WHAT MAKES VIRAL VIDEOS VIRAL?

: ROLES OF EMOTION, IMPRESSION, UTILITY, AND

SOCIAL TIES IN ONLINE SHARING BEHAVIOR

By
Michiko Izawa

A thesis submitted to The Johns Hopkins University

in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

COMMUNICATION
Baltimore, MD
July 2010

2010 Michiko Izawa

All rights reserved
 Abstract

With the proliferation of social media, it is now easier than ever for anyone to share information with

many people at once, causing some content to be consumed by an enormous audience solely by being

forwarded from one to another virally. This study focused on YouTube videos as a form of content and

examined what makes people share them online through their social networks. The online survey was

conducted with 176 participants, who watched two videos on YouTube, answered whether they had shared or

would share each video using various social media, and rated each video in terms of emotions aroused,

impressions aroused, and utilities served by the video. They also assessed how frequently they used each type

of social media and how close they felt to the people they were connected with through each medium. Results

revealed that those who had shared or would share the videos felt happiness, humor, surprise, fear, sadness,

and anger more strongly than those who had not shared or would not share the videos. Those more likely to

share also found the videos more enjoyable, intense, informative and less provocative; thought the videos were

useful, important for society, and reflected their tastes; and anticipated that people would feel happy and

grateful to them for sharing the videos. Also, it was suggested that people tend to share content using the social

media they use most frequently and they feel stronger connections with others through.

Thesis Readers:

Paula Weissman, M.A.

Priyanka Matanhelia, PhD

ii
 Acknowledgements

I thank all the professors I fortunately had an opportunity to be taught by at the Johns Hopkins

University. Every course I took provided me with great insight and knowledge and helped me build the

foundation to write this thesis. My special gratitude goes to my thesis advisor, Paula Weissman, for her

supportive guidance and helpful advice throughout the process.

I also thank my friends and colleagues who helped me distribute the survey. Thanks to their

spreading the word, I was further reminded of the power of getting viral. This study could not have been

completed without their social networks.

Finally, I would not have been in this graduate program if my husband, Jun, had not given me a

chance to come to the United States. I appreciate his understanding and support for my academic pursuit when

he himself was facing the challenges of moving on to the next phase of his career. We both made it, hand in

hand.

iii
 Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables...........................................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................1

Literature Review....................................................................................................................................................................4

Content Factors: What Do People Share? ....................................................................................................................4

Motivational Factors: For What Do People Share?..................................................................................................10

Interpersonal Factors: With Whom Do People Share?............................................................................................13

Research Questions ..............................................................................................................................................................15

Method....................................................................................................................................................................................16

Participant Recruitment ..................................................................................................................................................16

Procedures.........................................................................................................................................................................17

Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................................................19

Results .....................................................................................................................................................................................19

RQ1: What Characteristics of Video Content Prompt Online Sharing?..............................................................20

RQ1a: What types of emotion aroused by the content prompt online sharing? .20

iv
 RQ1b: What types of impression aroused by the content prompt online sharing? 22

RQ1c: What types of utility served by the content prompt online sharing? ...23

RQ2: Do People Share Different Content on Different Social Media in Accordance with the Strength of

Social Ties? .................................................................................................................................................................... 266

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 299

Limitations of the current study.....................................................................................................................................33

Implications for future research.....................................................................................................................................35

Appendices.............................................................................................................................................................................36

Appendix A: Recruitment Notices...............................................................................................................................36

Appendix B: Survey .......................................................................................................................................................37

References ..............................................................................................................................................................................45

Vita...........................................................................................................................................................................................49

v
 List of Tables

Table 1. Differences in the Ratings of Emotion Aroused by Single Ladies (V1) between the Share Group

and the Not Share Group................................................................................................................................................21

Table 2. Differences in the Ratings of Emotion Aroused by Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group...................................................................................................................................22

Table 3. Differences in the Ratings of Impression Evoked by Single Ladies ( V1) between the Share Group

and the Not Share Group................................................................................................................................................23

Table 4. Differences in the Ratings of Impression Evoked by Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group...................................................................................................................................23

Table 5. Differences in the Ratings of Utility Served by the Single Ladies (V1) between the Share Group

and the Not Share Group................................................................................................................................................25

Table 6. Differences in the Ratings of Utility Served by the Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group...................................................................................................................................26

Table 7. Number of Participants Who Shared/Would Share the Video by Social Media.....................................27

Table 8. Comparison of Frequency of Social Media Use between the Share Group and the Not Share Group

for Single Ladies ( V1)................................................................................................................................................27

Table 9. Comparison of Frequency of Social Media Use between the Share Group and the Not Share Group

for Sliding Door Chain ( V2).....................................................................................................................................28

Table 10. Comparison of Closeness with People Connected through Social Media between the Share Group

vi
 and the Not Share Group for Single Ladies ( V1).................................................................................................28

Table 11. Comparison of Closeness with People Connected through Social Media between the Share Group

and the Not Share Group for Sliding Door Chain ( V2)......................................................................................29

vii
 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine what makes people share information online through

their social networks. The study focuses on YouTube videos as a form of content.

With the proliferation of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, anyone who has access

to the Internet or mobile networks can practically serve as a medium by sharing information with a

large number of people at once. According to the report by the Pew Research Center (Lenhart, Purcell,

Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010), as of 2009, 38% of 12-17 year-olds and 30% of 18-19 year-olds share self-

created content online, including photos, videos, artwork, and stories. These contents are passed along

through their social networks, and some of them end up being viewed or read millions of times.

Among various forms of information and content shared online, video is especially powerful

with a great potential to be spread virally to a large audience. From 2006 to 2009, the number of online

adults who watch videos on video-sharing websites nearly doubled (Madden, 2009). The number of

online videos viewed in total, the number of online videos one user views, and the minutes spent on

viewing online videos grew 41%, 27%, and 71%, respectively, between February 2008 and February

2009 (The Nielsen Company, 2009). The most watched video on YouTube in 2009 (Susan Boyle -

Britains Got Talent) generated more than 120 million views worldwide (YouTube, 2009, December

16).

The consequence of sharing can be significant in various aspects of our society. One recent

example is a video titled United Breaks Guitars, created by a musician singing about his experience

1
with United Airlines in which his expensive guitar was damaged allegedly by its employees. The

video generated more than 3.2 million views and 14,000 comments within the first 10 days after it was

posted on YouTube, and the commenters predominantly shared their own experiences of poor services

provided by the airlines (Cutler, 2009). The impact was so great that United Airlines called the creator

of the video to apologize and conceded that the video was a "unique learning opportunity" and could

be used for customer service training. This episode illustrates that online videos, if shared by many, can

be a powerful tool for people to make their voices heard at a scale previously unattainable with a letter

or phone call to customer services.

Another case where a popular video brought a change in business, this time more

unexpectedly, is JK Wedding Entrance Dance, viewed more than 10 million times in less than a

week since it was posted in July 19, 2009, and 33 million times in total by the end of the year

(YouTube, 2009, July 30). In this video of a surprise wedding entrance, the couple with the

groomsmen and bridesmaids marched into the church all dancing to a song Forever by Chris Brown.

Despite the apparent copyright infringement, the record company, Sony Music Entertainment,

piggybacked on the popularity of the video and turned it into a business opportunity by placing an ad

for the song with a link to Amazon and iTunes over the video on YouTube, pushing it back up the

charts a year after its release. This exemplifies the potential of user-generated content, which originally

has no commercial intent, to be capitalized on as a revenue source by leveraging a large number of

eyeballs.

2
 Not only is the size of the audience large, but videos are also versatile to convey any type of

messages from commercial to political to entertainment. The ranking of the most heavily-used video

websites in different demographic groups provided by the Nielsen Company (2009) reveals that a

wide variety of video sites attract viewers, ranging from news to music, sports to education, and

technology to health. With the advent of video-sharing websites where users can easily upload the

content of their own making, creating and presenting videos is no longer confined in the hands of

professionals, which Shirky (2009) calls the mass amateurization of publishing (p.60), and as a

result, the scope of content can be virtually unlimited.

Despite the diversity of the content shared online, online viral communication has been

researched mainly in the context of marketing and advertising as in word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing,

and thus the examinations have been limited to commercial information in the form of oral or written

messages. Moreover, as I will review in the next section, the vast majority of research has dealt with e-

mail messages, customer reviews, and conversations on online forums, and only a few of the studies

have focused on video content. Therefore, little is known about the process by which viral videos are

shared.

To fill this gap, this study will attempt to identify the factors that prompt online viral sharing of

non-commercial video content. I define online viral sharing here as a phenomenon where a video or

a link to the video is e-mailed, posted on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, and

Twitter, or bookmarked on social bookmarking websites such as StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg, and

3
reddit. By examining what makes people want to take these actions, the study will suggest what kind

of characteristics a video needs to have in order to be widely spread.

The results of this study will benefit anyone who wants to disseminate information by utilizing

online social networks. First, the study will provide marketers and advertisers with additional

knowledge on WOM, which will help them design effective viral marketing/advertising strategies

using video content. Political campaign strategists and nonprofit organizations can also learn from the

study how to create video content to spread their messages on issues and causes. The results will also

be useful for artists, writers, bloggers, and any other creators who hope to attract more attention to their

works.

Literature Review

Content Factors: What Do People Share?

Communication researchers have taken several approaches to explore what kind of

information is shared among people. Here, I will review the studies in two of those areas, rumors and

word of mouth, to examine what content factors could contribute to online sharing behavior.

Rumors. One form of communication in which information is passed along from one person

to another is rumors, and some studies have focused on the characteristics of rumors that are more

likely to be spread than others.

Heath (1996) conducted three studies using surveys to see what kind of information people

tend to pass along in terms of its extremity, valence (positive or negative), and congruence (whether the

4
valence of emotion evoked by the information is congruent with the valence of the topic). The first

study asked 111 college students to rate how likely they would pass along stories that differed in

extremity and valence. The second study took a within-subjects approach and compared the responses

of 32 college students on whether they would pass along moderate, extremely positive, and extremely

negative stories. The third study had 25 college students rate the relevance and valence of each story

and then asked the likelihood of passing each story along. The results showed that information

moderately surprising rather than extremely surprising, positive stories on positive topics, and negative

stories on negative topics are more likely to be passed along.

Based on the finding of Heath (1996) about the congruence of valence of emotion and topics,

Heath, Bell, and Sternberg (2001) further explored the role of emotion in selecting which

informationurban legends, in particularto pass along. The researchers chose disgust as a sample of

emotion, and asked the college students to rate various urban legends and their willingness to pass

them along. In the first study, 63 participants read 16 legends including 10 to 11 disgusting legends and

rated what kinds of emotions each legend aroused and how willing they were to pass them along. In

the second study, 42 participants went through the same procedure as the first study with the legends

with varying degrees of disgust. They found that people tend to pass along stories that elicit a higher

level of disgust, and further confirmed by analyzing the level of disgust of stories posted on popular

urban legends websites that the stories shared there were highly disgusting.

Cotter (2008) also examined what makes urban legends spread by asking 62 college students

5
to read 15 urban legends that included fear and local components. After reading the legends, they were

asked to evaluate whether they experienced eight different emotions and indicate how likely they

would be to share the legends with others. The survey results showed that perceived fear and

believability of the stories positively correlated with intention to share them.

In a similar vein to the research on rumors, Peters, Kashima, and Clarks (2009) study on

social talk looked at how social information that arouses emotion is communicated in everyday

conversations. Using the same scale as Heath, Bell, and Sternberg (2001), this study had 160 college

students read 12 social anecdotes that varied by type and intensity of emotions involved and then rate

their emotions and willingness to pass along the anecdotes. Additionally, to control the effect of themes

of the stories and test their hypotheses in a more realistic setting, the researchers asked 40 college

students to read 18 social anecdotes with the same themes and choose some of the stories to actually

tell their friends in writing. The results revealed that people are more willing to share episodes that

arouse interest, surprise, disgust, and happiness.

According to these studies, emotional elements play an important role when people share

information with others. It can therefore be assumed that in passing along video content, types and

levels of accompanying emotion should have an impact on likelihood for the content to be shared.

Word of mouth and viral marketing. Another, more recent approach to information sharing

is in the field of marketing and advertising research. Researchers have been investigating how and

under what conditions marketing messages spread widely through word of mouth (WOM) both by

6
examining the strategies of viral advertisements and by probing consumers mindsets for WOM.

Porter and Golan (2006) conducted content analysis of 266 viral advertisements and 235

television advertisements to identify the differences between these two formats of advertising. The

viral ads were selected from those found by web search and on popular viral ad-seeding websites,

where advertisers place ads they want to spread virally, as well as among the participants of an

international award festival of viral advertising. The television ads were randomly chosen from an

online database of television advertisements. The ads were coded for the main ad function

(reinforcement, branding, call for action, providing product or service information) and the ad appeal

(whether the ad uses sex, nudity, violence, humor, animals, children, or animation). The results

revealed that viral ads are more likely to include sex, nudity, and violence than television ads, leading

the researchers to conclude that viral ads tend to rely on provocative content to encourage unpaid

receivers to communicate with one another by passing along the ads.

As a follow-up to Poter and Golan (2006) and to further analyze the characteristics of viral

advertisements, Golan and Zaidner (2008) applied the six-segment message strategy wheel proposed

by Taylor (1999) to analyze the characteristics of viral advertisements. They conducted content

analysis of 360 viral ads gathered from two viral ad-seeding websites and a database of a viral

advertising firm. Along with the same coding categories for function and appeal used by Porter and

Golan, Golan and Zaidner also coded the ads for the creative strategies used in the ads according to

Taylors model, which included appeals targeting consumers needs for information, acute needs,

7
needs for products they routinely use, the egos, sensory fulfillment, and social interaction. As they

found out, a vast majority of the ads (91%) used humor as an ad appeal, 51% of the ads employed the

ego message strategy, which appeals to consumers perception of who they are or who they want to be,

and 24.4% employed the ration message strategy, which targets consumers need for information.

While the above two studies examined the strategies employed by advertisers, Mazzarol,

Sweeney, and Soutar (2007) focused on consumers experiences of WOM. They conducted six focus

groups with an average of nine adult participants and identified from the discussions several recurring

themes regarding WOM activities. One major theme was the richness of the message: The participants

talked about the storytelling power of the messages they gave or received in their past WOM

experiences and described them as vivid, intense, and detailed. Another theme was the strength of

advocacy: The participants, both as a giver and a recipient, recalled the WOM messages that conveyed

strong advocacy and enthusiasm for a topic as more significant experiences.

Taking a more explanatory approach, Chiu, Hsieh, Kao, and Lee (2007) sought to identify the

determinants of effective viral campaigns. The researchers conducted an experiment with 240 college

students, who were randomly assigned to one of 24 scenarios in which they were assumed to receive

e-mail advertisements for mobile phones under various conditions in terms of the source, content, and

channel (broadband connection or dial-up connection). The participants were then asked whether they

thought each message was worth forwarding. The results showed that the participants rated an

advertising message as more worth forwarding when it contained either detailed product information

8
or information on sweepstakes the recipients could enroll in. The researchers concluded that messages

with a higher utilitarian value (i.e., more informative) and a higher hedonic value (i.e., more enjoyable)

are more likely to be passed along.

Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, and Raman (2004) used multiple methods including focus

groups, content analysis, and telephone interviews to understand the mechanism of viral marketing via

e-mail. One of their research questions focused on the types of messages that tend to be forwarded

more often than others. To answer this question, the researchers conducted a content analysis of the e-

mails people actually passed along to others. Among the 66 male and female adults who participated in

the focus group at the initial phase of the study, 34 people agreed to continue with the second phase

and sent every e-mail message they received in a month that was intended to be passed along. The

participants were asked to send both the messages they actually forwarded to others and those they did

not. The analysis revealed that messages containing naked pictures, jokes about gender, jokes about

work or computers, crime warnings, games, and luck-oriented chain letters were more likely to be

passed along, while those considered old, uninteresting, and stupid by the recipients were more likely

not to be forwarded.

These studies suggest that messages are more likely to be passed along when they are

provocative, intense, enjoyable, or informative. The same characteristics thus can perhaps be expected

in viral videos that are widely shared.

9
Motivational Factors: For What Do People Share?

The studies reviewed in the previous section explored what kinds of content are more likely to

be shared than others, whereas it is also important to consider why people share content in the first

place. Researchers have identified several possible motives for sharing information through both

qualitative and quantitative approaches.

In addition to the research question about the content of e-mail messages mentioned above,

Phelps et al. (2004) examined the motives for forwarding e-mails through focus groups and telephone

interviews. At the first phase of the study, they conducted eight focus groups with 66 participants in

total. Based on the frequency of forwarding pass-along e-mails, the participants were labeled either as

Viral Mavens or as Infrequent Senders. The comments made in the focus group sessions revealed

that Viral Mavens forwarded e-mails that they thought were important or contained something the

recipient would like, and only when they were in the mood and had the time for doing so. At the third

phase of the study, the researchers conducted telephone interviews as a follow-up to the second phase

(the content analysis of e-mails). 23 out of 34 participants of the second phase answered questions over

the phone from the Interpersonal Communication Motives Scale developed by Rubin, Perse, and

Barbato (1988). The scale consisted of 28 reasons for communicating with others, such as because its

fun and to help others, and the respondents rated how applicable each reason was with a Likert

scale. In this study, the instruction was slightly modified to adapt to communication via pass-along e-

mail in particular. The responses to the scale, as well as some open-ended comments, indicated that

10
people pass along e-mails mainly for fun and social connection.

Palka, Pousttchi, and Wiedemann (2009) also took a qualitative approach to explore the

motivation, attitudes, and behaviors of those who receive, use, and forward mobile viral content. They

collected data through focus groups and in-depth interviews of 57 participants between the ages of 15

and 61 and analyzed the conversations with a grounded theory methodology. The researchers divided

the process of dealing with mobile viral content into three stages: receipt, usage, and forwarding. The

analysis of the forwarding stage revealed that people consider various factors when they decide if they

should forward mobile content, including whether the content is interesting or beneficial to the

potential recipients, whether forwarding the content damages their reputation, whether it is a good way

to express themselves or to connect with others, whether the content is amusing, and whether the

content is personally relevant to them.

Just as Phelps et al. (2004) did, Walsh, Gwinner, and Swanson (2004) focused on market

mavens, who are particularly knowledgeable about consumer products and services and initiate

conversation with other consumers to share their knowledge, and investigated the motives of their

information diffusion behaviors. Through a telephone survey of 326 randomly-selected consumers,

they examined whether those who perceived themselves as a general provider of marketing

information were motivated by obligation to share information, pleasure in sharing information, and

desire to help others. The results confirmed that all of the three motives significantly correlated with the

self-perceived market maven score, suggesting that mavens share information as they feel obligated to

11
do so, find it enjoyable, and hope to help others.

Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, and Gremler (2004) used social interaction utility in a

virtual community proposed by Balasubramanian and Mahajan (2001) as a framework to identify

motives for electronic word of mouth (eWOM). According to Balasubramanian and Mahajan, people

participate in and make contributions to an online community to add value to the community (focus-

related utility), to benefit from responses by other members (consumption utility), and to be approved

of by other members (approval utility). Based on these three types of utility, Hennig-Thurau et al.

assumed eleven types of motives for engaging in eWOM communication and developed an online

survey to ask the respondents why and how often they write comments on online opinion-sharing

platforms. The survey was distributed by banner links and pop-up windows on some popular opinion-

sharing websites in Germany, as well as by direct e-mail messages to selected users. Analyzing the

responses from 2,063 respondents, the study found that concern for other customers, expression of

positive emotions and positive self-enhancement, social benefits, economic incentives, and advice-

seeking motivate consumers to visit online opinion-sharing platforms more frequently and to make

more comments there. Also, the results indicated that people with a combination of multiple motives

engage in more communication on online platforms in terms of frequency and number of comments

than those who are motivated by a single motive.

As suggested by the results of these studies, people share information mainly to help others,

communicate with others, express themselves, and have fun. These motives similarly may serve to

12
motivate people to share video content.

Interpersonal Factors: With Whom Do People Share?

If people share information to help and communicate with others, sharing behavior should be

affected by who the others are. Some studies have investigated the role of interpersonal relationships

in WOM activities.

Huang, Lin, and Lin (2009) examined the role of interpersonal factors in WOM based on

social capital theory and social cognitive theory. They gathered data from the online survey of 347

business school students and alumni in Taiwan, asking them to assess how attached they were to the

relationship with the possible recipients of pass-along e-mail messages (relational commitment) and

how much time they spend and how often they communicate with the recipients (social interaction tie).

The results showed that passing along e-mails occurs when a sender has both a highly committed

relationship and a strong social interaction tie with a recipient.

Mazzarol et al. (2007) also identified closeness of sender and recipient as one of the conditions

that increase the chance for WOM to take place. From the same focus group discussions described in

the previous section, they found out that when a sender was closely related to a recipient and thus knew

that a certain topic would be of interest to the recipient, the sender felt comfortable forwarding the

message regarding that topic.

Other researchers pointed out that people share different content with different recipients

depending on topic of the content and closeness with the recipients. From their own experience of

13
conducting an online survey, Norman and Russell (2006) noticed that the majority of the respondents

were those who received the survey information through e-mail messages that were passed along from

the original targeted respondents. This led the researchers to investigate what would prompt

forwarding e-mails by following up the 10,747 original survey respondents with questions regarding

potential factors including the number and strength of social ties. The respondents assessed the

closeness and frequency of interaction with the person who they forwarded the e-mail as well as their

involvement in and connectedness to the topic of the message. The results supported the hypothesis

that those who are more involved in and connected to the topic are more likely to forward the message

to the people they are more strongly tied with.

Sohn (2009), in an attempt to explain how social relationships influence WOM behaviors at a

psychological level, tested whether density of social network directly affects WOM intention or

interacts with the effect of information valence. Sohn conducted an online experiment with 2 (social

network density: high-low) x 2 (information valence: positive-negative) between-subjects design, in

which 121 college students were assigned dense or nondense group settings and positive or negative

product information about a hypothetical digital camera. The participants were then asked whether

they would share the information with the group members and how valuable they thought the

information would be to the group members. The results showed that those in nondense social

networks evaluated positive information as more valuable for the potential recipients and intended to

share it with them, and that those in dense networks assessed the value of the information regardless of

14
the valence. This indicates that people tend to share more positive information with acquaintances and

strangers, while with close friends they share both positive and negative information as long as they

regard it as valuable to the recipients.

These studies revealed that closeness and ties with the recipients affect what type of

information to share with them. Considering that people use various channels to share content, such as

e-mails, Facebook, and Twitter, the recipients may be different for each channel and thus the content to

be shared may also differ accordingly.

As I have reviewed above, there are four possible factors that would prompt online

information sharing: emotional elements of the content, impression given by the content, the utility

served by the content, and the strength of social ties with potential recipients. Based on this assumption,

this study attempts to answer the following research questions.

Research Questions

RQ1: What characteristics of video content prompt online sharing?

RQ1a: What types of emotion aroused by the content prompt online sharing?

RQ1b: What types of impression aroused by the content prompt online sharing?

RQ1c: What types of utility served by the content prompt online sharing?

RQ2: Do people share different content on different social media in accordance with the strength of

social ties?

15
 Method

As this study aims to identify the relationship between the characteristics of content and

viewers and the likelihood of the content to be shared, it requires quantitative data to analyze statistical

patterns of relationships between variables. A survey method enables researchers to numerically

describe the characteristics of the sample (Creswell, 2004), and thus best fits the purpose of this study.

The survey was conducted online, which is not only appropriate particularly for the participants of this

study who regularly use the Internet, but also is an economical and efficient way to reach as many

participants as possible and increase reliability (Wright, 2005).

Participant Recruitment

Before any participant recruitment began, the study protocol and materials were reviewed and

approved by the Johns Hopkins Universitys Homewood Institutional Review board to ensure ethical

treatment of all study participants. The participants recruited for this study were internet users who

regularly watch online videos and use e-mails, social networking tools such as Facebook, MySpace,

and Twitter, and social bookmarking tools such as StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg, and reddit. As

Madden (2009) shows, online video viewing is a popular activity among online adults across the ages

from 18 to 49; therefore, the participants for this study fell within this age group.

I used a convenience, snowball-sampling method to recruit participants. I recruited the

participants using my own social networks through e-mails, Facebook, and Twitter. I sent e-mail

messages with a link to the URL of the online survey to the staff listserv at the university libraries I

16
worked for and to the listserv for the Communication students at Johns Hopkins University Advanced

Academic Programs. I also asked my Facebook Friends and Twitter followers to pass along the URL.

Interested participants directly visited the URL and started taking the survey. See Appendix A for

recruitment notices.

Procedures

The survey was conducted online using the SurveyMonkey website. Those who received the

URL of the survey by an e-mail or a Facebook and Twitter post were invited to visit the website and

take the survey whenever it was convenient for them. The survey took approximately 20 minutes.

Informed consent was obtained on the first page of the survey, where those who agreed to take

the survey certified that they were 18 years of age or older via a click-through function.

Participants viewed two videos available on YouTube. The first one was a funny kids video

titled Single Ladies Devastation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9eL3ejXmE), in which two

girls and a boy were singing Beyonces Single Ladies in a car and the boy burst into tears when their

father driving a car told him that he was not a single lady. The video was viewed 2,695,525 times as of

April 15, 2010. The second one was a security-related video titled Defeating a sliding chain lock

using a rubber band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7INIRLe7x0Y), which demonstrated how

to unlatch a sliding door chain from outside with a rubber band. The video was viewed 397,166 times.

Both were non-commercial, about one-minute long, and were uploaded to YouTube on the same date

(March 29, 2010), and the former was viewed approximately 7 times as often as the latter. While the

17
content of the former video had a positive note, the latter implied a criminal act and thus could be

considered negative. The difference was expected to have some effect on the results, as Heath (1996)

had found that the valence of the topics affected how likely a rumor would be passed along.

In the first part of the survey, the participants were asked to watch each video and respond to

the same questions about each one. They were asked whether they had seen the video before, and if

they had, they were asked whether they had shared the video with others and through which social

media (e-mail, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg, reddit, and other; the

participants were allowed to choose multiple media). If they had not shared the video, they were asked

whether they thought they would share it and through which social media.

The participants then rated the video on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of emotion aroused

(disgusting, scary, happy, funny, surprised, sad, angry, annoyed), impression aroused (intense,

provocative, enjoyable, informative), and utility served (useful to you/your friends/other people,

important for society, reflects your taste, will make your friends/other people happy, will make your

friends/other people grateful) by the video.

In the second part of the survey, the participants assessed on a 5-point Likert scale how

frequently they used the social media mentioned above and how close they thought they were to

thepeople they were connected with through each social medium.

The survey also asked age and gender of the participants to see if there was any difference in

the results depending on the demographic characteristics. See Appendix B for the survey instrument.

18
Data Analysis

To answer RQ1, I conducted a t-test to examine the mean differences of the emotion,

impression, and utility ratings between those who had shared/would share the video and those who had

not/would not.

To answer RQ2, I examined the difference in the choice of medium for each video and

compared the means of the frequency of use and connection closeness scores for each social medium

between those who had shared/would share the video and those who had not/would not on each

medium.

Results

The online survey was conducted from May 5 to May 25, 2010. During this period, 221

people visited the survey web page, and a total of 176 of these individuals participated in the survey.

Sixty of the participants were male and 116 were female. The mean age of participants was 35.9

(SD=11.4).

For the first video (V1), in which kids in a car were singing the song Single Ladies, 175

participants provided valid responses to all the questions; 30% (n = 52) of participants had seen the

video before and 70% (n = 123) had not. Eighteen percent (n = 32) of participants answered that they

either had shared or would share the video using at least one of the social media, and 82% (n = 143)

neither had shared nor would share it. For the second video (V2), which showed a trick to unlock a

sliding door chain, 171 participants provided valid responses to all the questions; 8% (n = 13) of

19
participants had seen the video before and 92% (n = 158) had not. Thirty percent of participants (n =

51) answered that they either had shared or would share the video, and 70% (n = 120) neither had

shared nor would share it.

The research questions posed in this study required comparing participants who indicated they

had or would share the videos (Share) with participants who had not or would not share the videos

(Not Share). The results of these analyses are reported below by research question for each video.

RQ1: What Characteristics of Video Content Prompt Online Sharing?

RQ1a: What types of emotion aroused by the content prompt online sharing? To

examine the impact of emotional elements of the content on online sharing behavior, independent-

samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean scores on the eight questions that assessed

participants emotions after watching the videos (disgusting, scary, happy, funny, surprised, sad, angry,

and annoyed) between those who had shared/would share the video (Share) and those who had not

shared/would not share the video (Not Share). These items were all scaled from 0 to 4, so that a higher

score on the scale corresponded with participants reporting feeling more of the emotion.

In response to the first video, Single Ladies, the Share group reported more positive

emotions and less negative emotions than the Not Share group. As demonstrated in Table 1 below, the

Share Group rated happy, funny, and surprised significantly higher and scary and annoyed

significantly lower than the Not Share group.

20
Table 1

Differences in the Ratings of Emotion Aroused by Single Ladies (V1) between the Share Group and

the Not Share Group

Share (n = 32) Not Share (n = 143)
Variable M SD M SD t(df)* p
Disgusting 0.16 0.27 0.22 0.41 -0.46(171) .65
Scary 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.25 -2.17(136) .032
Happy 1.74 1.20 0.88 0.97 4.32(171) < .001
Funny 2.58 1.45 1.42 1.34 5.01(171) < .001
Surprised 1.48 1.46 0.61 0.65 3.87(36) < .001
Sad 0.55 0.46 0.53 0.79 0.12(171) .91
Angry 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.31 -0.84(171) .40
Annoyed 0.16 0.21 0.85 1.22 -5.60(116) < .001
*
Independent sample t-tests for unequal variances were used to test scary, surprised, and annoyed, due
to significant F-tests for inequality of variances (scary: F(31, 142) = .12, p <.001; surprised: F(31, 142) =
2.28, p =.001; annoyed: F(31, 142) = .16, p <.001). All other tests assumed equal variances.

In response to the second video Sliding Door Chain, the Share group seemed to experience

more of a mix of positive and negative emotion. As demonstrated in Table 2 below, the Share group

rated significantly higher than the Not Share group scary, funny, surprised, sad, and angry.

21
Table 2

Differences in the Ratings of Emotion Aroused by Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group

Share (n = 51) Not Share (n = 120)
Variable M SD M SD t(df)* p
Disgusting 0.50 0.91 0.50 0.76 0.03(167) .98
Scary 1.82 1.66 0.97 1.02 4.56 (167) < .001
Happy 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.40(167) .69
Funny 0.32 0.47 0.09 0.12 2.24(60) .029
Surprised 2.64 1.26 1.42 1.43 6.16(167) < .001
Sad 1.00 1.35 0.48 0.78 2.85(74) .006
Angry 1.22 1.77 0.70 1.23 2.63(167) .009
Annoyed 1.04 1.47 0.95 1.34 0.46(167) .65
* Independent sample t-tests for unequal variances were used due to significant F-tests for inequality of
variances for funny and sad (funny: F(50, 119) = 3.97, p <.001; sad : F(50, 119) = 1.70, p = .021). All
other tests assumed equal variances.

The analysis indicated that emotions of happiness, humor (funny), surprise, fear (scary),

sadness, and anger prompted online sharing.

RQ1b: What types of impression aroused by the content prompt online sharing? To

examine the impact of impression of the content on online sharing behavior, independent-samples t-

tests were conducted to compare the mean scores on the four questions that assessed participants

perceived impression of the videos (intense, provocative, enjoyable, and informative) between the

Share group and the Not Share group. These items were also scaled from 0 to 4, so that a higher score

on the scale corresponded with participants reporting stronger impressions.

Table 3 summarizes the results of t-tests for Single Ladies (V1). The Share group rated

enjoyable significantly higher and provocative significantly lower than the Not Share group.

22
Table 3

Differences in the Ratings of Impression Evoked by Single Ladies ( V1) between the Share Group

and the Not Share Group

Share (n = 32) Not Share (n = 143)
Variable M SD M SD t(df) p
Intense 0.58 0.78 0.79 0.89 -1.12(171) .26
Provocative 0.65 0.90 0.82 0.82 -0.98(171) .033
Enjoyable 2.90 0.82 1.95 1.42 4.19(171) < .001
Informative 0.74 0.86 0.75 0.83 -0.06(171) .95

Table 4 summarizes the results of t-tests for Sliding Door Chain (V2). The Share group

rated significantly higher than the Not Share group intense and informative.

Table 4

Differences in the Ratings of Impression Evoked by Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group

Share (n = 51) Not Share (n = 120)
Variable M SD M SD t(df)* p
Intense 1.64 1.58 0.95 1.05 3.73(167) < .001
Provocative 1.70 1.93 1.71 1.62 -0.03 (167) .98
Enjoyable 1.14 1.27 0.92 1.03 1.27(167) .21
Informative 3.42 0.37 2.48 1.59 6.53(164) < .001
*Independent sample t-test for unequal variances was used for Informative due to significant F-tests for
inequality of variances (informative: F(50, 119) = .22, p < .001). All other tests assumed equal variances.

The analysis indicated that impressions that the content was enjoyable, intense, and

informative prompted online sharing, whereas the impression that the content was provocative could

discourage sharing.

RQ1c: What types of utility served by the content prompt online sharing? To examine

the impact of utility served by the content on online sharing behavior, independent-samples t-tests were

23
conducted to compare the mean scores on the nine questions that assessed participants perceived

utility of the video (useful to me, useful to my friends, useful to other people, important for society,

reflects my taste, will make my friends happy, will make other people happy, will make my friends

gratefuland will make other people grateful) between the Share group and the Not Share group.

Again, these items were scaled from 0 to 4, so that a higher score on the scale corresponded with

participants reporting each utility more applicable.

In the case of the Single Ladies video (V1), the Share group rated the following six utility

items significantly higher than the Not Share group: important for society, reflects my taste, will

make my friends happy, will make other people happy, will make my friends grateful, and will

make other people grateful (see Table 5). Utility related to how useful the content was to the

participants themselves, their friends, and other people, however, were not rated significantly different

by the Share and Not Share groups.

24
Table 5

Differences in the Ratings of Utility Served by the Single Ladies (V1) between the Share Group and

the Not Share Group

Share (n = 32) Not Share (n = 143)
Variable M SD M SD t(df) p
Useful to me 0.77 0.71 0.60 0.67 1.08(171) .28
Useful to my friends 0.87 0.85 0.65 0.68 1.33(171) .18
Useful to other people 0.94 0.86 0.77 0.95 0.88(171) .38
Important for society 1.16 1.41 0.72 0.88 2.26(171) .024
Reflects my taste 1.68 1.29 0.92 1.01 3.70(171) < .001
Make my friends
2.71 0.88 1.39 1.35 5.90(171) < .001
happy
Make other people
2.68 0.76 1.75 1.41 4.10(171) < .001
happy
Make my friends
2.03 0.83 1.01 0.89 5.52(171) < .001
grateful
Make other people
1.81 0.69 1.03 0.91 4.21(171) < .001
grateful

In the case of the Sliding Door Chain video (V2), the Share Group rated all nine of the

utility items asked about significantly higher than the Not Share Group, including the items related to

usefulness (see Table 6).

25
Table 6

Differences in the Ratings of Utility Served by the Sliding Door Chain (V2) between the Share

Group and the Not Share Group

Share (n = 51) Not Share (n = 120)
Variable M SD M SD t(df)* p
Useful to me 2.78 1.28 1.71 1.53 5.24(167) < .001
Useful to my friends 2.86 1.02 1.68 1.51 5.99 (167) < .001
Useful to other people 3.02 0.96 1.82 1.56 6.71(116) < .001
Important for society 2.68 1.24 1.46 1.49 6.07(167) < .001
Reflects my taste 1.34 1.00 0.87 1.03 2.78(167) .006
Make my friends
1.20 0.86 0.73 0.66 3.29(167) < .001
happy
Make other people
1.30 0.99 0.83 0.72 3.11(167) .002
happy
Make my friends
2.18 1.13 1.08 0.99 6.46(167) < .001
grateful
Make other people
2.22 1.07 1.12 1.00 6.47(167) < .001
grateful
*Independent sample t-test for unequal variances was used for useful to other people due to significant F-tests for
inequality of variances (useful to other people: F(50, 119) = .59, p = .038). All other tests assumed equal variances.

The analysis indicated that to be useful, to be important for society, to show the viewers taste,

to make people happy, and to make people grateful were the utilities that prompted online sharing.

RQ2: Do People Share Different Content on Different Social Media in Accordance with the

Strength of Social Ties?

Table 7 shows the number of participants who said they shared or would share Single

Ladies (V1) and Sliding Door Chain (V2) through each social medium. The most popular medium

for both videos was e-mail (24 for V1 and 36 for V2) and the second popular was Facebook (12 for

V1 and 13 for V2). Only 1 to 4 people chose the other media for sharing.

26
Table 7

Number of Participants Who Shared/Would Share the Video by Social Media

Share by Not
Stamble Share
e-mail Facebook MySpace Twitter Delicious
Upon
Digg Reddit other
V1 24 12 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 143
V2 36 13 0 2 2 2 1 1 3 120

Table 8 and Table 9 show the means and standard deviations of the frequency of social media

use of the Share and the Not Share groups. The frequency was scaled from 0 to 4, so that a higher score

on the scale corresponded with participants reporting more frequent use of each medium.

Although the differences were not statistically tested due to the small sample size of the Share

group, the means of the Share group were higher than those of the Not Share group for all media

(except reddit, for which the only participant in the Share group answered that he or she would share

the video using reddit even though he or she had never used the medium).

Table 8

Comparison of Frequency of Social Media Use between the Share Group and the Not Share Group

for Single Ladies ( V1)

Share Not Share

Variable n M SD n M SD
Facebook 10 3.60 0.52 141 2.77 1.31
MySpace 1 2 0 148 0.22 0.49
Twitter 3 1 1.73 145 0.83 1.16
Delicious 149 0.31 0.80
StambleUpon 149 0.15 0.57
Digg 148 0.19 0.56
reddit 1 0 0 147 0.07 0.41

27
Table 9

Comparison of Frequency of Social Media Use between the Share Group and the Not Share Group

for Sliding Door Chain ( V2)

Share Not Share

Variable n M SD n M SD
Facebook 13 3 1.22 157 2.84 1.30
MySpace 169 0.24 0.51
Twitter 2 2 1.41 166 0.86 1.20
Delicious 2 2.5 0.71 167 0.33 0.86
StambleUpon 2 2.5 2.12 167 0.115 0.44
Digg 1 3 0 167 0.17 0.51
reddit 1 0 0 167 0.07 0.39

Table 10 and Table 11 show the means and standard deviations of the closeness with people

connected through each social medium of the Share and the Not Share group. The closeness was

scaled from 0 to 4, so that a higher score on the scale corresponded with participants reporting closer

relationship.

Again, the differences were not statistically tested, but the means of Facebook and MySpace

for Single Ladies (V1) and Facebook and Twitter for Sliding Door Chain (V2) were higher in the

Share group than the Not Share group.

Table 10

Comparison of Closeness with People Connected through Social Media between the Share Group and

the Not Share Group for Single Ladies ( V1)

Share Not Share

Variable n M SD n M SD
Facebook 10 2.5 0.71 140 2.07 1.15
MySpace 1 1 0 147 0.20 0.67
Twitter 3 0 0 145 0.46 0.99

28
Table 11

Comparison of Closeness with People Connected through Social Media between the Share Group and

the Not Share Group for Sliding Door Chain ( V2)

Share Not Share

Variable n M SD n M SD
Facebook 13 2.77 0.83 157 2.10 1.13
MySpace 168 0.20 0.65
Twitter 2 2 1.41 166 0.44 0.96

Both in frequency and closeness, Facebook ranked highest of all the social media, which

corresponds with the rank of the number of participants who shared/would share the videos shown in

Table 7.

In sum, there was an observed difference in the choice of social media to share the video, and

those who shared/would share the content using a particular social medium, though not statistically

verified, seemed to use the medium more frequently and to be connected with others through the

medium more closely than those who didnt or wouldnt choose that medium.

Discussion

This study aimed to identify the characteristics of video content that would be widely shared

online. The results revealed that, as with the rumors and pass-along e-mails previously studied,

particular emotions, impressions, and utilities associated with video content have an impact on peoples

decision whether they share the video with others.

The participants of the study who responded that they had shared or would share the videos

shown in the survey (the Share group) reported to feel stronger emotions than those who answered that

29
they had not shared or would not share the videos (the Not Share group). Notably, the Share group

reported positive emotions more strongly for the relatively positive content (Single Ladies), whereas

they reported negative emotions more strongly for the relatively negative content (Sliding Door

Chain). This result is consistent with what Heath (1996) found about rumors on positive and negative

topics. This indicates that when one wants to distribute positive images or messages through video

content, the video needs to be as optimistic as possible in order to be more widely spread, and

conversely, a negative video needs to be as pessimistic as possible.

The Share group also reported to find the videos more intense, enjoyable, and informative than

the Not Share group, which conforms with the findings about word of mouth and viral marketing.

Consonant with the results of Poter and Golan (2006) and Phelps et al. (2004) that marketing messages

including strong elements such as nudity and violence were more likely to be forwarded, the Sliding

Door Chain video, which implied a criminal act, was evaluated to be more intense by the Share group.

As Chiu et al. (2007) found out the participants of their study rated a marketing message more worth

forwarding when it had more entertaining elements and more information, the current study also

revealed that the Share group regarded the videos to be more enjoyable and informative. These results

suggest that, to be widely shared, video content needs to leave the viewers a strong impression by

providing entertainment and rich information as well as resorting to shocking images.

One result that seemed inconsistent with what had been anticipated here was that the Share

group found the Single Ladies video less provocative than the Not Share group did; in other words,

30
those who found the video more provocative chose not to forward it. Although this video could

generally be considered positive, the Not Share group may have noticed a negative connotation of the

content in one way or another (for instance, the boy who started crying was the only person in the car

who seemed Asian while everyone else looked Caucasian), which may have discouraged them to

share it. More detailed information on how the participants evaluated the content, which could have

been collected through in-depth interviews, would be required to come to this conclusion.

As for the utilities served by the videos that would motivate the viewers to forward them, the

Share group for both videos rated higher than the Not Share group all the utilities measured except

usefulness for the Single Ladies video. This again confirms that motivation behind sharing video

content have many aspects in common with motivation for other word-of-mouth communication.

People seem to forward video content to share what is important for society, to express themselves, to

communicate with others, and to be thanked by others expressing gratitude. Usefulness, as the result

for Single Ladies suggests, may not be a necessary factor depending on the content.

Another aspect of the mechanism of sharing video content online that this study tried to

capture was interpersonal factors. Due to the small sample size of the Share group, as well as because

the vast majority of them chose e-mail and Facebook as a tool for sharing, it was not possible to

compare the preference of media depending on the strength of social ties they have with others through

each medium. However, the observed difference of the means of frequency of use and closeness

between the Share group and the Not Share group seems to suggest that for sharing video content,

31
people tend to choose the media which they use frequently and through which they feel more

connected with others. Besides, the result that most of the Share group chose e-mail indicates that a

more intimate medium was preferred to more open social media as a tool for sharing. Although more

research with a larger, random sample is needed to generalize this finding, it is worth considering that

various social media, despite their popularity, ubiquity on the Internet, and functionality available for

sharing content, may not yet be fully utilized as a means to share videos. Rather, more personal

communication such as e-mails and face-to-face conversation may still be a primary channel for

exchanging information for many people, and thus should not be neglected, even as more advanced

social networking tools are expected to play a more important role in communication.

Overall, by depicting a broad picture of what factors prompt online video sharing, this study

serves as a valuable addition to a still small body of research that focuses on online videos in the field

of communication (e.g., Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). Those who want to utilize video content to

disseminate information can maximize the influence by evoking strong emotions, making the content

entertaining, informative, or intense, and appealing to the viewers desire to serve to society, express

themselves, communicate with others, and to be thanked by others. It would also be important not to

rely solely on new social media as a means to spread the word and instead to keep the option of sharing

by e-mail available.

In concluding this paper, I will point out some limitations of this study and implications for

future research in the hope that more detailed knowledge will be produced regarding how one can

32
leverage the power of viral videos to deliver a message to the wider audience.

Limitations of the current study

The primary limitation of this study was the convenience, snowball-sampling method, used,

along with the small size of the sample, due to resource constraints. Because the sample was non-

random, participants may not have been representative of the true population of interest. The use of

snowball sampling may have also resulted in more homogenous responses because recruitment

partially progressed through social networks, which may have been comprised of more similar

individuals than would be expected if participants were recruited individually. As the total number of

the participants was not large enough, only a dozen of them responded that they had used or would use

Facebook for sharing, and just a few chose the other social media. This prevented the statistical

analyses necessary for answering RQ2. By collecting data from a larger sample, with more emphasis

on the younger population, which would include more social-media-savvy individuals, this study

could have obtained a sufficient number of responses that they had used or would use Twitter,

Delicious, and other social media for sharing the videos, and could have compared the different choice

of media for each video.

Also due to time constraints and the resulting small sample, this study could use only two

videos as stimuli, and was not able to compare various different types of videos in terms of emotions,

impressions, and utilities. Thus, it was not clear whether lack of significant effect of a variable should

be interpreted as that the element was irrelevant to sharing behavior or it simply means the particular

33
video happened to lack the characteristic. This could have been avoided by first conducting content

analysis of a number of videos to identify typical categories of viral video (e.g., humorous videos,

shocking videos, etc.) and then collecting the data for videos from each category. As it would be

difficult to keep participants attention to the survey if it included more than two videos, it would

require a larger sample so that the sample can be divided into groups and each group could be

randomly assigned to different sets of videos.

The small sample size also placed a limit on valid grouping of the participants. This study

combined those who had actually shared the videos and those who thought would share them into a

single Share group. This grouping may not have been appropriate, given that it is one thing to intend

to do something and another to really take the action. If the sample had been large enough to break

down the Share group into Did Share and Would Share groups, more interesting results could

have been obtained.

Another drawback is that because this was an exploratory research study attempting to

broadly capture the mechanism of online video sharing, which had not yet received much study, it did

not go beyond basic analysis, such as comparing means between the Share group and the Not Share

group. More detailed analysis, including factor analysis to identify the dimensionality of the variables

at an initial stage and regression analysis to figure out which variable or variables contribute more than

others to the decision to share the videos, would have revealed more specific processes of sharing

behavior.

34
Implications for future research

As noted above, this study made the first step to explore the mechanism of online video

sharing, and more research will be needed to fully understand what makes some videos spread more

virally than others. In particular, it would be important to find out whether video sharing behavior has

some unique features that distinguish it from other forms of information sharing, such as word of

mouth and text-based pass-along e-mails. Although the current research generally affirmed that video

sharing has much in common with rumors, word of mouth, and pass-along e-mails, there are many

other aspects of sharing behavior that this study did not cover. One possibility is to compare how the

same information delivered in the form of video, text and oral conversation is shared differently. By

doing so, those who want to disseminate information can learn which formats and through which

channels will be most effective in reaching the widest possible audience depending on the content.

35
 Appendix A

Recruitment Notices

E-mail

E-mail message will read as follows:

I am currently working on my masters thesis on viral YouTube videos and conducting an

online survey. Id appreciate it if you could take a moment to participate in this research study.

The survey will take no more than 20 minutes. Your responses will in no way be linked to you

as a participant. You may choose to discontinue the survey at any time and at no risk to you. You must

be 18 years or older to take the survey. To take this survey please visit this website:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MP35T6P

Also, please forward this message to your friends --- I need this survey to become viral, too!

Thank you for your time. If you have any question about the survey, feel free to e-mail me.

Facebook and Twitter post

Facebook and Twitter post will read as follows:

Need help! Im working on my thesis on YouTube. Visit http://bit.ly/d5nwkw to take a survey,

and forward this URL to your friends. Thanks!

36
 Appendix B

Survey

Page 1: Consent form (those who choose No will be directed to the last page of the survey)

37
Page 2: First video

38
Page 3: Questions for the first video (for those who choose No on the previous page, the question

will appear as Do you think you will share this video with someone using the following tools? Yes,

I will share it by No, I will not share this video with anyone.)

39
Page 3 (continued): Questions for the first video

40
Page 4: Second video

41
Page 5: Questions for the second video (for those who choose No on the previous page, the question

will appear as Do you think you will share this video with someone using the following tools? Yes,

I will share it by No, I will not share this video with anyone.)

42
Page 5 (continued): Questions for the second video

43
Page 6: Questions about social media

Page 7: Thank-you page

44
 References

Balasubramanian, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The economic leverage of the virtual community.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(3), 103-138.

Chiu, H., Hsieh, Y., Kao, Y., & Lee, M. (2007). The determinants of email receivers disseminating

behaviors on the internet. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 524-534.

Cotter, E. M. (2008). Influence of emotional content and perceived relevance on spread of urban

legends: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 102(2), 623-629.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

(3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cutler, M. (2009, July 15). When customer service spawns a hit viral video [Web log post]. Retrieved

from http://corp.visiblemeasures.com//news-and-events/blog/bid/9991/When-Customer-

Service-Spawns-a-Hit-Viral-Video

Golan, G. J., & Zaidner, L. (2008). Creative strategies in viral advertising: An application of Taylors

six-segment message strategy wheel. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4),

959-972.

Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass

communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

53(2), 317-335.

Heath, C. (1996). Do people prefer to pass along good or bad news? valence and relevance of news as

45
 predictors of transmission propensity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 68(2), 79-94.

Heath, C., Bell, C., & Sternberg, E. (2001). Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1028-1041.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth

via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the

internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.

Huang, C., Lin, T., & Lin, K. (2009). Factors affecting pass-along email intentions (PAEIs):

Integrating the social capital and social cognition theories. Electronic Commerce Research &

Applications, 8(3), 160-169.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use

among teens and young adults. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project

website: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_

Young_Adults_Report.pdf

Madden, M. (2009). The audience for online video-sharing sites shoots up. Retrieved from the Pew

Internet & American Life Project website: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/

Reports/2009/The-Audience-for-Online-Video-Sharing-Sites-Shoots-Up.pdf

Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Marketing strategy, communications, consumer

behaviour, competitive strategy conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers and

46
 conditions: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11), 1475-1494.

Norman, A. T., & Russell, C. A. (2006). The pass-along effect: Investigating word-of-mouth effects on

online survey procedures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1085-1103.

Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth: A grounded theory of

mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 172-185.

Peters, K., Kashima, Y., & Clark, A. (2009). Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination

of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 207-222.

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(4), 333-348.

Porter, L., & Golan, G. J. (2006). From subservient chickens to brawny men: A comparison of viral

advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 30-38.

Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of

interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602-28.

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations (paperback

edition). New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Sohn, D. (2009). Disentangling the effects of social network density on electronic word-of-mouth

(eWOM) intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 352-367.

Taylor, R. E. (1999) A Six-Segment Message Strategy Wheel. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(6),

47
 7-17.

The Nielsen Company. (2009). The global online media landscape: Indentifying opportunities in a

challenging market. Retrieved from http://en-us.nielsen.com/forms/report_forms/The_Global

_Online_Media_Landscape_Indentifying_Opportunities_in_a_Challenging_Market_

Walsh, G., Gwinner, K. P., & Swanson, S. R. (2004). What makes mavens tick?: Exploring the

motives of market mavens initiation of information diffusion. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 21(2), 109-122.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of

online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey

services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), article 11. Retrieved from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html

YouTube (2009, July 30). I now pronounce you monetized: a YouTube video case study [Web log

post]. Retrieved from http://ytbizblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-now-pronounce-you-

monetized-youtube_30.html

YouTube. (2009, December 16). What you watched and searched for on YouTube in 2009 [Web log

post]. Retrieved from http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-you-watched-and-

searched-for-on.html

48
 Vita

Michiko Izawa received B.A. in English from Tokyo University of Foreign Studies and M.A. in

Psychology from Tokyo Gakugei University. She had worked as a book editor in Japan for six years,

before she moved to the United States and spent three years there. During the stay in the U.S., she

worked at the Gordon W. Prange Collection at the University of Maryland Libraries as a coordinator,

while she was enrolled in the Advanced Academic Programs at the Johns Hopkins University.

49