth of social norms through interactions with others. Although human interaction methods have changed over time, most lately with the digital age, Meads theory remains relevant in at onces world. Applying the theory of symbolic interactionism to online networks, it can be hypothesized that online communities shape individuals identity and reality, and provide a vast network with which to create relationships. This literature review will further explore Meads theory of symbolic interactionism and its drill to online communities at heart social networks. It will also explore how social network users create relationships that can influence their online purchasing decisions.Overview of Symbolic Interactionism TheoryThe theory of symbolic interactionism includes trey core principles that describe how humans interact with each other through center, language, and thought to create our self (Griffin, 2009, p. 60). Mead believed that interactions are central to the development of ones social identity and functioning match to shared norms and values (Tormey, 2007). Meaning is build in how a person constructs a social reality (Griffin, p. 60). The way one interacts with others, verbally or nonverbally, derives from the intend one assigns to various interactions (Griffin, p. 60) For example, a person may see a protestor on the street picketing very loudly. This person may view the protestor as obnoxious and intrusive, whereas another person may view this person as progressive and inspirational. Each of these people has assigned a importation to the protestor, which in return constructs a reality.The protestors true meaning, however, cannot be concretely defined, for each person will assign a different meaning to the protestor and interact ground on the meaning he or she has constructed. The meanings one assigns to anot her is created through the use of language (Griffin, 2009, p. 60). When the first person sees the protestor, he or she uses language to assign a certain meaning to the protestor. craft the protestor obnoxious assigns a negative meaning to the protestor through language.To Mead, naming is the basis for human cabaret (Griffin, p. 61). Lastly, thought occurs when we refer to our intimate dialogue to act symbols and their meaning (Griffin, p. 62). According to Mead, a person needs language to create this inner dialogue (Griffin, p. 62). Without symbolically interacting, one cannot think and create this inner dialogue, which in turn allows a person to assign meaning to others (Griffin, p. 62). When the three principles of meaning, language, and thought occur, the idea of a self begins to emerge (Griffin, p. 63). Mead believed we had to look outwardly to truly understand our inner selves (Griffin, 2009, p. 63).This occurred when the concept of the looking glass self was apply (Griff in, p. 63). When the looking glass self is applied, people construct their identity based on how others view them (Griffin, p. 63). Ones self is created through interactions with others involving theuse of language (Griffin, p. 63). Thus with each new interaction, a persons self can change, which is how we evolve and create our identities. When we interact on a one-to-one basis with another we create a self based on how another views us, but when people interact within an entire partnership, their self is created based on the expectations and responses of the society (Griffin, p. 65).When interacting with a familiarity, a person creates a generalised other based on what expectations and responses the biotic community is perceived to have, Mead noted (Griffin, 2009, p. 65). This reason other is our guide to behavior when interacting with community members (Griffin, p. 65). It helps a person assign meaning to actions, and to act based on the meaning one wants to assume within th e community (Griffin, p. 65). As interactions become to a greater extent frequent within communities, norms and boundaries are created (Lynch & McConatha, 2006, p. 89).To Mead, a community consists of, individual actors who make their own choices. Yet they line up their actions with what others are insideng to form healthcare systems, legal systems, and economic systems (Griffin, p. 65). Although Mead formed this theory long before the Internet was created, it also applies to online social network interactions. Using Meads concept of the lookingglass, one can see how a Facebook rascal is actually a creation of our self.Symbolic interactionism theory plays an important role in the creation of Facebook profiles and how individuals identify themselves through engaging in online communication. When Facebook users communicate whats on their mind or update their status, they are offering a representation of the self, which is based on their social interactions with others (Ellis, 2010 , p. 39).According to Ellis, there is a three-step process in which a Facebook profile reflects ones identity in ignite of Meads theory of symbolic interactionism (p. 39). First, a Facebook user, through actions, allows other Facebook users to become aware of his or her intentions. These intentions are made clear in a persons Facebook profile picture and profile name (Ellis, p. 39). Secondly, communication occurs, as the profile picture becomes the users self. This image is what they would like others to perceive to be their identity (Ellis, p. 39). For example, if aHow Socil Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 13 veterinarian laboratory chose a picture of a smiling veterinarian and a happy dog, this lab is portraying to the world via Facebook that the company is not more(prenominal)over a veterinarian laboratory with happy veterinarians, but one that caters to dogs, and in return, the dogs will be happy. Lastly, in the three-step process the profile picture center somet hing to Facebook users who use it to decide what their identity will be (Ellis, p. 39). The user has created a self through this profile picture as it brings about an identity utilizing the symbolic act of communication (Ellis, p. 39).Hyper-symbolic Interactionism TheoryHyper-symbolic interactionism is a revised theory of symbolic interactionism for online networks (Lynch & McConatha, 2006). Theorists like Mead who apply symbolic interactionism to describe socially constructed worlds did so before the invention of the Internet. The classic application of symbolic interactionism theory needs to adapt and evolve to fit todays digital society (Lynch & McConatha, p. 88). Additionally, advancements in attainments require symbolic interactionism theory to be re-analyzed (Lynch and McConatha, p. 88). Advancements in such subjects as neuroscience and psychology have allowed us to learn more about the human mind than Mead knew when he created symbolic interactionism theory (p. 88).The gen eralize other, as Mead explained, forms when one creates his or her self based on a communitys expectations and responses (Griffin, 2009, p. 65). Thus, the self one creates is constantly changing and evolving based on interactions with others (Griffin, p. 65). One can assume that the creation of online communities, which use different style of interaction, allows ones self to evolve even more than Mead ever thought one could (Lynch & McConatha, 2006, p. 89). Lynch and McConatha propose that the creation of a generalized other still exists, but exists differently online vs. offline (p. 89). trance the generalized other still helps one form a self, the generalized other in the digital space is different than the one Mead described (Lynch and McConatha, p. 89).Lynch and McContha (2006) make that the generalized other humans perceive today is different than Meads because of technology (p. 90). Due to the decrease in varying methods of human interaction, such as phone calls and verba l communication, and an adjoin in similar digital interactions, we are creating our self based on a different generalized other than Mead described (Lynch & McConatha, p. 90). The generalized other that impacts ones self in the digital age is based more on consumerism than the generalized other described in the classic theory of symbolic interactionism (Lynch &McConatha, 2006, p. 90).Hyper-symbolic interaction is Lynch and McConathas (2006) solution to the immediacy of the Internet (p. 91). Hyper-symbolic interaction theory explains the creation of a new type of reality based on symbols plant digitally.The theory comprises the smallest symbols such as the ls and Os of computer language and the tiny pixels of digital imagination, as well as the complex contemporary imagery of advertisements and commercials produced daily (Lynch & McConatha, p. 91). The larger symbols and imagery that these details create lead to new values and norms different than other nondigital communities (Lyn ch & McConatha, p. 91).This digital community is filled with marketers and advertisers, which in turn affect the reality humans construct, including the norms and values we abide by, as well as the meaning we give to symbols. We socialize very differently in digital reality than we do in real life (Lynch & McConatha, p. 91). Additionally, the increase in digital advertising causes us to perceive marketers and ads as reality (Lynch & McConatha, p. 92). Neuromarketing is a new term to describe marketing that has emerged from this shift in reality.Neuromarketing involves the study of how consumers fight back to marketing messages and is based on the idea that we have three brains, the new brain, the middle brain, and the old brain (Lynch & McConatha, 2006, p. 93). There are claims that neuromarketing actually drives consumers to purchase more products through a process of discovering consumers needs and so desegregation them within their reality (Lynch & McConatha, p. 94). Neuromark eting also taps into what is believed to be a humans old brain, the decision-maker that makes choices based on what will help one survive (Lynch & McConatha, p. 94).A humans replyion to the decisions made by the old brain creates a constructed reality of what we essentially need and should react to (Lynch & McConatha, p. 94). Recently, Delta Airlines used neuroscience marketing to create a budget airline called song. The tidings song had no meaning to the airlines, but they used neuroscience marketing to discover the word song produces a pleasant feeling for consumers (Lynch & McConatha, p. 94). Delta Airlines is tapping into meaning consumers comrade with symbols. Do consumers realize this or is it so engrained within our newly digitally created realities?Social Network CommunitiesThe article Consumer Behaviour in Social Networking Sites Implications for Marketers(2011) identifies how humans use social media and how marketers should approach users of social media (Diffley, Kearns , Bennett, & Kawalek, p. 47). Its authors assert there are two methods marketers can use to reach consumers via social media pushTHE get hold ofIntroductionFor a week, I collected survey results through Surveymonkey.com. aft(prenominal) asking co-workers in Seattle, people on Facebook and chirrup, and others in the Gonzaga community to record the survey, I amassed 154 responses. The survey responses came from western Washington residents who use social media, and purchase items online. Survey questions asked were specific to Facebook and/or chirp to actualise more taste into how the two social media tools affect consumer behavior online (Appendix A). Data AnalysisOf the 154 come up individuals who answered the survey, the majority of people were 30-39 long time of age (34%), 64% were female, 57% used both Facebook and chitter, 55% used Facebook daily and 53% never used chirrup. The majority of individuals had 200299 Facebook friends (24%) and 52% of individuals had met all of their Facebook friends. In comparison, 40% had 1-99 chirrup pursuit and 40% had never met their followers in person. From these data it can bededuced that those who use Facebook typically friend others (meaning they are added as friends in their Facebook profiles) they also know offline while those who use Twitter tend to follow or be followed by quaints.Of all Facebook and Twitter respondents, 60% responded they purchase items online and offline at the kindred rate. These respondents noted they typically purchased clothing and accessories online (70%). Additionally, 68% of respondents bought travel accommodations online, 50% bought housewares, 32% buy electronics, and 10% buy insurance online. When asked if they would be more likely to listen to a strangers online review over that of a friend, 65% say they would be somewhat more likely while 30% verbalise they would not be likely.To determine whether a persons Facebook or Twitter community impacts their likelihood of onlin e purchases, I asked a series of questions in the survey regarding Facebook and Twitter. From the results of these questions, I was able to gather enough data to indicate that Facebook communities have a higher impact on how consumers purchase products online than Twitter users. These results vary slightly from my hypothesis, which posited both social media tools would influence consumer behavior. fifty-four per centumage of Facebook users verbalize that they sometimes reach out to their Facebook communities before purchasing a product. This is a large percentage of Facebook users who view their Facebook communities as a trusted source for product opinions. Overall, How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, based on the survey results, the majority of Facebook users proved in this study express they are open at times to the influence and opinions of their Facebook communities, while Twitter users say their communities rarely influence their purchase decisions. Whe n asked how often they reach out to members in their social media communities for opinions about products before they purchase them, 47% of respondents state they never reach out to Facebook friends before purchasing an item. Ninety percent tell that they never reach out to Twitter followers before purchasing an item.Two finds of questions asked in the survey reveal the run in the purchase funnel in which people reach out to others on Facebook or Twitter. Fifty-two percent of individuals never gather opinions from Facebook friends at any point during the purchase funnel. However, 20% reach out to Facebook friends before researching products to buy, 26% while they are comparing products after the initial research signifier, and 2% directly before purchasing a product.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 30Ninety-two percent of Twitter users never reach out to followers during the purchase process. Only 2% of Twitter users reach out to followers before researchin g products to buy, 5% before comparing products after the initial phase and 0% directly before making a purchase.When asked how likely it was that Facebook friends would influence ones online purchases, 48% said that it is not likely, while 51% said that it is sometimes likely. Only 1% said that it is always likely.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 31Twitter appears to have significantly slight of an effect on ones online purchasing behavior as 92% said that Twitter is not likely to affect their purchase decisions. half-dozen percent of Twitter users said that other Twitter followers will sometimes influence their purchase decisions and 1% said that other Twitter followers almost always have an influence.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 32Fifty-seven percent of Facebook users said that they have later on purchased an item they perceive about on Facebook, while simply 17% of Twitter users said the same(p). The majority of Facebook users (54%) believe that Facebook is sometimes helpful when looking for opinions about what products to purchase while 41% said it is not reusable. Twitter is even less useful according to respondents as 79% said Twitter was never useful when looking for opinions about what products to purchase and only 19% said it is sometimes useful.When filtering the data to discern the difference in millennials (younger than 30 days of age) and non- millennials (30 years of age and older) it appeared that millennials were more open to influence from Facebook communities than non-millennials. The majority of non-millennial respondents used Facebook everyday but never used Twitter. Sixty-four percent of millennials used Facebook every day and 27% also used Twitter on a daily basis. Millennials were more likely than non-millennials to have both a Facebook and Twitter account (61% of millennials have both compared to 53% of nonmillennial). Sixty-one percent of non-millennials purchase about the same a mount of products online as they do offline and 73% of their purchases are for travel accommodations. In comparison, 57% of millennials purchase about the same amount of products online as they do offline and the majority of their purchases (77%) are for clothing and accessories.Fifty-four percent of non-millennials say that they never reach out to Facebook friends for opinions before they purchase products online, while 51% of millennials said they sometimes reach out to Facebook friends for opinions. A large majority of both millennials and non-millennials said that they never reach out to Twitter followers for How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, opinions before purchasing a product. Millennials were more likely than non-millennials to reach out to Facebook friends before researching products to buy. Additionally, 24% of non-millennials verbalize that they reach out to Facebook friends to compare products after the initial research phase, and this was nigh the same amount for millennials (29%).Seventy-eight percent of millennials said they hear about products on Facebook that they later buy 51% of non-millennials said the same. Forty-eight percent of nonmillennials believe that Facebook is not useful when looking for opinions about products to purchase online while only 35% of millennials believed that it is not useful. The majority of millennials (61%) believe that Facebook is sometimes useful when looking for opinions about what products to purchase. Both millennials and non- millennials agreed that Twitter is not useful when looking for opinions about what products to purchase.The majority of male and female respondents who took the survey were 30-39 years of age. Sixty percent of males used both Facebook and Twitter while 36% only used Facebook. In comparison, 54% of women used both Facebook and Twitter while 43% used only Facebook. Forty-seven percent of males used Facebook daily while a large percentage (50%) never use Twitter. Wom en tend to use Facebook and Twitter more often. Sixty-two percent of women use Facebook daily while, like males, a large majority never use Twitter. When asked the question, About how many of your friends on Facebook have you met in person? xliv percent of men responded that they knew all of them, whereas 53% of females stated that they knew all of their Facebook friends offline.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, Sixty-four percent of men said that they typically purchase the same amount of items in store and offline with 65% of purchases being travel accommodations. On the other hand, 59% of women typically purchase the same amount of items in store and offline with 73% of purchases being clothes and accessories. When asked how often they reach out to Facebook friends to provide opinions about products they may purchase online, 57% of men and 51% of women said they never do.Fifty percent of men also said that it is sometimes likely their Facebook friends will i nfluence their purchases and 53% said that they often hear about products that they later purchase on Facebook.. Whereas, only 47% of women said that it is sometimes likely their Facebook friends will influence their purchase decisions but 59% said that they hear about products on Facebook that they later purchase. Both genders saw Twitter followers as having only a small influence on their purchase decisions if any at all.Results of the necessitateMeads theory of symbolic interactionism states humans are influenced by community members (Griffin, 2009, p. 65). Using Meads idea that communities impact our perception of what is a norm, I hypothesized that social media communities would impact consumer online behavior. My belief was, that if Mead believed that communities impact our perception of reality and what is normal, and then by default social media communities should influence what one purchases online. One would purchase based on what the community believes to be the bette r(p) purchase.The survey results showed that Twitter communities tend to not significantly impact social media users online purchase behavior, but Facebookcommunities typically do and have the potential to become even more of influencers for consumers.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, Facebook results seem to fall right in line with Meads idea of communities as influencers. darn for Twitter, the survey results indicate that Twitter communities behave differently than offline communities and Facebook communities. As the majority of Twitter users stated that their followers are strangers, they may not feel the same type of interest and companionship as those who use Facebook feel. This is something Lynch and McConatha (2006) touch on when introducing the theory of hyper-symbolic interactionism. Lynch and McConatha believe that due to the marketing-based reality constructed on the Internet, we no lasting have the same type of community interactions as we do offli ne (2006). If this is so, then it is plausible that ones Twitter community has less of an influence, curiously for those who are avid Twitter users. For marketers, this study can be taken in two ways.First, it implies that marketers who focus on the sharing of products among social media communities to get up sales should rethink their strategy, especially if they use Twitter more than Facebook. Second, the results of the survey should inspire marketers to find a marketing method that will increase the influence online communities have on other social media users. My study showed that Facebook communities typically influence some users and have the potential to influence even more in the future. Many Facebook users surveyed seemed to value their Facebook friends opinions when it came to purchasing items online, and sometimes these opinions wedged their purchases. Marketers should use community influence on Facebook users as a way to increase sales and/or brand awareness.Another t akeaway for marketers is the difference between Facebook and Twitter. Most of the respondents use Facebook on a daily basis and Twitter was not used nearly asHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, much, if at all. Out of the two social media platforms, Facebook communities are more of a community than Twitter. More people on Facebook know their Facebook friends offline, while many Twitter users did not know most of their Twitter followers offline. When comparing all of the questions pertaining to Facebook and those pertaining to Twitter, it is apparent that those who use Facebook have more of a relationship with their friends than Twitter users do with their followers. For marketers, this information is beneficial when deciding what channel would be the best to focus their attention on. Crtrescu (2010) stated that online communities create places for members to share a sense of belonging, have a specific culture, a specific set of norms (netiquette), affective ties t hat bind them together and a sense of shared history (p. 82).These elements appear to be lacking in Twitter as most respondents to the survey answered that their Twitter communities were typically comprised of strangers who did not impact their purchasing decisions. install on Crtrescus definition of an online community, and the lack of survey participants that use Twitter, it is questionable if Twitter constitutes a community, especially one that influences. Rather, it can be identified as a communication tool to reach out and converse with strangers but probably is not able to build relationships like Facebook does.In my opinion, Facebook feels more like a community than Twitter. Answers from the survey admit this notion, as many of the respondents stated that they knew Facebook friends offline, while Twitter followers are comprised mostly of strangers. Based on Meads concept of a community as an influencer, I assumed that people would reach out to their Facebook communities to help shape their opinions, more than they would on Twitter. What my survey discovered was a earnest portion of Facebook users feltHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior,like Facebook was a costly method of gathering opinions before purchasing a product, as 50% of survey respondents used Facebook communities this way. Respondents seemed to regard Facebook as a community dependable of influences, which could help shape not only the Facebook users identities, but their purchasing opinions. Greenleigh (2010) engraft that 84% of millennials turn to online communities before purchasing an item. The survey results from my study found the opposite. On average, 50% of millennials who responded to my survey said that Facebook influenced their purchasing decisions. In particular, when asked how often they turn to Facebook communities before purchasing an item, only 51% of millennials said that they sometimes do and 47% said that they never do. Greenleigh also found that mil lennials were 51% more likely to trust strangers when purchasing products, over family and friends.Again, my study deviates Greenleighs notion. Sixty-five percent of millennials said that they would sometimes listen to a strangers online review of products over their friends. maculation 29% said they would not be likely to and a small margin of 6% said they would always listen to a strangers online review. According to Thompson and Lougheed (2012), women are on Facebook more often than men and due to this have change magnitude anxiety. While my study did not measure the amount of anxiety one feels from social media, it did find that women tend to spend more time on Facebook than men much like Thompson and Lougheed stated.Forty-seven percent of males used Facebook daily while 62% of women use Facebook on a daily basis. What is impress about the results when comparing men and womens Facebook tendencies, is the smaller influence Facebook communities have on women than men. Although women said that they used Facebook more often than men on a daily basis, they How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, were less likely to be influenced by Facebook communities when purchasing a product online than their male counterparts. However, women tend to contradict this statement when they are later asked how often they purchase items after earshot about it on Facebook and 59% say that they sometimes do. In comparison, a smaller percentage of men say the same.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior,SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONSLimitations of the StudyWhile my study produced interest results, I believe there is way of life for my improvement within my study that would have produced better results and more bona fide data. One such issue that I would have changed was my desire to limit the location of participants in the survey. My study focused solely on Western Washington individuals with the belief that they would believe an adequate sample size to study. While my sample size provided reliable data and provocative insights, I am curious whether a larger sample size would have impacted the results I received.Would people in Eastern states view Facebook and Twitter differently than people in Western Washington? I think my sample size was drawn too narrowly to make a decisive statement. A second problem with my study is due to time constraints. I was only able to gather data exploitation one method. With more time, I would have implemented an excess method. Another data source would have provided more insights on how social media communities impact consumer behavior online. While my survey, provided adequate enough data to analyze and make a prediction, a method, such as an in-person user research study, would have provided additional results to analyze. Further Studies or RecommendationsFor further evaluation of how social media impacts consumer behavior online, other studies should be explored. While my thesis only looked at the impact of social media communities on consumer behavior online, another avenue I would have care to pursue would have been the impact of a companys Facebook page on consumer behaviorHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, online. For instance, if an online consumer likes or interacts with the Nordstrom Facebook page, are they then more likely to purchase from Nordstrom online? Additionally, another study that could provide interesting results would be how Facebook advertisements impact consumer behavior online. Many companies purchase these ads hoping that they will captivate Facebook users to visit their company page, purchase their product, or recommend the product to others. While data are available on these advertisements to the companies that purchase them, such as number of clicks on ads, a study could help indicate if they actually influence Facebook users to perform the wanted action. The data only show song, but a study could help identify the psychol ogy behind the numbers and why a person may click on one companys Facebook ad over another.ConclusionsSocial media continues to play a role in many peoples lives. From finding information about friends to perusing a companys Facebook page to gain insight into their products, many of us use social media constantly. While our purposes for using social media may vary, we all have created communities we interact with within our social networks. According to Meads theory of symbolic interactionism, the way we interact with individuals shapes our identity. Thus, it can be thought that how we interact with others on social media also can shape our identity. Mead also described the importance of a communitys influence. My thesis seeks to understand if a social media user valued their social media communities influence when it came to purchasing products online. I hypothesized, based on Meads rationale, that if offline communitiesHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 41 impa ct our identities and actions, then social media communities should perform the same way.To obtain this information I distributed a survey to respondents in Western Washington who use Facebook and Twitter as well as purchase items online. When analyzing the results, many interesting insights were noticed. The respondents of the survey interacted more with friends and family on Facebook than they did on Twitter. The majority of Twitter followers one had were strangers. Thus it can be deduced that Facebook is more like an offline community that Mead describes than Twitter. When it came to answering my overall thesis question of whether or not social media affected consumer online behavior the survey showed surprising results. It was found that Twitter had very little influence on consumers and more than likely they never reached out to Twitter followers at any point during the purchase process for opinions.Facebook friends, on the other hand, had more of an influence on Facebook users . Around 50% of Facebook users reach out to their Facebook communities before purchasing an item. Thus, results for Facebook align with Meads theory of symbolic interactionism. In conclusion, the survey I distributed found that social media communities in general, do have an influence on what products social media users purchase online, with Twitter having a very minimal amount of influence and Facebook communities having a relatively high level of influence.How Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 42ReferencesBudzanowska-Drzewiecka, M. (2011). Social conditioning of purchasing decisions of 9-11 year-old consumers. Journal Of Customer Behaviour, 10(2), 143-160. doi10.1362/147539211X589555Crtrescu, I. (2010). Utility of online communities ways one can benefit from ones online life. Journal Of Comparative Research In Anthropology & Sociology, 1(2), 79-91. Retrieved fromhttp//web.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/ehost/detail?vid=54&hid= cx &sid=9a83f789-ffbb-4d09-ad 3369f906fba08e%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d db=sih&AN=55558221Dellarocas, C., Gao, G., & Narayan, R. (2010). Are consumers more likely to add together online reviews for hit or niche products?. Journal Of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 127-157. doi10.2753/MIS0742-1222270204 Diffley, S., Kearns, J., Bennett, W., & Kawalek, P. (2011). Consumer behaviour in social networking sites implications for marketers. Irish Journal Of Management, 30(2), 47-65.Drell, L. (October 25, 2011). Social consumers and the science of sharing. Mashable. Retrieved from http//mashable.com/2011/10/25/social-consumersharing-infographic/ Ellis, K. (2010). Be who you want to be The philosophy of Facebook and theHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 43construction of identity. Screen Education, (58), 36-41. Retrieved fromhttp//proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu2048/login?url=http//search.ebscohost.com/l ogin.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=51533387&site=ehost-liveGarfield, Bob and L evy, Doug. (January 2, 2012). Ignore the human element of marketing at your own peril. AdvertisingAge. Retrieved fromhttp//adage.com/article/news/dawn-relationship-era-marketing/231792/?page=1 Greenleigh, Ian. (January 24, 2012. Talking to strangers. How socialinfluences millennials shopping decisions. Retrieved from http//www.bazaarvoice.com/blog/2012/01/24/infographic-millennials-willchange-the-way-you-sell/ Griffin, Em. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY McGraw-Hill.Hanlon, P., & Hawkins, J. (2008). Expand you brand community online. Advertising Age, 79(1), 14-15. Retrievedhttp//proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu2048/login?url=http//search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=28225980&site=ehost-liveLee, D. (2010). maturation popularity of social media and business strategy. SERI Quarterly, 3(4), 112-117.Ligas, M., & Cotte, J. (1999). The process of negotiating brand meaning a symbolic interactionist perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 609- 614. Retrieved fromhttp//proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu2048/login?url=http//search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=6686384&site=ehost-liveHow Social Media Communities Impact Consumer Behavior, 44Lynch, M. and McConatha, D., (2006). Hyper-symbolic interactionism prelude to a refurbished theory of symbolic interaction or just old wine? Sociological Viewpoints, Spring 2006, Vol. 22, p87-96, 10. Retrieved from http//web.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?si d=9a83f789-ffbb-4d09-ad33-69f906fba08e%40sessionmgr14&vid=44&hid=110 Tormey, P. (2007). The thursday speeches how coach don pile used words and mental images to build a college football powerhouse. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.Wasserman, T. (2011). Audi has the most engaged fans on Facebook. Mashable. Retrieved from http//mashable.com/2011/04/22/audis-facebook-bieber/.