Facebook "Likes

UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA
Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia applicata e
Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione
Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Psicologia Sociale del Lavoro e della
Comunicazione
Tesi di Laurea Magistrale
The "likes bias": Are Facebook users influenced by the number of
"likes"?
Il “likes bias”: il numero dei “mi piace” in una pagina Facebook influenza gli
utenti?
RELATORE LAUREANDA
Prof. Maass Anne Anna Fusillo
MATRICOLA
1018259
ANNO ACCADEMICO
2012 / 2013

TABLE OF CONTENT
1. SOCIAL NETWORKS AND FACEBOOK……………………..……..…………….1
1.1 The social networks era…………………………………………………...............….1
1.2 The Facebook era……………………………………………………………………..2
1.3 Facebook’ features……………………………………………………………………3
1.4 Use of Facebook: who and how………………………………………….……...……5
1.5 Facebook brand pages………………………………………………………….……..8
1.6 Why and how companies use Facebook brand pages ……….......…………….…....10
2. PERSUASION………………………………………………………………………13
2.1 Persuasiveness of Facebook and Facebook brand page……………………………..13
2.2 Off-line persuasion………………………………………………………………..…16
2.2.1 The Elaboration Likelihood model of persuasion………………………………...…16
2.2.2 Rules of persuasion………………………….………………………………………17
2.2.3. Social influence…………………………………………………………….......……20
2.3 On line persuasion…………………………………………………………………...21
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY……………………………………………….23
4. METHOD…………………………………………………………………………...26
4.1 Participants..........................................................................................………………26
4.2 Procedure...………………………………………………………………………….26
4.3 Manipulation………………………………………………………………………...25
4.4 Dependent variables ……………........….…………………………………………..29
4.4.1 Questionnaire..........................……………….………………………..…………….29
4.4.2. Tobii eye-tracker…………………………………………………………………….33
4.4.3 IAT…………………………………………………………………………………..33
5. RESULT................…………………………………………………………………..35
5.1 Descriptive analysis: Self-reported Facebook use…....……………………………..35
5.2 Preliminary analyses...………………………………………………………………35
5.3 Effects of likes on explicit attitudes…….…………………………………………...36
5.4 Potential moderator variables..........................................………………………...…37
5.5 The effects of number of likes on implicit attitudes ………………………………..37
5.6 Visual exploration of the brand page …….............................................................…38
5.6.1 First 2 seconds of vision ………............................................……………………....39
5.6.2 First 5 seconds of vision ………............................................……………………....44
5.6.1 First 10 seconds of vision ………..........................................……………………....46
5.6.1 First 30 seconds of vision …….............................................…………………….........49
7. Discussion……………………………………………………………………….…..50
7.1 Marketing perspectives………………………………………………………….…..52
7.2 Limits…………………………………………………………………………….….53
7.3 Future research………………………………………………………………………54
I References...................................................................................................................56
II Appendix I..................................................................................................................67
II.I Appendix II.................................................................................................................69
II.II Appendix III...............................................................................................................78

1. SOCIAL NETWORKS AND FACEBOOK
1.1 The social networks era
As in the 90' the television has deeply changed social, economic, politics,
cultural and cognitive processes (Cecchinato, 2009), nowadays, social networks have
firmly penetrated in everyday life as they have become part of our daily routine.
However, in a sense, social networks have always existed, as people are wired to
connect; with the extended use of internet they have only moved from an off-line to an
on-line dimension (Crosier et al., 2012).
Boyd and Allison (2007, p. 211) have defined a social networks as “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.”
The first social network, called Sixdegrees.com, came out in 1997. But only in 2003,
with Friendster and MySpace, did the word 'social networks website' become part of the
ordinary vocabulary. MySpace was especially used by teenagers and music bands, as a
meeting place LinkedIn appeared in the same year and soon became the most important
professional social network, a new way to display one’s curriculum vitae and being in
contact with colleagues and firms. The following year, Facebook appeared on the scene,
Twitter appeared in the 2006 and Google+ in 2010 (Byod and Allison, 2007).
There are a myriad of other social networks around the world, each designed for
different targets and characterized by different features.
I will report some statistics to understand how deep-rooted the use of Internet
1

and social networks is in the whole world. 391 million Europeans are on-line for almost
27,7 hours every month. 85,2% of online population uses social networks (ComScore,
2012). People continue to spent more time on social networks than on any other type of
sites (Nielsen, 2012).
Also, Italian habits are in line with the European statistics. In Italy, each citizen
spends on average 17,6 hours on Internet every month. 26,8 million citizens use social
networks and 93% of time passed on social network is employed using Facebook. 1/3 of
the time passed on line is in Facebook. More than half of the internet users visit
Facebook as the first site and the 85% closes the browser after having visited it
(ComScore, 2012). The most frequently used social networks are Facebook, YouTube
and Twitter (www.magnews.it/digital-marketing-trends.it, accessed 15/02/2013).
1.2 The Facebook era
Facebook was born in 2004 under the original name of “The Facebook”: Mark
Zuckerberg, at the age of 19, created Facebook while studying psychology at Harvard
University. The Social Network was initially reserved to Harvard students only, after 24
hours 1200 student have already opened an account. The registration began to be
opened to other institutions on September, 3rd
2005 and on September 26th
, 2006
Facebook opened to everyone who had an registered e-mail address
(https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia accessed
in15/02/2013)
2

1.3 Facebook’ features
Facebook is a social networks website, open to anybody with a registered e-mail
address.
Everyone has a profile that s/he can personalize with a lot of features. For the
least the user has to register by entering: user name, gender, and date of birth. The
personal profile page is composed of a cover photo, a profile photo and an information
part (where you work, where you went to high school, which city you live in, where you
grew up, what your relational status is), by the timeline, chat, news feed and app and
plays part.
The user can decide freely whether or not to add this information.
On Facebook the users can also add friends by requests. If the friend accepts, the two
users are linked and they share their contents.
The principal way to communicate on Facebook is through posts. In posts you
can write your status, link web addresses or share photos. In fact, Facebook allows to
upload photos and videos and to share them with friends or with any person one desires.
With the tag is possible identify people on the photo.
Facebook also allows to communicate with friends privately via messages and chat.
To always know what friends are doing, in 2006 Facebook introduced the news feed,
that always informs users on what friends are doing.
It is possible to create groups, that is a non-public space for users to interact on common
interests. It is also possible to create and share events, use applications and play games.
For the present research, a particularly important feature of Facebook is the
possibility to insert likes and to comment the contents one is interested in.
3

In November 2007 pages were introduced. Pages are public profiles that permit
brands, public figures, politicians, music bands etc. to connect with Facebook users.
The distinction between personal profiles and pages is that in the case of pages, to
become a friend, users do not need to send a friend request, but only click the like
buttons of the page. When someone likes a page, s/he will see the page updates
(http://newsroom.fb.com/Products accessed 29/04/2013 )
Certainly today Facebook is the most visited social networks in the world. The
interest in Facebook has grown dramatically during the last 4 years also in Italy (see
figure 1.1). Facebook is the second visited website in Italy, only after Google.it. A
typical user spent about 28 minutes in every visit to Facebook, with 43 seconds spent on
each page view ( www.alexa.com accessed 29/04/2013 )
Figure 1.1. Interest in Facebook over time.
Source: http://www.google.it/trends
4

1.4 Use of Facebook: who and how.
From the birth of Facebook a lot of research was conducted, so that we now
have a fairly good understanding of the functions and of the usership of Facebook.
Facebook has changed over the years: from 2004 to now there have been a
number of changes in the interface and in the tools. A research conducted by Lampe et
al. from 2006 to 2008 wanted to examine if the perception of Facebook has changed
over the years. This research has revealed that the most common use of Facebook
continues to maintain the contact with offline friends. Most interesting, over the years,
Facebook has gained in perceived usefulness and has increasingly become part of
people’s daily routine (Lampe et al. 2008).
On-line social network are in fact principally utilized to keep already existing
off-line relationships and not, as is commonly thought, to meet new people (Ellison at
al., 2007).
Facebook is principally used as a “surveillance tool” to liaise with Facebook
members' relationship, and as “social search” for looking up people to meet off-line.
Social connections are the most important motivation for people to use Social network
sites (Lampe et al. 2006).
Facebook is used worldwide, but it is not used in the same way and for the same
reasons all over the world. Females and ethnic minorities seem to use Facebook more
often than males and Caucasian (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012). The Facebook use and
preferences differ also across different cultures: Vasalou et al. (2010) conducted a
research analyzing the use and perception of the tools of Facebook related to different
cultures. They demonstrated that the culture influences the perception and use of the
5

social network itself: compared to US participants, the service of Facebook groups were
considered more important for English and Italian users. Games were very important
only for Italian users. For the French and Greek users the update status was not as
important as for the other cultures. Also the actual use is different, with French
participants visiting the site less frequently than users from the US, whereas English
participants spent more times on the site.
Other studies demonstrated that Facebook use is plainly linked to user
personality.
Extroversion is positively and shyness negatively linked to the number of
friends.
Shy people, people with a high level of narcissism and those with a low level of
self-esteem tend to pass more time on Facebook than their respective counterparts (Orr
et al, 2009), generally spending more than an hours per day. Somewhat unexpectedly
introverts post more personal information than extroverts, despite the fact that the size
of their social network is smaller. Also the use of the different components of Facebook
vary in relation to the users’ personality, for example users high in neuroticism tend to
post more pictures on the Facebook wall; the same is true for users with lower trait self-
consciousness (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010). Interestingly, people with high
levels of narcissism and those with low self-esteem tend to post more self-promotional
pictures improved by Photoshop (Mehadizadeh, 2010), whereas people with low
neurotic traits and higher consciousness traits tend to post fewer pictures (Amichai-
Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010).
Not only the personality of user is linked with the use of Facebook, but
sometimes the use of Facebook influences some traits of personality. The study of Lou
6

(2010) revealed that the student’s perceived level of loneliness is reduced after using
Facebook intensively (Lou, 2010). The use of Facebook moreover enhances self-
esteem by increasing users’ sense of belonging (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012).
In relation to these discoveries, Gosling and colleagues (2007) affirm that we
can understand some personality features from personal websites and, in particular,
from Facebook personal profile. In fact, their studies confirm that on-line social
network website are an efficient resource to communicate one’s personality; observers
generally were accurate to recognize the website author's personality, in particular the
acknowledgement has been particularly strong for the identification of the Big Five
indicator of Extroversion (Gosling et al., 2007). Another study confirms that the
identification of the users’ personality may be accurate. Moreover, this study suggests
that Facebook users display in the profiles their real personalities, without promoting
unrealistic or idealized representations of themselves (Back et al., 2010).
7

1.5 Facebook brand page
From the birth of the Brand page in September 2007 many companies have
constructed social media identities using Facebook brand pages. Social media sites have
grown in social media utilities creating a wide space for business opportunity (Lin &
Lu, 2011).
The site of Facebook.com describes a brand page as : “Pages are the essential
place on Facebook for businesses to build connections with people. It’s where you
connect with fans by announcing new products, sharing news, and gathering feedback.
Your Page is also where you create unique brand content that can become ads and
sponsored stories. It’s the core place for businesses to manage their posting and
advertising content.” (https://www.facebook.com/FacebookPages/info, last update in
2013, accessed in 11/03/2013) ( http://fbrep.com//SMB/Pages_Product_Guide.pdf ,
accessed in 16/04/2013).
Thus, a Facebook page is a significant tool for business, brand or organization. Every
company can have a brand page and personalize it.
The Facebook brand page has a specific architecture that distinguishes it from
the personal Facebook page.
8

Figure 1.2 Facebook Brand Page
Source: http://fbrep.com//SMB/Pages_Product_Guide.pdf
The brand page is composed by a cover photo, a profile picture and an
information part. Below the cover photo, there are the like button and the message
button, four squared boxes that can contain the applications; as default, the first one is
for the pictures, the second one is for the number of likes and the other boxes are for
other applications (see Figure 1.2).
The like button is a really important element in a brand page. Becoming a fan
9

(by clicking on the like button), the user expresses his interest in the brand. Following
the page, the fans can interact with the other followers and be always informed on the
brand’ news (https://www.facebook.com/like, last update in 2013, accessed in
11/03/2013).
After this top part there is a timeline, where the owner of the page can write posts with
whom the fans can interact.
On the right of the timeline there is an area regarding the friend activity. It is possible to
see the friends you have in common with the brand page, and the posts published by
other people about the band or the page (https://www.facebook.com/about/pages, last
update in 2013, accessed in 11/03/2013 )
1.6 Why and how companies use Facebook brand pages
Indeed every modern firm's market plan should contemplate a social network
marketing component (Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). Over the last years, a new job has
taken shape, namely that of the social media manager, the professional figure that has to
manage all the social media of a company (Montalvo, 2011).
Companies don't create Facebook brand page only to increase sales, actually
increasing sales is the last purpose. There are other purposes such as improving the
brand image and getting feedback (Montalvo, 2011; Hoffman & Fodor, 2010).
Effectively a lot of benefit can be revealed with the involvement of the company
in social networks. Social network sites facilitate active communication between
companies and encourage interaction among users (Lee et al., 2012).
Only observing conversations or complaints, a company can better understand
10

the consumers' needs (Palmer & Koenig-Lewis, 2009).
Longo, in 2012, conducted a survey for a north-eastern Italy communication
agency. She wanted to investigate, though the agencies, how social media of the North-
East Italian companies are perceived. The survey highlights that 97,7% of the sample
perceives the use of social media in as a marketing technique with skepticism. (Longo,
2012)
Hoffman and Fodor (2010) concur with what Longo (2012) has observed for the
Italian companies of the North-East. Most managers still consider social media as a
normal marketing tool, they want to know, before investing in social media, what the
economic return is for them (namely ROI). In marketing ROI (Return of Investment) is
calculated on the basis of a simple formula for invested capital (Net profit / Investment)
and is usually used to evaluate the efficiency of an investment (Cosenza, 2012). Social
media should not be considered as a normal marketing tool, however, because it is not
possible to analyze social media with respect to short-term goals, as increasing profit,
but it is necessary to analyze them in long-term goals. To create a deep and resistant
relationship of trust and loyalty takes time. “This suggests that returns from social
media investments will not always be measured in dollars, but also in consumer
behaviors (consumer investment) tied to particular social media applications” (Hoffman
& Fodor, 2010, p. 42). The primary aim of having a social media page is to enhance
brand attractiveness and attract consumer attention (Kane et al., 2009).
In the Italian companies there is the common thinking that the likes become
clients, although this is an unrealistic belief (Cosenza, 2012). However, using the
appropriate metrics, awareness, engagement and word-of mouth objectives, Social
Media marketers can understand whether a social media campaign is effective (see
11

picture 1.3). Brand awareness improves every time there is an exposure to the brand.
Brand engagement improves when consumers are engaged in the campaign and when
they generate own content in the social media ,reinforcing the loyalty to the brand and
persuading consumers to support the brand in future. Word of mouth are all the opinions
about the product generated by the consumers (Hoffman & Fodor, 2010).
One of the most important metrics in brand awareness is the number of fun/likes
in a Facebook brand page (Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). A research conducted in 2012
examined whether the fan of a brand page of a specific product are buyers of the same
product or not. The results show that the ‘newer’ Fans are less likely to be heavy buyers
than ‘older’ Fans (12-24 month) (Field, Riebe, Sharp, 2012).
Figure 1.3 Relevant metrics for social media applications.
(Hoffman & Fodor, 2010, p. 44)
12

2. PERSUASION
2.1 Persuasiveness of Facebook and Facebook brand page
A lot of different people and organizations use Facebook and Facebook brand
page, why do so many people use it?
Does Facebook have a persuasive power?
Fogg in 2007 identified a new type of persuasion: Mass Interpersonal Persua-
sion. This new type of persuasion has appeared for the first time with Facebook. This
type of persuasion is very powerful, because it combines interpersonal persuasion with
mass media. Mass Interpersonal Persuasion is powerful because before social media,
only rich and powerful persons were able to influence the masses, whereas now, with
social media, anyone can, hopefully with right intentions, persuade a lot of people
(Fogg, 2007). Effectively Facebook holds some features of Persuasion, which contribute
to the fact that it is used by a billion of people.
Mauri et al. (2011) affirm that so many people use Social Networks Sites and
Facebook because they have a positive involvement when they use them. Their research
demonstrates that the use of Facebook is able to generate an experience distinguished by
high positive valence and high positive arousal, characterized by a specific
psychophysical pattern. The use of Facebook bring people into a core flow state, a sort
of intense engagement and enjoyment (Mauri et. Al, 2011).
A study by Wang and colleagues (2010) investigated the willingness to accept or
not to accept a friendship on Facebook. They found that showing a profile picture had a
significant effect on accepting or not the friendship of the profile’s owner. When the
13

verbal cues were restricted, physical attractiveness was the most influential cue of
people’s decisions. The participants were more inclined to accept the friendship if the
profile photo was of a physically attractive person of the opposite sex (Wang et al.,
2010).
In Facebook, as in reality, social learning theory seems to work. Bandura’s
(1977) social learning theory affirms that people learn by observation, and that they
will act as the people they observe without any external incentives (Bandura, 1977).
Burke at al. (2009) have demonstrated that Facebook users who see their friends
contributing on Facebook (post, photos) tend to share more contents themselves (Burke
et al., 2009).
Some studies revealed that Social Network site campaigns can influence
attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior (Noort et al. 2012).
Social network sites campaigns differ from traditional campaigns (on line ads,
advertising on newspaper) because they are social. Social network campaigns work
through the sharing of the messages, which explains why social media sites campaigns
are inclined to use influential individuals to share the marketing messages with their
contacts (Cordoba, 2001).
Ties based on social interaction are the most influential factor for users that
convince them to continue to use social network site (Lampe, 2006).
Facebook brand pages tend to join users with similar interests; in the space of
the brand page they can exchange information and opinions and the continued
interactions tend to reinforce the relationship between fans, such that the activity on the
page becomes the prime vehicle through which brand name, message and value are
14

spread (Powell, 2009; Huang et al., 2009; Reysen, 2010).
Past research has shown that continuing social interactions are positively linked
to the sense of trust and reliability (Gulati R., 1995).
Facebook brand pages are channels of interaction and the continuing connection
between users can enhance the sense of trust in the brand (Powell, 2009).
Indeed the study of Lin and Lu (2011) about Facebook fan pages has revealed that
social interaction, shared values and trust are the three most important factors
facilitating continuing intention to use a Facebook Brand page.
As in the reality, people are open to messages mainly from friends,
acquaintances, and, more generally, to people they already know (Phelps et al. 2004).
Moreover, more credible is the source, more likely it becomes that the message be
perceived as reliable (Heesacker et al., 1983). For instance, a recent study by Noort et
al. (2012) revealed that receiving marketing messages from people to which one has
strong ties enhances the credibility of the message, induces a positive attitude towards
the brand and the campaign, and increases the tendency to forward the campaign to
others. However these effects are not conveyed by the strength of the ties between the
contact. They are conveyed because the messages received from users with whom one
has strong relationship are perceived as being less motivated by marketing intentions.
As a consequence, they appear more credible and exert greater effects on attitudes and
behavior intentions (Noort et al. 2012; Priester and Petty, 1995).
15

2.2 Off-line persuasion
Research on persuasion is in continuing evolution and a great number of studies
have been conducted. Here I want to briefly and selectively review those persuasion
theories that, in my opinion, are best suited to explain the effectiveness of social
networks and especially of Facebook, the topics that are directly linked with my
research. In line with my research I will illustrate: The Elaboration Likelihood model of
persuasion of Petty and Cacioppo, and all the rules of Persuasion of Cialdini, the theory
of social influence by Asch. (Petty et al., 1994; Cialdini, 1993, Asch, 1956).
I would like to acknowledge that much of the information reported in this
section is taken from Brock & Green, 2005.
2.2.1 The Elaboration Likelihood model of persuasion
Every day we need to make a great number of decisions, mainly little ones like
going to the supermarket and choosing which products to buy, some important ones.
We don’t reflect intensely about all of them, but reserve the energy and cognitive
resources for the important decisions for which we generally take the time to think
about. As demonstrated by Petty and Cacioppo, we can use two different routes to reach
decisions: the central route and the peripheral route. We adopt the central route when we
have the ability, the motivation, and the time to elaborate the information. Obviously
motivation and ability are different for every people in relation to the information
analyzed (Petty et al., 1994).
When we employ the central route we concentrate and engage in a systematic and
16

elaborate process to analyze the information. Attitudes that are formed through the
central route tend to be highly accessible (the recall is easy), persistent and stable over
time and moderately predictive of the person’s behavior (Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith,
1995).
The peripheral route is used instead when people don’t have the motivation,
ability and time to elaborate the information. In those cases we elaborate information
using simple cues, reaching decisions through the shortcut of heuristic processing
(Chaiken, 1987). We use this type of elaboration very often in daily life.
Unlike the central route, attitudes formed using peripheral route are less persistent,
resistant, accessible and they are less predictive of behaviors (Petty et al., 1994).
2.2.2 Rules of persuasion
Robert Cialdini (1984) in his book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion"
theorized and explained the most important factors inducing persuasion. These factors
are more likely to come into play when we are using the peripheral route, that is when
we understand the world using cues or shortcuts (Petty et al., 1994): The persuasion
strategies identified by Cialdini are:
1. Reciprocity
2. Commitment (and Consistency)
3. Social Proof
4. Liking
5. Authority
6. Scarcity
17

The rule of reciprocity is relatively intuitive: we feel obliged to give back
something when we have received something. “One should be more willing to comply
with a request from someone who has previously provided a favor or concession” (see
Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005, p. 146). A small favor can furthermore lead to a bigger favor,
as confirmed by many studies. In marketing for example the ‘freebie’ is extensively
used; consumers, receiving a free sample of a product of a given brand, predisposes
people to buy products from the same brand because of the rule of reciprocity. The
reciprocal obligation has also been shown in different contexts; for instance, research
has demonstrated that women who accept a free drink from a man are perceived as more
sexually available by the man (Cialdini, 1993; George, Gournic, & McAfee,1988).
The commitment (and consistency) principle can be described as: ”After
committing oneself to a position, one should be more willing to comply with the request
for behaviors that are consistent with the position” (see Brock, 2005, p. 152). This
phenomenon can be explained in the basis of “cognitive dissonance” theorized by
Festinger (1959). The theory of cognitive dissonance states that when people believe
that a thought is in contrast with another, they feel a sense of tension and are likely to
act in an attempt to reduce this sense of tension (Festinger, & Carlsmith, 1959).
Salespeople use craftily this principle with the ‘four wall technique’. This
technique involves the presentation of four different sentences, the first three sentences
intended to create an agreement from the consumer, the last question is in line with the
first three, but inserts the product that the marketer wants to sell. In this way, the
consumer, attempting to stay in line with his previous attitudes, is more likely to buy the
proposed product (Cialdini, 1993).
Robert Cialdini explains the principle of social proof wondering why recorded
18

laughs during sit coms and talk shows are so common. In his opinion nobody
appreciates these laughs, so, why do the directors continue to use them? The reason is
that some studies prove that the recorded laughs cause viewers to laugh more and to
perceive the talk show as funnier (Fuller & Sheehy-Skeffington,1974). This process is
explained by the principle of the social proof. It asserts that one way to understand if
something is correct (or in this case: funny) is to understand what other people think
about it. “The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more the idea
will be correct” (see Cialdini, 1984, p 109). Usually if a lot of people act in a certain
way, it is likely that is the correct way. By extension, acting in the same way makes it
less likely that one is committing a mistake. We generally act in this way automatically.
It was demonstrated that the principle of the social proof is likely to happen
when the group performing a given action is large when the judged situation is
ambiguous, and when the people performing the action are similar to us (Cialdini,
1993).
Social proof can for example explain why fashion changes so quickly.
The liking rule is very basic; we are more favorably inclined towards people we
like, including our friends, attractive people, people similar to us and those who praise
us (Cialdini, 1993).
The rule of authority is that “one should be more willing to follow the
suggestion of someone who is legitimate authority” (see Brock, 2005, p. 160). A study
verified that people are more inclined to follow a jaywalker when he was dressed in
suite and tie than when he was dressed in t-shirt and jeans (Cialdini, 1984; Lefkowitz et
al., 1955).
The last rule of persuasion in scarcity. People tend to consider occasions more
19

valuable when are less available. A tangible example of this is the ‘deadline technique’:
slogan as “limited offer”, “last days of sales” that make the merchandise more attractive
and hence increase the purchasing probability (Cialdini, 1993).
2.2.3. Social influence
One of the most famous experiments of social psychology is probably Asch’s (1956)
experiment. When Asch designed his experiment, the power of social influence by peers
and groups was already confirmed and his aim was to demonstrate that the pressure by
groups won’t happen with non-ambiguous tasks. The experiment were really easy: He
firstly showed a line, and afterwards a figure with other three lines of different length,
and the participant should say which of the three corresponded to the line that s/he had
seen before. There were several trials and the task was easy as long as the participants
responded by themselves. But in the critical condition the participants were not alone
while they were doing the test. The other people present were Ash’s collaborators and
they were instructed to identify, one by one, the wrong line on all of the trials.
The result surprised Asch: 75% of the participants agreed with the erroneous majority at
least on one trial. His experiment demonstrated that people follow the majority even
when their responses were clearly wrong. There are some variables that can influence
the probability of conformity: the number of group members, the difficulty of the task,
and the ambiguity of the stimulus (Asch, 1956). A very important variable is also the
presence of a dissenter. If in the group there is a dissenter, the probability to be
influenced by the majority is significantly lower.
Moscovici (1985) demonstrated that also a numerical minority can exert. Whereas the
20

majority induces compliance, minorities induce conversion, a private, lasting shift in
opinions that is often not accompanied by public compliance.
2.3 On line persuasion
Fogg (2002) has coined the term ‘captology’, meaning “computer as persuasive
technologies”. In the field of captology the persuasion is seen as the attempt to change
an attitude or a behavior, or both. He is the first to study the persuasion through
technologies, demonstrating that many of the ‘rules of persuasion’ that work in social
context also work also with technologies and especially with computers (Fogg, 2002).
As for the off-line persuasion, I will briefly explain the research on on-line persuasion,
focusing mainly on those findings that are directly relevant to my research. I’ll describe
especially the research connected with the persuasion theories described before
(Cialdini, 1993; Asch, 1956; Petty et al., 1994).
Fogg has extended Cialdini’s work, shifting attention to persuasion via
technologies. A common idea is that we follow social rules only in interaction with
other human beings, but this is not true:
- Reciprocity. Fogg has demonstrated that the rule of reciprocity applies also
when we are interacting with a computer. Fogg conducted an experiment at Stanford
university in which two groups were using computers. The two groups had to do an
assignment using the computer; however, the computer of the two group were different.
In one group the computer were more helpful. After the assignment participants were
asked to ‘help’ the computer completing a colors palette. The result was that the group
with the more helpful computers completed more colors in the palette, as if they were
21

returning the favor (Fogg, 1997).
- Liking. Cialdini demonstrated that we are more favorably inclined towards
attracting people, people similar to us and people who praise us (Cialdini, 1993). A
study conducted in 1999 demonstrated that people were more disposed to do a
collaborative task if the character on the screen of the computer was attractive. The
result demonstrated that if the character was attractive, the degree of collaboration was
similar to the degree of collaboration with real people (Parise et al. 1999). Fogg has
further demonstrated that if we perceive the computer similar to us we are more
favorable to help the computer. And what happen if a computer praises us? The praise of
a computer should be logically irrelevant given that machines are for sure not sincere, as
they are not thinking! But people, after being praised by the computer, were found to be
happier, more satisfied, and they consider the computer better that other computers
(Fogg, 2002). Together, these studies suggest that people have an anthropomorphic
conception of computers and are susceptible to the same rules and strategies of
persuasion that are normally operating in human interactions.
22

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
As described by Fogg (2003), the rules of persuasion also apply to interactions via
technologies.
In less than seven years from Facebook opening to all users, there are now over a billion
people is using it all over the world. A lot of research has demonstrated that Facebook
and Facebook Brand Page are definitely persuasive (Mauri et. Al, 2011; Wang et al.,
2010; Burke et al., 2009; Noort et al. 2012).
Facebook now present in a lot of normal web page though the likes button (Jing. Et al,
2011), which was launched in April 21, 2010 (www.facebook.com). With the Like
Button “people can share a web page or a piece of content with their friends in one
click” (retrieved from www.facebook.com). The act of ‘liking’ has become more
popular in the last years (Field, Riebe, Sharp, 2012).
People can also indicate their liking of a brand page, an essential marketing
technique used all over the world. An evidence of this is the fact that investments in
Facebook ads have greatly increased , opposite to traditional ads (ComScore, 2012).
As stated previously one of the most important metrics to understand if a
campaign is effective is the number of fun/likes in a Facebook brand page (Hoffman &
Fodor, 2010). The likes are the most visible metric in a Facebook brand page and they
are seen by some managers as the only metric of importance (Cosenza, 2012). But is
this true or does it reflect a false belief? Surprisingly little is currently known about the
persuasive success of likes.
In order to investigate this question, I initially conducted a Google search
(www.google.com) using the key word ‘likes’ and found a great number of websites
23

selling likes, suggesting that companies tend to buy like (see Picture 3.1).
Figure 3.1 A snapshot retrieved from http://fanlikes.org.
But is the number of likes on the brand page really so important? Or does the
management believe that is so important only because Likes are the most visible metric?
What is the effect of the number of likes on Facebook users?
My hypothesis is that the number of likes influence the users. I suspect, in
agreement with Cialdini’s (1993), rule of social proof, that users are truly influenced by
the number of Likes and that, after exposure to likes, they perceive the product of the
Brand Page in a more positive light. To test this idea, participants in this study were
exposed to a Brand page in which the number of likes was varied systematically, by
either displaying a small or a large number of likes whereas in the control condition the
like information was missing altogether. While observing the webpage, participant’s
visual attention to different areas of the ad was registered via eyetracking methodology.
24

Subsequently, the implicit and explicit attitudes towards the product (a Japanese
restaurant) were assessed.
I have delineated my research hypothesis as follows:
H1: Compared to users not exposed to like information, users exposed to a high
number of likes will perceive the product of the page more positively (H1a), whereas
those exposed to a low number of likes will perceive the product more negatively
(H1b).
I want, furthermore, to investigate whether the influence is explicit or also implicit.
H2: Even at the implicit level, users exposed to the page with a high number of likes
will show a more positive attitude toward the product than those exposed to the same
page with a small number of likes.
All in all, I believe that the number of likes is a salient information, that, attracts
people’s attention when exploring the Facebook Brand page.
H3: The participant are attracted more by the higher number of likes than a fewer
number of likes. Eyetracking data are expected to reveal that Facebook users are likely
to spent more time focusing on large numbers than those exposed to few or to no likes
25

4. METHOD
4.1 Participants
Ninety-three participants volunteered for this study. The sample consisted of 38 men
(41%) , and 55 women (59%). The average age was 26,14, ranging in age from 19 to 59
and the level of educational qualification is high (76% have a degree).
The data were collected between January and April 2013. All the volunteers provided
their consent to be observed and they signed the informed-consent form.
4.2. Procedure
The test last about 15-20 minutes. It was composed of an introduction, an initial on-line
survey, the exposure to a Facebook ad during which participants were eye-tracked an
Implicit Association Test (IAT) and a follow up online questionnaire. At the end
participants were fully debriefed and thanked for the participation.
The experiment was presented to the participants as an exploratory study on the use of
social networks in the restoration sector. The aim of the study was revealed as a method
to find the best way to create the marketing strategy to promote a restaurant adopting
social networks.
4.3 Manipulation
The stimulus was a snapshot of a Facebook brand Page showing a sushi take
26

away of Milan (https://www.facebook.com/thisisnotasushibar ). Permission to use the
Facebook Brand Page of “This is not a Sushi bar” has been given by the owners of ‘This
is Not a Sushi Bar’. The independent variable was the number of likes of a Facebook
brand page. The experiment was based on three conditions: a control condition and two
different experimental conditions. A graphic designer has modified the brand page in the
way to have a page with no likes (control condition) (see figure 4.1), a page with few
likes, namely 132 likes (first experimental condition) (see figure 4.2) and a page with a
lot of likes, namely 6732 (second experimental condition) (see figure 4.3). I had
pretested the two numbers by asking 12 people if they considered that 132 or 6732 likes
were a little, medium or big number of likes. I showed the same stimulus used in the
study and the participants could observe the stimulus how long they wanted to. The
perception of the numbers was confirmed, 132 likes was perceived as a small number
by 83,3% of the people, and 6732 as a large number by the 66,6% of the people.
Figure 4.1 Facebook brand page with no likes
27

Figure 4.2 Facebook brand page with 132 like
Figure 4.3 Facebook brand page with 6732 likes
28

4.4 Dependent variables
4.4.1 Questionnaire
The first part of the test was composed by an on-line questionnaire using the
software Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com).
The experiment was presented to the participants as an exploratory study on the use of
social networks in the restoration sector. Some questions regarding the restoration and
social networks were therefore inserted in the survey to conceal the real aim of the
experiment.
The on-line survey consisted of five distinct parts. The first section concerned the
general attitude toward different cuisines and the habit of the participants to go to
different “ethnic” restaurants; the second section, assessed after the exposure to the
webpage, assessed the participants’ attitudes toward the advertised Sushi Bar. The third
section concerned the evaluation of the Facebook brand page, the fourth section the
general attitude towards the social networks, whereas the last section concerned the
demographic information.
First section - Pre-experimental questionnaire: The first section is composed
by 4 questions, including attitudes toward six different types of cuisine (Italian,
Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Greek and Indian), including the Japanese cuisine.
Participants were asked to indicate how much they liked the different cuisines using a 5
point Likert scale (from 1 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘very much’).
The subsequent questions assessed the participants’ habits to go to restaurants in
general (1 ‘never’, 2 ‘less than 3 times yearly’, 3 ‘from 3 to 5 times yearly’, 4 ‘at least
29

once monthly’, 5 ‘more than once monthly’, 6 ‘every week’) as well as the frequency
with which they go to the six different types of restaurants mentioned beforehand.
On the last item, participants were asked to indicate when they had eaten last
(from ‘with in the last half an hour’ to ‘more than 5 hours ago’) to estimate their
perceived hunger.
Second section: Attitudes towards the Sushi Bar. After the exposure to the
website, participants were asked to indicate their attitudes towards the Sushi bar by
responding to seven items: “How good is the sushi in your opinion?”, “How fresh are
the ingredients in your opinion?”, “How likeable is the design of the restaurant in your
opinion?”, “How friendly is the staff when replying to the phone in your opinion?”,
“How will it take them to deliver the order in your opinion?”, “How often are the
discounts in your opinion?”, “Imagining to live in Milan, do you think that you would
order often at the ‘this is not a sushi bar’?” . The participants provided their answers on
a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘very much’).
The last of the above questions assessed behavior intentions (rather than attitudes)
corresponding to the marketing concept of ROI as explained earlier. After exclusion of
one item (“How often are the discounts in your opinion?”), the internal consistency of
the scale was satisfactory (Cronbach' α = 0,79), so the six items were averaged in a
single attitude.
As a control question I also asked whether participants already knew the
restaurant (previous knowing of the sushi bar), and, if so, whether they had already been
at the restaurant (previous being to the sushi bar), and, if so, how many times.
Only one participant already knows and has eaten in the restaurant. Also excluding him
from the sample the results of the analysis don't change, so this participant was
30

maintained in the sample.
Third section: reaction to the Facebook brand page. To investigate the
participants reaction and evaluation of the Facebook brand page containing the ad, they
were asked to indicate a) what element they had noticed first, b) what element they
found most informative, c) most important, and d) most persuasive. (see Appendix III
for the exact wording of the questions). For each of the questions they were provided
with a grid containing multiple response options, namely 'cover photo, profile photo,
box photo, likes, posts, post by others, information and friends you have in common
with the brand page'.
The subsequent questions addressed specifically the role of the ‘likes’ . First I
investigated the perceived reasons why people click the like button (reasons to click the
like button), providing a number of alternatives: ‘They have eaten the sushi of This is
not a sushi bar’, ‘They like sushi in general’, ‘They have heard others talking about the
take away’, ’acquaintances or friend have gone to the take away’, ‘Somebody had
invited them to click the like button’, ‘probably without any specific reason’.
The last three items in this section asked whether participants had noticed the
number of likes (perception of likes) and, if so, they were asked to recall the exact
number of likes. In the last question they were provided with 8 response alternatives
('24, 154, 523, 3345, 5452, 453245, 845323, the number is not indicated') and asked to
select the correct response.
Fourth section: general attitudes towards social networks. The last group of
items concerned the participants’ attitudes towards social networks, Facebook, and, in
particular towards Facebook advertisements. The questions included the participants’
personal subscription to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+. (with dichotomous
31

‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer for each question) and the length of time they had a Facebook
account ('more than 5 years, 4-5 years, 2-3 years, about a year, less than a year'). I also
assessed how often they used Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+?” (from 1
'never' to 7 ‘more than 3 times daily').
The subsequent questions investigated the participants’ marketing habits on
social networks, asking how often they search products or services on Facebook, on
Twitter, and on LinkedIn?” (from 1 = 'never', to 5 = 'more than 3 times daily'). I also
assessed their thinking about ethics and utility of the companies' use of the social
networks, and in particular, of Facebook. Participants were asked whether they
considered it correct that companies use social networks for advertisement, whether
they considered it useful and whether they thought companies ought to be allowed to
own a Facebook brand page and whether this was useful (from 1 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘very
much’).
The consecutive question asked what social media companies would have had to use in
the opinion of the participants, the possibilities are: ‘Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,
Google+. Blogger, Wordpress, Pinterest, Tumblr, Myspaces, Wikia, Badoo, Youtube’.
Participants were also asked why they had selected these social networks and whether
they have joint other social networks such as Blogger, Wordpress, LinkedIn, Pinterest,
Tumblr, Myspaces, Wikia, Badoo, Youtube.
The last questions concerned their general thinking regarding social networks
and Facebook (I never will open an account, they are a huge innovation, they are
necessary, I’m getting bored about them, they are only for people who have nothing else
to do, I’m on (connected??) all day,, I’m becoming dependent upon them, I work with
them, they are funny) using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘very much’).
32

Finally demographic information (gender, age, educational qualification and
profession) was collected.
4.4.2. Tobii eye-tracker
While being exposed to the webpage containing the ad for 30
seconds, participants eye movements were recorded using a TobiiT120 eyetracker. The
software Tobii Studio 3.2. was run on a PC desktop with Windows XP operating system.
This allowed to observe the spontaneous visual exploration activity of the participants,
and, in particular, to see how much attention they paid to the page and to which parts.
4.4.3 IAT
To assess participants’ implicit attitudes, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) elaborated
by Greenwald and his colleagues (1998) was employed (see Table 1). The IAT had
already been used in consumer psychology to predict brand preferences. (Maison,
Greenwald, Ralph, 2004).
In the critical phases (3 and 5) of the IAT, response keys were either shared for Japanese
food and negative adjectives (vs. Italian food and positive adjectives) or vice versa. If
participants really like Japanese food they will be faster to associate it with positive
than with negative adjectives, or vice versa (Castelli et al., 2004). The order of the
fourth and fifth phase was counterbalanced across participants.
As stimuli I used five pictures of Japanese plates and five pictures of Italian
plates (see Appendix I). As positive adjectives I used: good, tasty, likable, pleasant,
33

beautiful, and, as negative: bad, disgusting, unpleasant, disagreeable, ugly.
The order of the fourth and fifth task was counterbalanced through participants (see
Table 4.1).
The five phases of the IAT
Number of task 1 2 3 4 5
Description of
task
Preparatory task Preparatory task Preparatory task Categorization
task
Categorization
task
Stimulus are of
these
categories:
Positive and
negative words
Japanese and
Italian food'
pictures
Japanese and Italian
food' pictures
Japanese and
Italian food'
pictures and
Positive and
negative words
Japanese and
Italian food'
pictures and
Positive and
negative words
Press key 'D'
for:
Positive words Italian food Japanese food Italian food and
positive words
Japanese food and
positive words
Press key 'K'
for:
Negative words Japanese food Italian food Japanese food and
negative words
Italian food and
negative words
Number of
trials
20 20 20 40 40
Table 4.1 The five phases of the IAT
34

5. RESULTS
5.1 Descriptive analysis: Self-reported Facebook use
Of the current sample, 93,5% of the participants have a Facebook account (87 people).
Since we were interested in the reactions of Facebook users, the 5 people who reported
not having an account were deleted from the analyses. Of the Facebook users, 24,1%
(21 persons) had an account for more than 5 years, 46% (40 persons) from 4-5 years,
24,1% (21 persons) from 2-3 years, 3,4% (3 persons) about one year, and only one
person for less than a year (1,1%). Thus the majority of participants (70%) subscribed to
Facebook for more than 4 years.
Those who have a Facebook account, use it very often: 87,4% of the sample use
Facebook at least one a day, 13,8% once a day, 29,9% 1-3 times daily, and 43,7% more
than 3 times daily. Among the low frequency users are 4,6% who use Facebook 3-5
times weekly, 4,3% who use Facebook weekly, and only 2 persons (2,3%) use Facebook
less than once a month.
Turning to the frequency with which participants use Facebook to search for
products or services, 14% have never used Facebook for marketing reasons, 39,8% use
it less than once a month, 21,5% weekly. 16,1% 3-5 times weekly, 3,2% once a day ,
4,3% 1-3 times daily and 1% more than 3 times daily.
5.2 Preliminary analyses
In order to examine if there were influences due to randomization, we first analysed the
35

questions about the attitude toward Japanese cuisine, time since last meal, and previous
knowledge of the Sushi Bar. The averages were not significant, suggesting that the
sample is unbiased and well randomized. Initially gender was used as an independent
variable in all analyses, but because there weren't any effects, this variable was
eliminated from the final analyses.
5.3 Effects of likes on explicit attitudes
To test hypothesis 1 a one-way ANCOOVA was run using the number of likes as
independent variable and the mean attitude towards the Sushi Bar as the dependent
variable. The pretest attitude toward Japanese cuisine was entered as a covariant.
Participants without a Facebook account were excluded from the sample.
The results show an significant effect of the number of likes (F(2,82)= 4.568, p<0.05,
η2
p=0.124). In line with the hypothesis, the valuation of the sushi bar is more positive
(mean=3.19; sd=0.55) in the condition with a high number of likes than in the condition
Figure 5.1 Effect of likes on
explicit attitudes towards the
Sushi Bar
36

with a small numbers of likes (mean = 2.88; sd=0.55); furthermore the condition with
no likes (mean=3,00; sd=0.55) occupies an intermediate position (see Figure 5.1).
(Analysis for each item of the attitude scale are reported in Appendix II)
5.4 Potential moderator variables
The above analyses were repeated, adding one at the time, a number of potential
moderators to the analysis, namely perceived hungry, previous knowledge of the sushi
bar, previous visits to the sushi bar, usage habits of Facebook, age. None of these
affected the main results.
5.5 The effects of number of likes on implicit attitudes
To test hypothesis 2, according to which the number of likes may also affect implicit
attitudes, an IAT score was calculated using the algorithm elaborated by Greenwald et
al. (2003). Three participants with more than the 25% of error in the third and fifth
block were excluded. Scores were calculated such that positive values indicate a An
one-way ANOVA, using the IAT score as dependent variable revealed no effects
(F(2,79)=0.23; p=0.80; η2p=0.17). This means that the implicit preference for Japanese
food is not influenced by the number of likes of the brand page of the sushi bar.
37

5.6 Visual exploration of the brand page
The Facebook Brand page was shown so that only the upper part was visible, whereas
usually the users don’t watch only the first part of the page, but they scroll down the
page to read the rest of the Facebook page. Analysing the whole 30 seconds would
therefore be unnatural. For this reason the analysis of the duration of fixations of the
Tobii were analysed only for the first 2 and 5 seconds, the hypothetical time that a
typical user spend on the first part of the page.
38

5.6.1 First 2 seconds of vision
Figure 5.2
Heatmap
relative to 2
seconds of
vision for
each of the 3
experimental
conditions
39

As it is evidenced by the heat-maps of the first 2 seconds of observation (see figure 5.2),
the profile photo and the name product were the first part of the brand page observed in
each the three conditions. In the condition with a high number of likes the name seems
to be observed more than in the others, To confirm the impression given by the heat-
maps a one-way ANOVA was conducted, but the analysis did not confirm it.
So, a series of one-way ANOVAs using as the dependent variables the observation
length of all parts of the brand page were performed. The effects of the number of likes
was significant for Profile photo (F(2,73)=4,738; p<0,05 ; η2
p =0,091), Cover photo
(F(2,73)=4,242; p<0,05; η2
p =0,08), and Information (F/2,73)=7,729; p<0,01;
η2
p=0,152). The means are represented in Figure 5.3.
Another series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted, using as the dependent variables,
the observation count for each part of the brand page. The following analyses were
significant: Name of the product (F(2,73)=3,897; p<0,05; η2
p =0,072), Profile photo
(F(2,73)=8,132; p<0,01; η2
p =0,160), Cover Photo (F(2,73)=29,518; p<0,01; η2
p
=0,432), Information (F(2,73)=8,663; p<0,01; η2
p =0,170), Box photo (F(2,73)=8,674;
p<0,01; η2
p =0,170) and Posts (F(2,73)=7,448; p<0,01; η2
p =0,147). As can be seen in
graphic (see figure 5.2-5.3), the participants in the condition with no likes watched
these areas more times and for more time than those in the other two conditions. The
means are represented in Figure 5.4.
40

Figure 5.3 Average observation lengths of all parts of the Facebook page relative to a 2-
seconds vision interval, divided by the different experimental conditions
Figure 5.4 Average observation counts of all parts of the Facebook page relative
to a 2-seconds vision interval, divided by the different experimental conditions
41

5.8.2 The first 5 seconds of vision
Figure 5.5
Heatmap
relative to 5
seconds of
vision for
each of the 3
experimental
conditions
42

The same analyses were repeated for the first 5 seconds. As can be seen in the heat-
maps on page 42, in 5 seconds the users have become to read the information, and to see
the box photo. In the condition with an high number of likes the name of the product is
observed more than in the other conditions and only in the third condition with an high
number of likes (6732 likes) the users have started to observe the number of likes.
To confirm the impression created by heat-maps, a series of one-way ANOVAs
was conducted, using as the dependent variables, the length of observation for each part
of the brand page (see figure 5.9-5.10). The analysis reveals a significant effect for the
number of likes (F(2,73)=3,94, p<0,05; η2
p =0,056). But it evidences that the product
name is watched for more time by the participants in the condition with 132 likes (see
Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6 Average observation
lengths of product name relative
to a 5-seconds vision interval,
divided by the different
experimental conditions.
Inspecting the heat-map it appears that the user watches the number of likes only in the
condition with an high number of likes. To confirm this impression a one-way ANOVA
was conducted using as the dependent variables the length of observation of the like
43

area and the count of observation in the likes area. The number of likes affected both
variables, observation length (F(2,73)=3,22, p<0,05; η2
p =0,056) and observation
count (F(2,73)=3,355; p<0.05; η2
p =0,59). This means that in the condition with a high
number of likes the participants explored the Likes area more frequently and for a
longer time. (see figure 5.7-5.8)
Figure 5.7 Average
observation lenghts of 'likes'
area relative to a 5-seconds
vision interval, divided by
the different experimental
condition
Figure 5.8 Average
observation counts of 'likes'
area relative to a 5-seconds
vision interval, divided by
the different experimental
condition
44

Figure 5.9 Average observation lengths of all parts of the Facebook page relative to a 5-
Figure 5.10 Average observation counts of all parts of the Facebook page relative to a 5-
45

Considering the first 10 seconds, none of the analyses is significant (see figure 5.12-
5.13). This may be explained on the basis of the fact that after 10 seconds, in such a
small part of the Facebook page, the users have seen all the parts and the way of
watching is no longer natural .
46

Figure 5.11
Heatmap
relative to 10
seconds of
vision for
each of the 3
experimental
conditions
47

Figure 5.12 Average observation lengths of all parts of the FB page relative to a 10-
Figure 5.13 Average observation counts of all parts of the FB page relative to a 10-
48

Although the observation within 30 seconds is probably unnatural, we analysed at least
the exploration of the Likes area given that the information was essential to control
whether our participants had explored the area at least once.. A one-way ANOVA was
conducted using as the dependent variables the length of observation x and the count of
observation in the likes area. Only the former analysis concerning the fixation length
was significant (F(2,73)=3,83, p<0,05; η2
p =0,70). As can be seen in Figure 5.14, the
participants in the condition with more likes attend to the Likes area more frequently.
time the like area.
Figure 5.14 Average fixation
lengths of 'likes' area relative to a
30-seconds vision interval, divided
by the different experimental
condition
49

7. DISCUSSION
The main prediction of this research was that users are truly influenced by the
number of Likes and that, after exposure to likes, they perceive the product of the Brand
Page in a more positive light.
This hypothesis was confirmed, given that in the condition with an high number
of likes the valuation of the sushi bar was more positive than in the condition with a
small number of likes. In the condition with no likes the valuation is intermediate, being
slightly more positive than the valuation with 132 likes and somewhat less positive than
the condition with 6732 likes. Thus, the number of likes of the brand page appears to
influence the participants. This influence can be explained by the rule of Social proof
theorized by . “The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more
the idea will be correct” (see Cialdini, 1984, p 104). The thinking of the participants
may have been: “if a lot of people click the likes button of the brand page of the sushi
bar, the sushi bar should be good!” Same thinking for the people who have seen the
page with a little number of likes, “if only so few people click the likes, the sushi bar
should not be so good”. The number of likes became a sort of bias. In the case where the
likes were absent, the thinking were not biased, and the responses were located in the
middle of the scale. The results show that the principle of social proof is likely to
happen when the group that is performing the action is large and when the judged
situation is ambiguous. Both features are present in the condition with a lot of likes.
Large because there were 6732 likes, and ambiguous because the participants have no
cues to use to judge the sushi bar. The same ambiguity is present also in the other two
conditions due to the fact that the stimulus was the same.
50

This profound influence of the number of likes can be understood also thank by a
question of the questionnaire. I asked to infer why people who click the likes do so.
The data suggest that the participants of the experiment believe that the people who
click the likes button did so or because ‘They have eaten the sushi at ‘This is not a sushi
bar’ or because ‘They like sushi in general’. The reasons that were considered least
likely are that “someone had invited them to click the like button’ or ‘probably
senseless probably they did so without a reason’. Thus, people believe that the act of
clicking is honest and that it reflects a true preference based on personal experiences.
They believe that who clicks the likes were real people and not people paid to fake
profiles. Thus, they believe that the number of likes is credible and this trust may be the
key to understanding why likes are so influential. More credible is the source and more
the message is perceived reliable (Heesacker et al.,1983). Had the participants had any
doubt that the likes were 'sincere' their trust, and hence the influence would probably
have been less.
Hypothesis 2 is not confirmed. The influence of the likes is only explicit,
whereas the analysis of the IAT revealed that the differences between the three
conditions was not significant. This means that the implicit preference for Japanese food
is not influenced by the number of likes of the brand page of the sushi bar. This can be
explained by the type of product analysed. Probably it is difficult to move the
preference towards food of Italian people. Italian citizens love Italian food, and only
showing a brand page of a Sushi bar is unlikely to influence their general implicit
attitudes towards Japanese (vs. Italian) food.
51

Hypothesis 3 is confirmed. The participants are attracted by the high number of
likes. The likes area is observed more frequently and at greater length in the condition
with a high number of likes, especially during the first 5 seconds of observation, and
this is still significant analysing the whole observation of 30 second. Apparently, the
like area is very attractive for Facebook users.
Also the participants spent more time the Page when is absent the number of likes.
7.1 Marketing perspectives:
This research can be an useful for the world of social media manager. The
number of likes as I have demonstrate is very important, as it changes the attitude and
perception of the whole product. But, as some researchers demonstrated, the aim of a
fan page is not only to persuade fans to click the Like button.
Operators of fan pages have to persuade Facebook' users to know and to want
the product. Due to this, a very important goal is to encourage fans to continue using the
Facebook fan page. To do this the operator should increase the opportunities of fans to
interact and to drive the communication among them (e.g. Updating regularly the
status). Encouraging the communication between fans and organization, the fans are
driven to continue using the pages, adding value to the corporations (Ling and Lu, 2011)
In one question of the survey I asked: “What can persuade you to go to that
Sushi bar?” Most of participants affirm that the two parts of the brand page that can
52

persuade them to go to the Sushi bar are the number of likes and the posts by others
(each with the 21,9% of the responses). 16% of participants considered the friends you
have in common as most persuasive. 11,5% of participants affirmed that the most
persuasive are posts and information. Second to last are the box photo (6,9%,) and last
cover photo (6,9%). No participant indicated the photo profile. This question confirms
my suspicion that the likes are very important, but if users have to decide whether to go
to the restaurant, they want to know the opinion of who interacts with the page,
probably supposing that they are clients.
The question that any Social Media Manager now want to know is: Have I to
buy the likes? I think that the answer is yes and no. Yes, because more likes
communicate a more positive attitude towards the product. No, because if you have too
many likes, but the page is not well maintained, probably the page is not seen as honest,
and in that case it is better to have fewer likes. However the eye-tracker analysis reveals
that users explore the page without likes more intensely, so one option would be to hide
the likes unless the likes are enough (and real!). Future research will tell.
7.2 Limits
After completing this research I realized that many features should be changed. Firstly,
I noticed that 30 seconds of observation of the stimulus page are too many. I have
noticed that the participants got bored at the end observing the brand page for 30
seconds. I think that 10 seconds could be enough.
53

Another limit is the stimulus itself. To adapt the Facebook Brand Page to the screen of
the eye-tracker I had to cut the Facebook brand page. This was optimal to the operation
of the Tobii eye-tracker, but it may have the influenced the results. Would the results be
the same using a more complete Facebook Brand page? I can't know it. However, with a
longer stimulus I would not be able to collect the fixation data.
Another problem was the length of which should ideally be shortest and more focused.
Finally, as in most researches, a larger and more varied sample would make the heat-
maps more reliable and more in general, the research more (externally) valid.
7.3 Future research
This work may stimulate new research about the persuasiveness of Facebook
and the Facebook likes. It would be interesting to replicate the experiment with different
Facebook brand pages of different products, and with different numbers of likes in order
to understand whether the strength of persuasion is related to the quantity of likes.
Implicit influence remains to be explored using less involving product, and possibly
more specific implicit measure whereas the explicit measure assessed attitudes to the
specific Japanese restaurant advertised on the page, the implicit measure used in the
current study measured the attitudes toward Japanese cuisine in a broad sense. Thus,
breadth of attitudes should be considered across implicit and explicit measures.
Maybe using less involving product, the influence will be more powerful, and it
would be interesting to verify how long lasting this influence is. Are participants still
54

influenced the next day? Has the Brand page changed effectively the attitude toward
that Sushi bar or is it a temporary effect?
It may also be worthwhile to assess Is the credibility of the likes? What would happen if
I inform the participant of the phenomenon of the sale of likes? Could the users still be
influenced by the number of likes? Thus, Is the credibility of likes a necessary condition
to be persuasive?
Also, If there is a large number of likes but no post, What will users react to this
contradiction in the brand page?
Finally, it would be interesting to investigate whether the persuasive effect of likes also
work in different cultures. And specifically whether it is enhanced in collectivist (vs.
individualistic) cultures.
Thus, many questions regarding the persuasive effects of Facebook remain. I believe
that much of research is needed to fully understand in social media, because I think that
they will be part of our life for a long time. In conclusion, my research demonstrates
that we continue to be “social beings” also in Facebook.
55

I REFERENCES
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one
against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9),
1-70.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289-1295.
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(3), 372-374.
Bandura, A. Social Learning theory. New York: General learning press, (1977)
Bottles, K., & Sherlock, T. (2011). Who should manage your social media
strategy. Physician Executive, 37(2), 68-72.
Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
Brock, T. C., & Green, M. C. (Eds.). (2005). Persuasion: Psychological insights and
perspectives. Sage Publications.
56

Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2009, April). Feed me: motivating newcomer
contribution in social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 945-954). ACM.
Castelli Luigi, Zogmaister Cristina, Eliot R. Smith e Arcuri Luciano (2004), On the
automatic evaluation of social exemplars, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, pp.373-387.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Le armi della persuasione. Giunti. Terza edizione (2005)
Cialdini, R. B. (1985). Influence: Science and Practice; Scott, Foresman
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C.
Herman (Eds.),
Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Cosenza Vincenzo, Social Media ROI, Apogeo, (2012), pp. 3-23-24-25-26-27-28-57-58
Crosier, Benjamin S.; Webster, Gregory D.; Dillon, Haley M.: (Jun 2012)Wired to
connect: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Networks, Review of General Psychology
2012, Vol 16 (2), Jun 2012 , 230-239
57

Cecchinato G. (2009). Tags: media e conoscenza. Bibliotime, vol n.2, Anno XII, Luglio
2009, ISSN 1128-3564
Cordoba, E. L. (2001). The view from Taft: viral marketing. Business world, 1-3.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends":
Exploring the relationship between college students' use of online social networks and
social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (3), article 1.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced
compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.
Fogg, B. J. (1997). Charismatic computers: creating more likable and persuasive
interactive technologies by leveraging principles from social psychology (Doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University).
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think
and do. Ubiquity, 2002 (December), cap. 1-5-8.
Fogg, B. J. (2008, July). Mass Interpersonal Persuasion: An Early View of a New
Phenomenon. In Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference,
PERSUASIVE 2008, Oulu, Finland, June 4-6, 2008, Proceedings (Vol. 5033, p. 23).
Springer.
58

Fuller, R. G., & Sheehy-Skeffington, A. (1974). Effects of group laughter on responses
to humourous material, a replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35(1), 531-
534.
George, W. H., Gournic, S. J., & McAfee, M. P. (1988). Perceptions of Postdrinking
Female Sexuality: Effects of Gender, Beverage Choice, and Drink Payment1. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 18(15), 1295-1316.
Gosling, S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007, March). Personality impressions based
on Facebook profiles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and
Social Media (pp. 26-28). Boulder, CO. Menlo Park: CA: AAAI.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the
Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 85(2), 197-216.
Gulati R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual
choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 1995; 38:85–112.
Huang CC, Lin TC, Lin KJ. Factors affecting pass-along email intentions (PAEIs):
59

integrating the social capital and social cognition theories. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications 2009; 8:160–169.
Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude
change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message‐relevant thinking.
Journal of Personality, 51(4), 653-666.
Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media
marketing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 41-49.
Jin, X., Wang, C., Luo, J., Yu, X., & Han, J. (2011, August). LikeMiner: a system for
mining the power of'like'in social media networks. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM
SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 753-
756). ACM.
Kane, G. C., Fichman, R. G., Gallaugher, J., & Glaser, J. (2009). Community Relations
2.0. Harvard business review, 87(11), 45-50.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006, November). A Face (book) in the crowd:
Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary
conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 167-170). ACM.
60

Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2008, November). Changes in use and
perception of Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer
supported cooperative work (pp. 721-730). ACM.
Lee, W., Xiong, L., & Hu, C. (2012). The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence
on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance
model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 819-827.
Lefkowitz, M., Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1955). Status factors in pedestrian
violation of traffic signals. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 704.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Intention to continue using Facebook fan pages from the
perspective of social capital theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(10), 565-570.
L.L.L. Lou, (2010) Loneliness, friendship, and self-esteem: First-year college students’
experience of using facebook. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, 70 (2010), p. 7902
Longo Agnese, unpublished master thesis “Social Media and Business Strategies: An
empirical research on technological innovation agencies in the North-East of Italy”,
(2012), Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Psicologia
Sociale, del Lavoro e della Comunicazione, University of Padova
61

Maison D, Greenwald G, Ralph H. Bruin,(2004) Predictive Validity of the Implicit
Association Test inE IAT Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior, journal
of consumer psychology, 14(4), 405–415)
Mauri, M., Cipresso, P., Balgera, A., Villamira, M., & Riva, G. (2011). Why is
Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological measures describe a core flow state while
using Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 723-731.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on
Facebook. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 13(4), 357.
Montalvo, R. E. (2011). Social media management. International Journal of
Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 15(3), 91-96.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. Perspectives on minority
influence, 9-52.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook?. Personality
and individual differences, 52(3), 243-249.
Nelson-Field K, Riebe E, Sharp B (2012), What’s not to “Like”? Can Facebook Fan
Base Give a Brand The Advertising Reach It Needs?, Journal of Advertising research,
June 2012
62

Noort Van, G., Antheunis, M. L., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections
and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as
the underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39-53.
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R.
(2009). The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate
sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 337-340.
Palmer, A., & Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009). An experiential, social network-based approach
to direct marketing. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(3), 162-176.
Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1999). Cooperating with life-like
interface agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 123-142.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (1994). To think or not to
think. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives. Allyn and Beacon, 113-147.
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of
attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of
behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences (pp. 93–130).
63

Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing or
electronic word-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations
to pass along email. Journal of advertising research, 44(04), 333-348.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived
honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21(6), 637-654.
Powell J. (2009) 33 million people in the room: how to create, influence, and run a
successful business with social networking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Reysen S, Lloyd JD, Katzarska-Miller I, Lemker BM, Foss RL. (2010) Intragroup status
and social presence in online fan groups. Computers in Human Behavior 2010;
26:1314–1317.
Vasalou, A., Joinson, A. N., & Courvoisier, D. (2010). Cultural differences, experience
with social networks and the nature of “true commitment” in Facebook. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10), 719-728.
Wang, S. S., Moon, S. I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face
off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(2), 226-234.
Zogmaister, C. e Castelli, L (2006), La misurazione di costrutti impliciti attraverso
64

l’Implicit Association Test, in Psicologia sociale, 1.pp.65-94
REPORTS:
Le ultime evoluzioni del mondo digitale italiano, 3 maggio 2012, ComScore, from
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2012/Le_ultime_ev
oluzioni_del_mondo_digitale_italiano accessed in 15/02/2013
Digital Marketing Trends 2012, from www.magnews.it/digital-marketing-trends.it,
accessed 15/02/2013
State of the Media: The Social Media Report 2012, Nielsen, from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2012/state-of-the-media-the-social-media-report-
2012.html accessed in 15/02/2013
WEB-SITES:
From the website of Facebook creators:
https://www.facebook.com/FacebookPages/info accessed in 11/03/2013
http://fbrep.com//SMB/Pages_Product_Guide.pdf accessed in 16/04/2013
https://www.facebook.com/like accessed in 11/03/2013
https://www.facebook.com/about/pages, accessed in 11/03/2013
http://newsroom.fb.com/Products accessed in 29/04/2013
https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info accessed in 29/04/2013
65

www.alexa.com accessed in 29/04/2013
http://www.google.it/trends/ accessed in 29/04/2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia accessed in
15/02/2013
http://www.purchasefacebooklikes.org/ accessed in 22/05/2013
http://fanlikes.org accessed in 22/05/2013
66

APPENDIX I
Images used in the IAT: Italian food
67

Images used in the IAT: Japanese food
68

APPENDIX II
Effects of likes on explicit attitudes
In order to deeply understand which aspect of the attitude though the Sushi bar were
most influenced by the number of likes, a series of one way ANCOOVA were conducted
for each items of the scale 'general attitude to sushi and sushi bar itself'. The
independent variable was the number of likes and the dependent variable each single
items about the general feeling about The Sushi Bar. The attitude toward Japanese
cooking was entered as a covariant.
We have demonstrate previously that the general feeling about the sushi bar is
influenced by the number of likes, but those analysis have revealed that two items in
particular were revealed deeply and significantly influenced by the number of likes:
'How much is the sushi good in your opinion?' (F(2,81)=3.52, p=0.034, η2p=0.134);
and 'How long do they take to deliver the order in your opinion?' (F(2,81)=5.35,
p=0.007, η2p=0.086) are both statistically significant.
Test degli effetti fra soggetti
Variabile dipendente:Quanto è buono secondo te il sushi servito?
Sorgente
Somma dei
quadrati Tipo III df
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
Modello corretto 8.085a
3 2.695 5.272 .002
Intercetta 61.462 1 61.462 120.240 .000
q1_2giapponese 5.059 1 5.059 9.897 .002
Condizione 3.595 2 1.797 3.516 .034
Errore 41.915 82 .511
Totale 824.000 86
Totale corretto 50.000 85
a. R quadrato = .162 (R quadrato corretto = .131)
69

Variabile dipendente:Quanto sono freschi secondo te gli ingredienti utilizzati?
Sorgente
Somma dei
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
Modello corretto .733a
3 .244 .527 .665
Intercetta 95.364 1 95.364 205.912 .000
q1_2giapponese .161 1 .161 .348 .557
Condizione .612 2 .306 .661 .519
Errore 37.977 82 .463
Totale 843.000 86
a. R quadrato = .019 (R quadrato corretto = -.017)
Variabile dipendente:Quanto è gradevole secondo te il design del locale?
Sorgente
Somma dei
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
3 1.207 1.268 .291
Intercetta 103.949 1 103.949 109.253 .000
q1_2giapponese .183 1 .183 .192 .662
Condizione 3.533 2 1.767 1.857 .163
Errore 78.019 82 .951
Totale 961.000 86
70

Variabile dipendente:Secondo te quanto è gentile il personale a rispondere al telefono?
Sorgente
Somma dei
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
3 .958 1.727 .168
Intercetta 94.156 1 94.156 169.656 .000
q1_2giapponese .768 1 .768 1.383 .243
Condizione 2.290 2 1.145 2.063 .134
Errore 45.508 82 .555
Totale 915.000 86
71

Variabile dipendente:Quanto è veloce secondo te la consegna?
Sorgente
Somma dei
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
3 1.642 3.698 .015
Intercetta 106.000 1 106.000 238.649 .000
q1_2giapponese .199 1 .199 .448 .505
Condizione 4.847 2 2.424 5.456 .006
Errore 36.422 82 .444
Totale 940.000 86
Variabile dipendente:Immaginando di vivere a Milano, ordineresti spesso da “This is not a
sushi bar”?
Sorgente
Somma dei
Media dei
quadrati F Sig.
3 5.831 8.870 .000
Intercetta 19.780 1 19.780 30.091 .000
q1_2giapponese 15.881 1 15.881 24.159 .000
Condizione 2.420 2 1.210 1.841 .165
Errore 53.903 82 .657
Totale 594.000 86
72

A) Additional analysis about the perception of the 'likes'
. To investigate the participants reaction and evaluation of the Facebook brand page
containing the ad, they were asked to indicate a) what element they had noticed first, b)
what element they found most informative, c) most important, and d) most persuasive.
For each of the questions they were provided with a grid containing multiple response
options, namely 'cover photo, profile photo, box photo, likes, posts, post by others,
information and friends you have in common with the brand page'.
A descriptive analysis of frequency was conducted to understand the thinking of
the users about Facebook’s structure.
a) The majority of the participants have referred that the first thing that they
noticed was: cover photo with 49,4 and profile photo with 41,4.
Qual'è; la prima cosa che hai notato?
Frequenza Percentuale
Percentuale
valida
Percentuale
cumulata
Validi foto profilo 36 41.4 41.4 41.4
copertina 43 49.4 49.4 90.8
box foto 4 4.6 4.6 95.4
n.di likes 2 2.3 2.3 97.7
informazioni 1 1.1 1.1 98.9
amici che sono fan della
pagina
1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Totale 87 100.0 100.0
73

b) More interesting are the results of what is the element considered most informative:
40% said information, 17% said number of likes, 13,8% said profile photo.
Qual'è l'elemento a tuo avviso più informativo?
Percentuale
valida
Percentuale
cumulata
copertina 7 8.0 8.1 22.1
box foto 4 4.6 4.7 26.7
n.di likes 15 17.2 17.4 44.2
post 5 5.7 5.8 50.0
post degli utenti fans 5 5.7 5.8 55.8
pagina
3 3.4 3.5 100.0
Totale 86 98.9 100.0
Mancanti Mancante di sistema 1 1.1
Totale 87 100.0
74

c) The results of the question of the most important element are similar to replies of the
most informative element: 32,2% (28 persons) consider information as most important
element of the brand page, 21,8% (19 persons) consider the number of likes
Qual'è l'aspetto che ritieni più importante?
Percentuale
valida
Percentuale
cumulata
copertina 9 10.3 10.3 18.4
box foto 5 5.7 5.7 24.1
n.di likes 19 21.8 21.8 46.0
post 7 8.0 8.0 54.0
pagina
3 3.4 3.4 100.0
Totale 87 100.0 100.0
75

d) Last question, about most persuasive element has different results. Most of
participants affirm that the two part of the brand page those can persuade them to go to
the Sushi bar are the number of likes and the posts by others (each with the 21,9% of
replies.19 people).
Cosa ti potrebbe convincere ad andare a quel take away?
Percentuale
valida
Percentuale
cumulata
Validi copertina 6 6.9 6.9 6.9
box foto 9 10.3 10.3 17.2
n.di likes 19 21.8 21.8 39.1
post 10 11.5 11.5 50.6
pagina
14 16.1 16.1 100.0
Totale 87 100.0 100.0
76

B) Additional analysis about the perception of the 'likes'
The ninth questions of the questionnaire addressed specifically the role of the ‘likes’ .
First I investigated the perceived reasons why people click the like button (reasons to
click the like button), providing a number of alternatives: ‘They have eaten the sushi of
This is not a sushi bar’, ‘They like sushi in general’, ‘They have heard others talking
about the take away’, ’acquaintances or friend have gone to the take away’, ‘Somebody
had invited them to click the like button’, ‘probably without any specific reason’.
I ask to scaling from 1 to 6 the different reasons to click the like button: the majority of
the participant, 74,8% believe that the first and second motives to be fan of the page
was: ‘They have eaten the sushi of This is not a sushi bar’. The second motives selected
between the first motives is that ‘They like sushi in general’, 50% of participant sign it
as second and third motive, The reasons of ‘They have listened speaking about the take
away’, ’acquaintances or friend have gone to the take away’, and ‘Someone have
invited to click the like button’ are more distributed through participants. Despite
‘Someone have invited to click the like button’ is though the last motive indicated, and
the 79,2% of persons indicate the motive ‘probably senseless’ as the two last reasons.
77

Marketing, ristorazione e social networks<br>Marketing, ristorazione e social networks<br>Marketing, ristorazione e social networks<br>Marketing, ristorazione e social networks<br>
Spazio riservato allo sperimentatore.
I social media, insieme ai siti web sono sempre più utilizzati per la promozione di servizi.

Stiamo facendo uno studio sulla promozione della ristorazione sul web e i social media. Ci interessa quindi la tua opinione per poter creare
ad hoc una strategia marketing per la ristorazione, legata ai social networks.
Ti chiediamo di rispondere nel modo più sincero possibile, i dati poi verranno analizzati in modo aggregato, garantendo quindi il completo
anonimato dei partecipanti.
Ti verranno indicate 6 tipi diversi di cucine.
Indica quanto ti piace ogni cucina:
Quanto spesso ti capita di mangiare al ristorante?
Indica quanto spesso vai a mangiare in questi ristoranti:
Inserisci numero
partecipante
per niente poco abbastanza molto moltissimo
Cinese nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Giapponese nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Greca nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Indiana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Italiana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Messicana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
mai
meno di 3 volte
l'anno
35 volte l'anno
almeno 1 volta al
mese
più di una volta al
mese
tutte le settimane
Cinese nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Giapponese nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Greca nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Indiana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Italiana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Messicana nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Mai

nmlkj
Meno di 3 volte l'anno

nmlkj
35 volte l'anno

nmlkj
Almeno 1 volta al mese

nmlkj
Più di una volta al mese

nmlkj
Tutte le settimane

nmlkj

Da quanto tempo hai mangiato?
Adesso ti verrà mostrata una pagina aziendale di Facebook. Guardala con molta attenzione, per quanto tempo vuoi.
da mezzora

nmlkj
1 ora

nmlkj
2 ore

nmlkj
3 ore

nmlkj
4 ore

nmlkj
5 ore

nmlkj
più di 5 ore

nmlkj
Altro

La prima parte del compito è terminata, ti chiediamo di avvisare lo sperimentatore.
Adesso ti verrà mostrata nuovamente la pagina aziendale di Facebook di prima. Guardala con molta attenzione, per quanto tempo vuoi e poi
ti chiediamo di rispondere ad alcune domande.
La pagina Facebook che hai visto è di un takeaway giapponese di Milano.
Adesso ti chiediamo di rispondere ad alcune domande circa questo takeaway giapponese. Sappiamo che non ti sarà molto facile rispondere,
ma ti chiediamo di dare una risposta, anche solo di impulso, usando le impressioni che ti sei fatto guardando la pagina Facebook.

Indica la tua risposta scegliendo tra le alternative:
Avevi mai sentito parlare di “This is not a sushi bar”?
Quante volte ti è capitato di mangiare il sushi di “This is not a sushi bar”?
per niente poco abbastanza molto moltissimo
Quanto è buono secondo
te il sushi servito?
nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj
Quanto sono freschi
secondo te gli ingredienti
utilizzati?
Quanto è gradevole
secondo te il design del
locale?
Secondo te quanto è
gentile il personale a
rispondere al telefono?
Quanto è veloce secondo
te la consegna?
Questo spesso secondo te
fanno sconti?
Immaginando di vivere a
Milano, ordineresti spesso
da “This is not a sushi
bar”?
Sì

nmlkj
No

nmlkj
0

nmlkj
1

nmlkj
2

nmlkj
3

nmlkj
4

nmlkj
5

nmlkj
più di 5

nmlkj
Altro

Queste sono le componenti di una pagina Facebook aziendale.

Facebook "Likes

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (15)

Ähnlich wie Facebook "Likes

Ähnlich wie Facebook "Likes (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Facebook "Likes