The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less
Open accessAbstract
One hundred forty characters seems like too small a space for any meaningful information to be exchanged, but Twitter users have found creative ways to get the most out of each Tweet by using different communication tools. This paper looks into how 73 nonprofit organizations use Twitter to engage stakeholders not only through their tweets, but also through other various communication methods. Specifically, it looks into the organizations’ utilization of tweet frequency, following behavior, hyperlinks, hashtags, public messages, retweets, and multimedia files. After analyzing 4,655 tweets, the study found that the nation’s largest nonprofits are not using Twitter to maximize stakeholder involvement. Instead, they continue to use social media as a one-way communication channel, as less than 20% of their total tweets demonstrate conversations and roughly 16% demonstrate indirect connections to specific users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006 · Cited by 1,124
Self-citationTwitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events
Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2009) · International Journal of Emergency Management · doi:10.1504/ijem.2009.031564 · Cited by 991
Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-1586 · Cited by 787
Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002 · Cited by 602
Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004 · Cited by 545
Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates
Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002 · Cited by 414
Self-citationThe dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building
Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.011 · Cited by 276
Hope for Haiti: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter usage during the earthquake relief efforts
Muralidharan, S., Rasmussen, L., Patterson, D., & Shin, J.-H. (2011) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.010 · Cited by 262
Cited by
Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2014.956106 · Cited by 709
The Social Network Effect: The Determinants of Giving Through Social Media
Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2014) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764013485159 · Cited by 355
Self-citationXiong, Y., Cho, M., & Boatwright, B. (2019) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.014 · Cited by 317
Odoom, R., Anning-Dorson, T., & Acheampong, G. (2017) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-04-2016-0088 · Cited by 267
Leek, S., Houghton, D., & Canning, L. (2019) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.009 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D.
- Venue
- Public Relations Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 313-318
- ISSN
- 0363-8111 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084299172
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 168.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
- The paper
- Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
