How does a chief executive officer (CEO)’s social media content disclosure on Twitter affect perceived CEO attributes, relationship investment, and public engagement, and to what extent does the CEO’s gender (male vs. female) moderate how publics evaluate content disclosures? A 2 (CEO gender: male vs. female) × 4 (level of disclosure: 100% corporate vs. 70% corporate and 30% personal vs. 30% corporate and 70% personal vs. 100% personal disclosure) between-subject experimental design was used to address these questions with a random sample of 465 adult Twitter users in the United States. Results showed that posts that featured high personal disclosure did not increase the perceived likability or competence of the CEO. Nor did CEO gender impact these outcomes. However, CEO professional disclosure proved to be an effective means to gain high levels of perceived relationship investment from publics. Finally, publics may hold implicit gender bias in cognitive (i.e., perceived relationship investment) and behavioral evaluation (i.e., engagement intention) of a female CEO.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
2.
AlghawiI. A.YanJ.WeiC. (2014). Professional or interactive: CEOs’ image strategies in the microblogging context. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.027
3.
AltmanI.TaylorD. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
ChoM.AugerG. A. (2013). Exploring determinants of relationship quality between students and their academic department: Perceived relationship investment, student empowerment, and student–faculty interaction. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695813495048
CrockerJ.MajorB. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608
10.
De WulfK.Odekerken-SchröderG.IacobucciD. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33–50.
11.
DiStasoM. W.McCorkindaleT.WrightD. K. (2011). How public relations executives perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.06.005
12.
DuttaS. (2010, November). Managing yourself: What’s your personal social media strategy?Harvard Business Review, 88(11), 127–130.
13.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
FergusonM. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810
18.
FountaineS. (2017). What’s not to like?: A qualitative study of young women politicians’ self-framing on Twitter. Journal of Public Relations Research, 29(5), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1388239
19.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.HeinoR. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368
20.
GreeneK.DerlegaV. L.MathewsA. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In VangelistiA.PerlmanD. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 1268–1328). Cambridge University Press.
21.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
22.
HortonD.WohlR. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
23.
HuangL. V.YeoT. E. D. (2018). Tweeting# Leaders: Social media communication and retweetability of fortune 1000 chief executive officers on Twitter. Internet Research, 28(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2016-0248
24.
JamiesonK. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. Oxford University Press.
25.
JoshiA.NeelyB.EmrichC.GriffithsD.GeorgeG. (2015). Gender research in AMJ: An overview of five decades of empirical research and calls to action [Thematic issue on gender in management research]. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4011
26.
KangM. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107
27.
KarlsenR.EnjolrasB. (2016). Styles of social media campaigning and influence in a hybrid political communication system: Linking candidate survey data with Twitter data. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216645335
28.
KelleherT. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
29.
LeeE. J.OhS. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 932–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01681.x
30.
LeeE. J.OhS. Y.LeeJ.KimH. S. (2018). Up close and personal on social media: When do politicians’ personal disclosures enhance vote intention?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018754911
31.
LevesqueM. J.SteciukM.LedleyC. (2002). Self-disclosure patterns among well-acquainted individuals: Disclosers, confidants and unique relationships. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 30(6), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.579
32.
McGregorS. C.MourãoR. R. (2016). Talking politics on Twitter: Gender, elections, and social networks. Social Media+ Society, 2(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664218
33.
MeeksL. (2016). Gendered styles, gendered differences: Candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1160268
34.
MenL. R.TsaiW. H. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047
35.
MenL. R.TsaiW. H. S.ChenZ. F.JiY. G. (2018). Social presence and digital dialogic communication: Engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498341
36.
MenL. R.YueC. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of strategic internal communication and its impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45(3), Article 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001
37.
MengJ.BergerB. (2013). An integrated model of excellent leadership in public relations: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(2), 141–167.
38.
OakleyJ. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321–334.
39.
OkimotoT.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power-seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949
Paustian-UnderdahlS.WalkerS. L.WoehrD. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036751
42.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Women in leadership positions. Pew Research Center’s social trends. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/
43.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00454.x
RosenfeldL. B. (2000). Overview of the ways privacy, secrecy, and disclosure are balanced in today’s society. In PetronioS. (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 3–17). Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
RosetteA. S.TostL. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018204
47.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
48.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.
49.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.
50.
ShaB. L.TothE. L. (2005). Future professionals’ perceptions of work, life, and gender issues in public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 93–99.
SungK. H.KimS. (2018). Do organizational personification and personality matter? The effect of interaction and conversational tone on relationship quality in social media. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488418796631
53.
TsaiW. S.MenL. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1848–1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816643922
YanivN. W.Tenenboim-WeinblattK. (2016). Politically relevant intimacy: A conceptual and empirical investigation. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5186–5205.
57.
YueC. A.MenL. R.FergusonM. A. (2020). Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420914066
58.
YueC. A.ThelenP.RobinsonK.MenL. R. (2019). CEO leadership communication on Twitter: Comparison between Startup and Fortune 500 CEOs. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(3), 532–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2019-0031
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
