social media platforms literature review

Conceptualising and measuring social media engagement: A systematic literature review

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 August 2021
• Volume 2021 , pages 267–292, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mariapina Trunfio 1 &
• Simona Rossi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4384-0002 1  

32k Accesses

37 Citations

Explore all metrics

The spread of social media platforms enhanced academic and professional debate on social media engagement that attempted to better understand its theoretical foundations and measurements. This paper aims to systematically contribute to this academic debate by analysing, discussing, and synthesising social media engagement literature in the perspective of social media metrics. Adopting a systematic literature review, the research provides an overarching picture of what has already been investigated and the existing gaps that need further research. The paper confirms the polysemic and multidimensional nature of social media engagement. It identifies the behavioural dimension as the most used proxy for users' level of engagement suggesting the COBRA model as a conceptual tool to classify and interpret the construct. Four categories of metrics emerged: quantitative metrics, normalised indexes, set of indexes, qualitative metrics. It also offers insights and guidance to practitioners on modelling and managing social media engagement.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Alternative Media Experience: LiveLeak

The future of social media in marketing

Social media influencer marketing: foundations, trends, and ways forward

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Over the last decade, customer engagement has received increasing attention in academic and professional debate (Hollebeek, 2019 ; Kumar et al., 2019 ; Marketing Science Institute, 2020 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ; Rather et al., 2019 ; Rossmann et al., 2016 ). It can be considered a “consumer’s positively brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity during, or related to, focal consumer/brand interactions” (Hollebeek, 2014 , p.149). Engaged customers display greater brand loyalty and satisfaction (Bowden, 2009 ; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014 ) and are more likely to contribute to new product development (Haumann et al., 2015 ), service innovation (Kumar et al., 2010 ), and viral marketing activity spread by word of mouth (Wu et al., 2018 ). Customer engagement can also be linked with important brand performance indicators, including sales growth, feedback, and referrals (Van Doorn et al., 2010 ).

Acknowledging the potential of ICTs, scholars and practitioners are experimenting with new ways to capitalise on customer engagement and adapt to the new challenges of digital platforms (Barger et al., 2016 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ). Social media platforms reshaped the dyadic interaction between customers and organisations, creating spaces for digital sharing and engagement. By enabling users to comment, review, create, and share content across online networks, social media provide direct access to brands and allow co-creation processes. As such, the pervasive character of social media with its potential for engaging with customers and building relationships generated much interest in the concept of social media engagement (Barger et al., 2016 ; Hallock et al., 2019 ; Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ; Schivinski et al., 2016 ). Engaging with customers in real-time and managing many incoming customers’ big data interested academic investigation and opened opportunities for marketers to enhance social media marketing success (Liu et al., 2019 ).

Understanding, monitoring, and measuring social media engagement are key aspects that interest scholars and practitioners who proposed diverse conceptualisations, several indicators and KPIs. With the spread of social media analytics, social networking platforms, digital service providers, marketers, and freelancers developed their metrics to measure engagement with brand-related social media contents and advertising campaigns. At the same time, scholars have pointed out various metrics and procedures that contribute to evaluating social media engagement in different fields (Mariani et al., 2018 ; Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017 ; Trunfio & Della Lucia, 2019 ). Nevertheless, many of these studies offer a partial perspective of analysis that does not allow the phenomenon to be represented in diverse aspects (Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ). As a result, social media engagement remains an enigma wrapped in a riddle for many executives (McKinsey, 2012 ). How communities across an ever-growing variety of platforms, new forms of customer-brand interactions, different dimensions and cultural differences impact social media engagement measurement represents one of the main challenges (Peltier et al., 2020 ).

Although social media engagement represented a key topic in marketing research (Barger et al., 2016 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ), an overarching perspective of the existing knowledge can drive the investigation of the state of the field, including the study of the research streams, and the analysis of the measurement tools. This paper aims to systematically contribute to the academic debate by analysing, discussing, and synthesising social media engagement literature from the social media metrics perspective. A systematic literature review approach provides an overarching picture of what has already been investigated and the existing gaps that need further research. It contributes towards a systematic advancement of knowledge in the field and offers insights and guidance to practitioners on modelling and managing social media engagement (Tranfield et al., 2003 ).

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section  2 presents the theoretical background of the study on customer engagement and social media engagement. Section  3 describes the methodology used for conducting the systematic literature review (Pickering & Byrne, 2014 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ). Section  4 presents the bibliometric analysis results, including the year in which research began, the journals that publish most research, and the most relevant authors with publications on the topic. Then, Sect.  5 classifies these studies in terms of four macro-themes, conceptualisations, platforms, measurement, and behaviours and describes the key results available in the literature. Section  6 provides a critical discussion of the findings from the literature review and highlights its key contributions. Lastly, Sect.  7 concludes the study by highlighting its limitations and proposing directions for future research.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 customer engagement.

Although customer engagement research has increased theoretical and managerial relevance (Brodie et al., 2011 ; Hollebeek et al., 2016 , 2019 ; Kumar et al., 2019 ; Vivek et al., 2012 ), to date, there is still no consensus on its definition due to its multidimensional, multidisciplinary and polysemic nature.

Several customer engagement conceptualisations have been proposed in the literature, drawing on various theoretical backgrounds, particularly service-dominant logic, and relationship marketing. From a psychological perspective, one of the first definitions of customer engagement is the one of Bowden ( 2009 ) that conceptualises it as a psychological process that drives customer loyalty. Similarly, Brodie et al. ( 2011 ) define customer engagement as a psychological state that occurs by interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal object. Later, focusing on the behavioural aspects, it has been described as the intensity of an individual’s participation in an organisation’s offerings or organisational activities (Vivek et al., 2012 ). More recently, from a value-based perspective, customer engagement has been defined as the mechanics that customers use to add value to the firm (Kumar et al., 2019 ).

Although the perspectives may vary, common elements can be identified in various conceptualisations. Literature generally understands customer engagement as a highly experiential, subjective, and context-dependent construct (Brodie et al., 2011 ) based on customer-brand interactions (Hollebeek, 2018 ). Moreover, scholars agree on its multidimensional nature (Brodie et al., 2013 ; Hollebeek et al., 2016 ; So et al., 2016 ; Vivek et al., 2012 ) encompassing cognitive (customer focus and interest in a brand), emotional (feelings of inspiration or pride caused by a brand), and behavioural (customer effort and energy necessary for interaction with a brand) dimensions. Also, researchers have proposed that customer engagement affects different marketing constructs (Brodie et al., 2011 ; Van Doorn et al., 2010 ). For example, in Bowden’s research (2009), there is evidence to support that customer engagement is a predictor of loyalty. Brodie et al. ( 2011 ) explore its effects on customer satisfaction, empowerment, trust, and affective commitment towards the members of a community. Van Doorn et al. ( 2010 ) propose customer-based drivers, including attitudinal factors such as satisfaction, brand commitment and trust, as well as customer goals, resources, and value perceptions.

2.2 Social media engagement: The academic perspective

Social media engagement has also been investigated as brand-user interaction on social media platforms (Barger et al., 2016 ; De Vries & Carlson, 2014 ; Hallock et al., 2019 ; Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ; Schivinski et al., 2016 ). However, while conceptual discussions appear to dominate the existing customer engagement literature, research results fragmented when moving to the online context. Scholars agree that social media engagement is a context-specific occurrence of customer engagement (Brodie et al., 2013 ) that reflects customers’ individual positive dispositions towards the community or a focal brand (Dessart, 2017 ). Social media engagement can emerge with respect to different objects: the community, representing other customers in the network, and the brand (Dessart, 2017 ). Furthermore, antecedents and consequences of social media engagement have been identified to understand why customers interact on social media and the possible outcomes (Barger et al., 2016 ), such as loyalty, satisfaction, trust, and commitment (Van Doorn et al., 2010 ).

In continuity with literature on customer engagement, also social media engagement can be traced back to affective, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions (Van Doorn et al., 2010 ). Most of the literature focuses on the behavioural dimension as it can be expressed through actions such as liking, commenting, sharing, and viewing contents from a brand (Barger et al., 2016 ; Muntinga et al., 2011 ; Oh et al., 2017 ; Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ; Rietveld et al., 2020 ; Schivinski et al., 2016 ). It is worth pointing out that not all these actions determine the same level of engagement. Schivinski et al. ( 2016 ) in the COBRA (Consumer Online Brand Related Activities) Model differentiate between three levels of social media engagement: consumption, contribution, and creation. Consumption constitutes the minimum level of engagement and is the most common brand-related activity among customers (e.g., viewing brand-related audio, video, or pictures). Contribution denotes the response in peer-to-peer interactions related to brands (e.g., liking, sharing, commenting on brand-related contents). Creation is the most substantial level of the online brand-related activities that occur when customers spontaneously participate in customising the brand experiences (e.g., publishing brand-related content, uploading brand-related video, pictures, audio or writing brand-related articles). Starting from these social media actions, scholars attempted to measure social media engagement in several ways developing scales, indexes, and metrics (Harrigan et al., 2017 ; Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ; Schivinski et al., 2016 ; Trunfio & Della Lucia, 2019 ). Nevertheless, many of these studies offer a partial perspective of analysis that does not allow the phenomenon to be represented in its diverse aspects (Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ). Researchers have also examined emotional and cognitive dimensions (Dessart, 2017 ) as essential components of social media engagement that lead to positive brand outcomes (Loureiro et al., 2017 ).

2.3 Social media engagement: The practitioners’ perspective

In business practice, the concept of customer engagement appeared for the first time in 2006 when the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF), in conjunction with the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers, defined it as a turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context (ARF, 2006 ) . Later, several consulting firms tried to give their definition emphasising different aspects and perspectives. For example, in 2008, Forrester Consulting, an American market research company, defined customer engagement as a way to create ‘deep connections with customers that drive purchase decisions, interaction, and participation over time’ (Forrester Consulting, 2008 , p.4). Gallup Consulting identified four levels of customer engagement and defined it as an emotional connection between customers and companies (Gallup Consulting, 2009 ). Similarly, the famous American software provider Hubspot ( 2014 ) identified social media engagement as ‘ the ongoing interactions between company and customer, offered by the company, chosen by the customer’ (Hubspot, 2014 , p.1).

With the increasing spread of social networks and their exploitation as an important marketing tool, practitioners recognised a clear linkage between customer engagement and the metrics to assess digital strategy success. Over time, social networking platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube, developed their metrics to measure engagement with brand-related social media contents and advertising campaigns (Table 1 ).

With the spread of social media analytics, platforms and digital service providers developed dashboards and analytical indicators to assess, measure and monitor the engagement generated by social media marketing activities (Table 2 ). At the same time, many bloggers, marketers, and freelancers have weighed in on the topic, enriching the debate with new contributions.

As a result, while scholars still have to agree upon a shared definition of social media engagement, marketers have recognised it as one of the most important online outcome companies need to deliver with social media and a key metric to assess social media strategy success . Despite the growing interest in business practice and its solid traditional theoretical roots, most of the existing literature on social media engagement offers only conceptual guidelines (Barger et al., 2016 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ). The measurement of engagement in social media and its financial impact remains an enigma wrapped in a riddle for many executives (McKinsey, 2012 ) and requires further investigations. Mainly, how new and emerging platforms, new forms of customer-brand interactions, different dimensions, and cultural differences impact social media engagement measurement remains an understudied phenomenon (Peltier et al., 2020 ).

3 Methodology

The literature review is one of the most appropriate research methods, which aims to map the relevant literature identifying the potential research gaps that need further research to contribute towards a systematic advancement of new knowledge in the field (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). This research is built upon the rigorous, transparent, and reproducible protocol of the systematic literature review as a scientific and transparent process that reduces the selection bias through an exhaustive literature search (Pencarelli & Mele, 2019 ; Pickering & Byrne, 2014 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ). Building on recent studies (Inamdar et al., 2020 ; Linnenluecke et al., 2020 ; Phulwani et al., 2020 ), in addition to the systematic literature review, a bibliometric analysis (Li et al., 2017 ) was also performed to provide greater comprehensions into the field's current state and highlight the future research directions.

3.1 Database, keywords, inclusion, and exclusion criteria

To conduct a literature review, quality journals are considered the basis for selecting quality publications (Wallace & Wray, 2016 ). Therefore, the database Scopus, run by Elsevier Publishing, was considered to search for relevant literature, being the most significant abstract and citation source database used in recent reviews.

When conducting a literature review, a fundamental issue is determining the keywords that allow identifying the papers (Aveyard, 2007 ). To address it, the most frequently used keywords in peer-reviewed literature have been under investigation. As such, the following research chain was used: “Social media” “Engagement” AND “metric*”, searching under title, abstract, and keywords.

The systematic literature review protocol (Fig.  1 ) has been conducted on the 26 th of March 2020. The study considers an open starting time to trace back to the origin of social media engagement metrics research up to late March 2020. The initial search attempts identified 259 documents.

The systematic literature review protocol

After the articles’ identification, criteria for inclusion and exclusion were adopted. First, the 259 articles were screened, considering English-language articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals to safeguard the quality and effectiveness of the review. Due to variability in the peer-review process and their limited availability, book reviews, editorials, and papers from conference proceedings were excluded from this research. After the screening, a sample of 157 papers was obtained.

Afterwards, the full text of these papers was reviewed to assess eligible articles. As a result, 116 articles were excluded because their subject matter was not closely related to the topic of social media engagement metrics. In detail, papers were excluded when: 1) they mainly focused on social media engagement but superficially touched the metrics or 2) they mainly focused on metrics but superficially touched on social media engagement. In the end, 41 eligible articles were identified.

3.2 Analysis tools

The relevant data of the 41 documents in the final sample were saved and organised in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to include all the essential paper information such as paper title, authors’ names, and affiliations, abstract, keywords and references. Then, adopting the bibliometrics analysis method (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ), the R-Tool ‘Biblioshiny for Bibliometrix’ was used to perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Bibliometrix is a recent R-package that facilitates a more complete bibliometric analysis, employing specific tools for both bibliometric and scientometric quantitative research (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ; Dervis, 2019 ; Jalal, 2019 ).

4 An overview of social media engagement metrics research.

The bibliometric analysis provided information on the 41 articles, allowing to highlight the significance of the topic.

4.1 Publication trend

The number of annual publications shows a rollercoaster trend (Fig.  2 ). Although the first relevant paper was published in 2013, only since 2016 publications begun to increase significantly with a slight decrease in 2018. This renders social media engagement metrics a relatively young research field.

Timeline of the studies (January 2013- March 2020)

It is worth pointing out that the articles extraction was done in March 2020: this explains the low number of articles published in 2020.

4.2 Most relevant sources

When looking at the Journal sources overview, the analysis revealed 34 journals covering different fields, including marketing, management, economics, tourism and hospitality, engineering, communication, and technology. As shown in Fig.  3 , only four journals have more than two publications: Internet Research , Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences , International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. and Online Information Review .

Most relevant sources

4.3 Seminal papers

Interesting findings emerged considering the most global cited documents that allow identifying the seminal articles in according to the timeliness, utility and quality, expressed by the scientific community (Okubo, 1997 ). The number of citations an article receives, and the studies cited in an article are two of the most popular bibliometric indicators used to determine the popularity of a publication.

Figure  4 shows the number of author citations for each article, identifying as seminal works: Malthouse’s (2013) paper ‘ Managing Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House’ with 278 global citations; Sabate’s (2014) paper ‘Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages’ with 145 global citations; Mariani’s (2016) paper ‘ Facebook as a destination marketing tool: Evidence from Italian regional Destination Management Organizations ’ with 104 global citations; Oh’s (2017) paper ‘ Beyond likes and tweets: Consumer engagement behavior and movie box office in social media ’ with 54 global citations; Colicev’s (2018)’ Improving consumer mindset metrics and shareholder value through social media: The different roles of owned and earned media ’ with 39 global citations; Rossmann’s (2016) ‘ Drivers of user engagement in eWoM communication ’ with 35 global citations; Oviedo-Garcia’s (2014) ‘ Metric proposal for customer engagement in Facebook’ with 33 global citations .

Most cited articles

The analysis of the papers reviewed revealed that the theme of social media engagement metrics turns out to be a hot topic and a newly emerging stream of research.

5 Social media engagement: areas of investigation

In recent years social media engagement has gained relevance in academic research, and many scholars have questioned its measurement, intensifying the academic debate with ever new contributions. Following previous studies, a comprehensive analysis allows framing the following categories of broad research subjects, used to conduct the subsequent systematic literature review (Fig.  5 ): (1) conceptualisation, (2) platforms, (3) measurement and (4) behaviours. All 41 articles were analysed according to the proposed scheme.

Areas of investigation

5.1 Investigating social media engagement

What emerges from the analysis of the 41 papers is that scholars used different approaches and methodologies to conceptualise and measure engagement in the digital context of social media.

As shown in Fig.  6 , most studies (66%) employ quantitative methodologies. For instance, Yoon et al. ( 2018 ) explored the relationship between digital engagement metrics and financial performance in terms of company revenue, confirming that customer engagement on a company’s Facebook fan page can influence revenue. Colicev et al. ( 2018 ) developed three social media metrics, including engagement, to study the effects of earned social media and owned social media on brand awareness, purchase intention, and customer satisfaction. In comparison, Wang and Kubickova ( 2017 ) examined factors affecting the engagement metrics of Facebook fan pages in the Northeast America hotel industry, factors such as time-of-day, day-of-week, age, gender and distance between the hotel and users’ origin of residence. They also analysed the impact of Facebook engagement on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), to better understand the importance of the engagement metrics within the hospitality context.

Classification of the 41 articles based on the methodology applied

From a qualitative point of view (17% of the papers), Hallock et al. ( 2019 ) used a case study approach to understand the firm perspective on social media engagement metrics, shedding light on how companies view engagement with social media as measurable metrics of customer interactions with the platform. Conversely, Michopoulou and Moisa ( 2019 ) used the same approach to investigate the use of social media marketing metrics and practices in the U.K. hotel industry.

Only a small part of the studies analysed (10% of the papers) explores social media engagement from a purely conceptual perspective. In this sense, Oviedo-Garcìa et al. ( 2014 ) and Muñoz-Expósito et al. ( 2017 ) directly identified social media engagement metrics for Facebook and Twitter, providing fascinating insights for scholars and practitioners.

Finally, among the papers analysed, only three studies (7% of the papers) use mixed methodologies to explore the phenomenon from qualitative and quantitative perspectives.

5.2 Defining social media engagement

Researchers identified 30 unique definitions of engagement applied to the social media context. Multiple definitions used several terms when defining engagement on social media. They were not singular and straightforward but were interspersed with various key terms and overlapping concepts, as presented in Table 3 .

The presence of synonymous terms directly addresses the lack of a standard definition and the challenges that this presents to researchers and practitioners in the field (Table 4 ).

As a relevant result, most authors focus on its behavioural manifestation (22% of the studies) resulting from motivational drivers when defining social media engagement. It is considered as the active behavioural efforts that both existing and potential customers exert toward online brand-related content (Yoon et al., 2018 ). It involves various activities that range from consuming content, participating in discussions, and interacting with other customers to digital buying (Oh et al., 2017 ; Yoon et al., 2018 ). Similarly, in addition to the behavioural manifestations, other scholars (12%) focus on the emotional connection expressed through the intensity of interactions and their implications, toward the offers and activities of a brand, product, or firm, regardless of whether it is initiated by the individual or by the firm (Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017 ).

Shifting the observation lens from the customers to the firms, another group of scholars (10% of the studies) define social media engagement as the non-monetary return that derives from the online marketing strategies of brands (Khan, 2017 ; Medjani et al., 2019 ; Michopoulou & Moisa, 2019 ). In this case, engagement is viewed exclusively as a non-financial metric and as a measure of the performance of social media marketing activities.

Lastly, a small percentage of studies (10% of the studies) considers engagement as the number of people who acknowledge agreement or preference for content, who participate in creating, sharing and using content (Colicev et al., 2018 ; Li et al., 2019 ; Rahman et al., 2017 ).

5.3 Social Media Platforms

In a total of 41 articles reviewed, 85% of studies mention the platforms analysed, as shown in Table 5 . Facebook is the most popular platform analysed, followed by Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram. These results were rather expected, given the fact that Facebook, with 2.6 billion monthly active users (Facebook, May 2020), is the most popular social media platform worldwide.

An interesting finding is that there are several articles (15% of the studies) which do not refer to a specific platform or that consider all the platforms together, when measuring social media engagement (e.g., Hallock et al., 2019 ; Medjani et al., 2019 ). This is interesting, given that each social network has different features that make the engagement measurement unique and not replicable.

5.4 Measuring social media engagement

The systematic literature review confirms that there is no theoretical certainty or solid consensus among scholars about measuring engagement on social media.

As can be seen from Table 6 , studies on social media engagement metrics can be grouped and classified into four macro-categories. The first group of studies, namely ‘quantitative metrics’, which is also the most numerous (66% of the studies), attempts to propose a simplistic assessment of the impact of social media engagement, based on the number of comments, likes, shares, followers etc. (Khan et al., 2019 ; Medjani et al., 2019 ; Yoon et al., 2018 ).

The second group of studies (17% of the studies), namely ‘normalised indexes’, provide a quantitative evaluation of the engagement a content generates in relation to the number of people to whom that content has been displayed. In this way, it is possible to obtain an average measure of the users’ engagement, dividing the total actions of interest by the total number of posts (Osokin, 2019 ; Zanini et al., 2019 ), the number of followers (Vlachvei & Kyparissi, 2017 ) or the number of people reached by a post (Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017 ; Rossmann et al., 2016 ).

In a more complex and detailed way, studies from the third group (10% of the studies) identify social media engagement metrics developing ‘set of indexes’. For example, Li et al. ( 2019 ) use three social media metrics to measure engagement in the casual-dining restaurant setting: rates of conversation, amplification, and applause. In detail, conversation rate measures the number of comments or reviews in response to a post, amplification rate measures how much online content is shared, and applause rate measures the number of positive reactions on posts. Similarly, drawing from previous literature, Mariani et al. ( 2018 ) develop three social media metrics, namely generic engagement, brand engagement, and user engagement. Authors calculated these metrics by assessing different weights to different interaction actions, to emphasise the degree of users’ involvement implied by the underlying activities of respectively liking, sharing, or commenting.

Despite their great diffusion among academics and practitioners, some scholars (7% of the studies) argue that quantitative metrics are not enough to appreciate the real value of customer engagement on social media, and a qualitative approach is more suitable. For example, Abuljadail and Ha ( 2019 ) conducted an online survey of 576 Facebook users in Saudi Arabia to examine customer engagement on Facebook. Rogers ( 2018 ) critiques contemporary social media metrics considered ‘vanity metrics’ and repurpose alt metrics scores and other engagement measures for social research—namely dominant voice, concern, commitment, positioning, and alignment—to measure the ‘otherwise engaged’.

5.5 Social media engagement brand-related activities

When measuring social media engagement, scholars dealt with different social media actions that can be classified (Table 7 ) according to the three dimensions of the COBRA model (Consumer Online Brand Related Activities): consumption, contribution, or creation (Schivinski et al., 2016 ).

In a total of 41 articles reviewed, the most investigated dimension by researchers is contribution, i.e. when a customer comments, shares, likes a form of pre-existing brand content (e.g., Buffard et al., 2020 ; Khan et al., 2019 ). Its popularity among the studies may be due to its interactive nature of “liking” and “commenting”, which can be said to be the most common behaviour exhibited across social media platforms and often one of the most manageable interactions to obtain data. Additionally, studies that include creation in the measurement of social media engagement consider posting/publishing brand-related content, uploading brand-related video, pictures, audio or writing brand-related articles (e.g., Zanini et al., 2019 ). Among the sampled papers, the least investigated dimension of the COBRA model is consumption, considered by only seven studies (e.g., Colicev et al., 2018 ; Oh et al., 2017 ). It considers viewing brand-related audio, video, and pictures, following threads on online brand community forums or downloading branded widgets.

Dimensions have been investigated individually, for example, just considering the number of likes or comments (Khan et al., 2019 ; Yoon et al., 2018 ), or jointly using composite indicators, as in the case of Oviedo-Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ).

6 Discussion

This research presents fresh knowledge in the academic debate by providing an overarching picture of social media engagement, framing the phenomenon conceptually and offering a lens to interpret platforms and measuring tools. Conceptual and empirical studies tried to define, conceptualise, and measure social media engagement in diverse ways from different fields of research. They increased the gap between academia and managerial practice, where the topic of social media engagement metrics seems to be much more consolidated. The paper contributes to the academic debate on social media engagement, presenting continuity and discontinuity elements between different fields of enquiry. It also offers avenues for future research that both academics and marketers should explore. It also provides insights and guidance to practitioners on modelling and managing social media engagement.

6.1 Theoretical contribution

The article offers some theoretical contributions to this relatively young research field through the systematic literature review approach.

Firstly, the paper confirms the multidimensional and polysemic nature of engagement, even in the specific context of social media platforms, in continuity with the academic customer engagement research (Brodie et al., 2013 ; Hollebeek et al., 2016 ; So et al., 2016 ; Vivek et al., 2012 ). The concept of social media engagement can be traced back to three dimensions of analysis (Van Doorn, 2010 )—affective, cognitive, and behavioural—and some empirical studies measure it as such (Dessart, 2017 ; Vivek et al., 2014 ). However, the behavioural dimension is still the most used proxy to measure users’ level of engagement. Similarly, marketers and social media platforms have focused on behavioural interactions associated with likes, comments and sharing when reporting engagement metric (Peltier et al., 2020 ). What is worth pointing out is that emotional and cognitive dimensions are also essential components of social media engagement and should be adequately addressed by future research.

Secondly, strictly related to the first point, the paper suggests the COBRA model (Schivinski, 2016 ) as a conceptual tool to classify and interpret social media engagement from the behavioural perspective. Social media engagement can be manifested symbolically through actions (Barger et al., 2016 ; Oh et al., 2017 ; Van Doorn et al., 2010 ) that can be traced back to the three dimensions of consumption, contribution and creation (Schivinski et al., 2016 ). However, it is worth pointing out that not all these actions determine the same level of engagement. When measuring social media engagement, researchers should pay attention not only to ‘contribution’ but also to ‘consumption’ and ‘creation’, which are important indicators of the attention a post receives (Oviedo-Garcìa, 2014 ; Schivinski et al., 2016 ), giving them a different weight. It becomes even more important if considering that the same social networks provide different weights to users' actions. For example, in several countries, Instagram has tested removing the like feature on content posted by others, although users can still see the number of likes on their posts. YouTube has also decided to stop showing precise subscriber counts and Facebook is experimenting with hiding like counts, similar to Instagram.

Thirdly, the paper presents some of the key metrics used to evaluate social media engagement identifying quantitative metrics, normalised indexes, set of indexes and qualitative metrics. Although all indicators are based on the interaction between the user and the brand, as the literature suggests (Barger et al., 2016 ; Oviedo-Garcìa, 2014 ; Vivek et al., 2014 ), the paper argues that different metrics measure diverse aspects of social media engagement and should be used carefully by researchers. Despite the conceptual and qualitative research on the topic, even the most recent metrics offer measurements that do not allow engagement to be widely represented in its multidimensional and polysemic nature (Oviedo-García et al., 2014 ; Peltier et al., 2020 ). To get a deeper understanding of the construct, researchers should also consider some of the most recent advances in business practice. As an example, more and more practitioners have the chance to measure engagement by tracking the time spent on content and web pages to blend the different types of material, such as pictures, text, or even videos. Also, cursor movements, which are known to correlate with visual attention, and eye-tracking, can provide insights into the within-content engagement.

6.2 Managerial implications

Even if the topic of social media engagement seems to be more consolidated in business practice, this study also provides valuable implications for practitioners. Particularly, the findings shed light on the nature of social media engagement construct and on how metrics can be an extremely useful tool to evaluate, monitor, and interpret the effectiveness of social media strategies and campaigns.

This research offers a strategic-operational guide to the measurement of social media engagement, helping marketers understand what engagement is and choose the most effective and suitable KPIs to assess the performance and success of their marketing efforts. In this sense, marketers should accompany traditional metrics, such as likes, comments and shares, with new metrics capable of better capturing user behaviours.

Marketers also need to realise that engagement is a complex construct that goes beyond the simple behavioural dimension, encompassing cognitive and emotional traits. As a result, in some cases, the so-called “vanity metrics” could fail in fully representing all the aspects of social media engagement. In these cases, it should be accompanied by qualitative insights to analyse what users like to share or talk about and not merely look at likes, comments, and shares counts.

7 Limitations and future research

This research is not without limitations. First, the systematic literature review only includes English articles published in Journals. As social media engagement and engagement metrics are emerging research topics, conference proceedings and book chapters could also be included to deepen the understanding of the subject. Second, this research was conducted on the database Scopus of Elsevier for the keywords “social media engagement metrics”. Researchers could use a combination of different databases and keywords to search for new contributions and insights. Third, although the paper is based on a systematic literature review, this methodology reveals the subjectivity in the social sciences.

As this is a relatively young field of research, a further academic investigation is needed to overcome the limitations of the study and outline new scenarios and directions for future research. In addition, considering the growing importance of social media, there is value in broadening the analysis through additional studies. Future marketing research could use mixed approaches to integrate the three dimensions of social media engagement, linking qualitative and quantitative data. Advanced sentiment web mining techniques could be applied to allow researchers to analyse what users like to share or talk about and not merely look at likes, comments, and shares as the only metrics (Peltier et al., 2020 ).

Although Facebook and Twitter are the most used social network by brands, and the most significant part of the literature focuses on these two platforms, researchers should not forget that there are new and emerging social media in different countries (e.g., TikTok, Clubhouse). They already represent a hot topic for practitioners and are calling scholars to define new metrics to measure engagement. Additionally, as the use of social media increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, future research should take this into account to better understand social media engagement across different social media platforms.

Abuljadail, M., & Ha, L. (2019). Engagement and brand loyalty through social capital in social media. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 13 (3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2019.102557

Article   Google Scholar  

Advertising Research Foundation. (2006). Engagement: Definitions and Anatomy . ARF White Paper. https://thearf.org/ . Retrieved 5 May 2021

Aggrawal, N., & Arora, A. (2019). Behaviour of viewers: YouTube videos viewership analysis. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 20 (1), 106–128. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2019.101692

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Aswani, R., Ghrera, S. P., Kar, A. K., & Chandra, S. (2017). Identifying buzz in social media: A hybrid approach using artificial bee colony and k-nearest neighbors for outlier detection. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 7 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-017-0461-2

Aveyard, H. (2007). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A practical guide . Pennsylvania Plaza New York: McGrow Hill.

Google Scholar  

Barger, V., Peltier, J. W., & Schultz, D. E. (2016). Social media and consumer engagement: A review and research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10 (4), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-06-2016-0065

Bowden, J. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17 (1), 63–74.

Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

Buffard, J., & Papasava, A. (2020). A quantitative study on the impact of emotion on social media engagement and conversion. Journal of Digital and Social Media Marketing, 7 (4), 355–375.

Colicev, A., Malshe, A., Pauwels, K., & O’Connor, P. (2018). Improving consumer mindset metrics and shareholder value through social media: The different roles of owned and earned media. Journal of Marketing, 82 (1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0055

De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. Journal of Brand Management, 21 (6), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.18

Dervis, H. (2019). Bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix an R package. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8 (3), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.8.3.32

Dessart, L. (2017). Social media engagement: A model of antecedents and relational outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 33 (5–6), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1302975

Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2017). Social media: Communication strategies, engagement and future research directions. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 29 (1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-04-2016-0013

Forrester Consulting. (2008). How engaged are your customers? . Forrester Consuting. http://docplayer.net/9663683-How-engaged-are-your-customers.html . Retrieved 5 May 2021

Gallup Consulting. (2009). Customer engagement: What’s your engagement ratio? . Gallup Consulting. https://strengthszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Customer-Engagement-Ratio-Brochure.pdf . Retrieved 5 May 2021

Gruner, R. L., & Power, D. (2018). To integrate or not to integrate? Understanding B2B social media communications. Online Information Review, 42 (1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2016-0116

Guidry, J. P. D., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Moving social marketing beyond personal change to social change: Strategically using Twitter to mobilize supporters into vocal advocates. Journal of Social Marketing, 4 (3), 240–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-02-2014-0014

Hallock, W., Roggeveen, A. L., & Crittenden, V. (2019). Firm-level perspectives on social media engagement: An exploratory study. Qualitative Market Research, 22 (2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-01-2017-0025

Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017). Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tourism Management, 59 , 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.015

Haumann, T., Güntürkün, P., & Schons, L. M. (2015). Engaging customers in coproduction processes: How value-enhancing and intensity-reducing communication strategies mitigate the negative effects of coproduction intensity. Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0357

Hollebeek, L. D. (2018). Individual-level cultural consumer engagement styles: Conceptualization, propositions and implications. International Marketing Review , 35 , 42–71.

Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Developing business customer engagement through social media engagement-platforms: An integrative S-D logic/RBV-informed model. Industrial Marketing Management, 81 , 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.016

Hollebeek, L. D., Conduit, J., & Brodie, R. J. (2016). Strategic drivers, anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32 (5–6), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1144360

Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002

Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2019). S-D logic–informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5

Hubspot. (2014). CRM expert Paul Greenberg defines customer engagement . Hubspot. https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/paul-greenberg-defines-customer-engagement . Retrieved 5 May 2021

Inamdar, Z., Raut, R., Narwane, V. S., Gardas, B., Narkhede, B., & Sagnak, M. (2020). A systematic literature review with bibliometric analysis of big data analytics adoption from period 2014 to 2018. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34 (1), 101–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0267

Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17 (3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514529187

Jalal, S. K. (2019). Co-authorship and co-occurrences analysis using bibliometrix r-package: A case study of india and bangladesh. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66 (2), 57–64.

Kalinić, Č, & Vujičić, M. (2019). A subnational assessment of hotel social media metrics - The case of Serbia. Geographica Pannonica, 23 (2), 87–101.

Khan, G., Mohaisen, M., & Trier, M. (2019). The network ROI: Concept, metrics, and measurement of social media returns (a Facebook experiment). Internet Research, 30 (2), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-07-2018-0346

Khan, I., Dongping, H., & Wahab, A. (2016). Does culture matter in effectiveness of social media marketing strategy? An investigation of brand fan pages. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68 (6), 694–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2016-0035

Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior, 66 , 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024

Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010). Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375602

Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S., & Dalla Pozza, I. (2019). Customer engagement in service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0565-2

Le, T. D. (2018). Influence of WOM and content type on online engagement in consumption communities : The information flow from discussion forums to Facebook. Online Information Review, 42 (2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0246

Li, J., Kim, W. G., & Choi, H. M. (2019). Effectiveness of social media marketing on enhancing performance: Evidence from a casual-dining restaurant setting. Tourism Economics, 20 (10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619867807

Li, X., Wu, P., Shen, G. Q., Wang, X., & Teng, Y. (2017). Mapping the knowledge domains of building information modeling (BIM): A bibliometric approach. Automation in Construction, 84 , 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.011

Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45 (2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

Liu, X., Shin, H., & Burns, A. C. (2019). Examining the impact of luxury brand’s social media marketing on customer engagement: Using big data analytics and natural language processing. Journal of Business Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.042

Loureiro, S. M. C., Gorgus, T., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of online brand engagement: The role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth. Online Information Review, 41 (7), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2016-0236

Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing customer relationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (4), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.008

Mariani, M. M., Di Felice, M., & Mura, M. (2016). Facebook as a destination marketing tool: Evidence from Italian regional destination management organizations. Tourism Management, 54 , 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.008

Mariani, M. M., Mura, M., & Di Felice, M. (2018). The determinants of Facebook social engagement for national tourism organizations’ Facebook pages: A quantitative approach. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 8 , 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.06.003

Marketing Science Institute. (2020). Research priorities 2020–2022 . Marketing Science Institute. https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MSI_RP20-22.pdf . Retrieved 5 May 2021

McCoy, C. G., Nelson, M. L., & Weigle, M. C. (2018). Mining the Web to approximate university rankings. Information Discovery and Delivery, 46 (3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-05-2018-0014

McKinsey. (2012). Demystifyng social media . McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/demystifying-social-media . Retrieved 5 May 2021

Medjani, F., Rutter, R., & Nadeau, J. (2019). Social media management, objectification and measurement in an emerging market. Business and Emerging Markets, 11 (3), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEM.2019.102654

Michopoulou, E., & Moisa, D. G. (2019). Hotel social media metrics: The ROI dilemma. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76 , 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.019

Muñoz-Expósito, M., Oviedo-García, M. Á., & Castellanos-Verdugo, M. (2017). How to measure engagement in Twitter: Advancing a metric. Internet Research, 27 (5), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2016-0170

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30 (1), 13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046

Oh, C., Roumani, Y., Nwankpa, J. K., & Hu, H. F. (2017). Beyond likes and tweets: Consumer engagement behavior and movie box office in social media. Information and Management, 54 (1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.03.004

Okubo, Y. (1997). Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: methods and examples . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osokin, N. (2019). User engagement and gratifications of NSO supporters on Facebook: Evidence from European football. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 20 (1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-11-2017-0115

Oviedo-García, M. Á., Muñoz-Expósito, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Sancho-Mejías, M. (2014). Metric proposal for customer engagement in Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8 (4), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-05-2014-0028

Peltier, J., Dahl, A. J., & VanderShee, B. A. (2020). Antecedent consumer factors, consequential branding outcomes and measures of online consumer engagement: Current research and future directions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 14 (2), 239–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2020-0010

Pencarelli, T., & Mele, G. (2019). A systematic literature review on social media metrics. Mercati & Competitività, 1 , 1–24.

Phulwani, P. R., Kumar, D., & Goyal, P. (2020). A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Recycling Behavior. Journal of Global Marketing, 33 (5), 354–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2020.1765444

Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development,  33 (3), 534–548

Popp, N., McEvoy, C., & Watanabe, N. (2017). Do college athletics marketers convert social media growth into ticket sales? International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 18 (2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-05-2017-090

Rahman, Z., Suberamanian, K., Zanuddin, H., Moghavvemi, S., & Bin MdNasir, M. H. N. (2016). SNS metrics analysis “A study on fanpage interactive contents.” International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 14 (2), 1405–1415.

Rahman, Z., Suberamanian, K., Zanuddin, H., Moghavvemi, S., & Nasir, M. H. N. M. (2017). Fanpage viral metrics analysis “study on frequently posted contents.” Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 12 (16), 4039–4046.

Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019). Tourism-based customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. The Service Industries Journal, 39 (7–8), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1570154

Rietveld, R., Van Dolen, W., Mazloom, M., & Worring, M. (2020). What you feel, is what you like influence of message appeals on customer engagement on Instagram. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49 , 20–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.06.003

Rogers, R. (2018). Digital traces in context| Otherwise engaged: Social media from vanity metrics to critical analytics. International Journal of Communication, 12 (23), 450–472.

Rossmann, A., Ranjan, K. R., & Sugathan, P. (2016). Drivers of user engagement in eWoM communication. Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (5), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0013

Sabate, F., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Cañabate, A., & Lebherz, P. R. (2014). Factors influencing popularity of branded content in Facebook fan pages. European Management Journal, 32 (6), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.05.001

Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring consumers’ engagement with brand-related social-media content: Development and validation of a scale that identifies levels of social-media engagement with brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 56 (1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004

Segijn, C. M., Maslowska, E., Araujo, T., & Viswanathan, V. (2019). Engaging with TV events on Twitter: The interrelations between TV consumption, engagement actors, and engagement content. Internet Research, 30 (2), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-08-2018-0389

Sitta, D., Faulkner, M., & Stern, P. (2018). What can the brand manager expect from Facebook? Australasian Marketing Journal, 26 (1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.01.001

So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2016). Enhancing customer relationships with retail service brands: The role of customer engagement. Journal of Service Management, 27 (2), 170–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2015-0176

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Trunfio, M., & Della Lucia, M. (2019). Engaging destination stakeholders in the digital era: The best practice of italian regional DMOs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 43 (3), 349–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018807293

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599

Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 22 (4), 401–420.

Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201

Vlachvei, A., & Kyparissis, A. (2017). Museums on Facebook wall: A case staudy of Thessaloniki’s museums. Tourismos, 12 (3), 75–96.

Vrettos, K., & Gouscos, D. (2019). Evaluating the presence of Greek tourism-related public sector entities in online social networks. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 6 (1), 15–40.

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates . Sage.

Wang, C., & Kubickova, M. (2017). The impact of engaged users on eWOM of hotel Facebook page. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8 (2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-09-2016-0056

Wu, J., Fan, S., & Zhao, J. L. (2018). Community engagement and online word of mouth: An empirical investigation. Information & Management, 55 (2), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.07.002Get

Yoon, G., Li, C., Ji, Y., North, M., Hong, C., & Liu, J. (2018). Attracting comments: digital engagement metrics on facebook and financial performance. Journal of Advertising, 47 (1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405753

Zanini, M. T., Carbone de Moraes, F., Lima, V., Migueles, C., Lourenco, C., & Reis Irigaray, H. A. (2019). Soccer and twitter: Virtual brand community engagement practices. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 37 (7), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2018-0371

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università Parthenope di Napoli within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management and Quantitative Studies, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Naples, Italy

Mariapina Trunfio & Simona Rossi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simona Rossi .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Trunfio, M., Rossi, S. Conceptualising and measuring social media engagement: A systematic literature review. Ital. J. Mark. 2021 , 267–292 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-021-00035-8

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2020

Accepted : 29 July 2021

Published : 11 August 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-021-00035-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Customer engagement
• Social media engagement
• Social media platforms
• Qualitative metrics
• Quantitative metrics
• Social media metrics
• COBRA model
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, social media platforms and sleep problems: a systematic literature review, synthesis and framework for future research.

Internet Research

ISSN : 1066-2243

Article publication date: 17 March 2021

Issue publication date: 12 July 2021

This study is a systematic literature review (SLR) on prior research examining the impact of the nocturnal use of social media platforms on a user's sleep, its dimensions and its perceptually allied problems. This SLR aims to curate, assimilate and critically examine the empirical research in this domain.

Design/methodology/approach

Forty-five relevant studies identified from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases were analyzed to develop a comprehensive research profile, identify gaps in the current knowledge and delineate emergent research topics.

Prior research has narrowly focused on investigating the associations between specific aspects of social media use behavior and sleep dimensions. The findings suggest that previous studies are limited by research design and sampling issues. We highlight the imperative need to expand current research boundaries through a comprehensive framework that elucidates potential issues to be addressed in future research.

Originality/value

The findings have significant implications for clinicians, family members and educators concerning promoting appropriate social media use, especially during sleep latency.

• Systematic literature review
• Sleep hygiene
• Nocturnal use of social media
• Social media platforms

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast- track Research Funding Program.

Kaur, P. , Dhir, A. , Alkhalifa, A.K. and Tandon, A. (2021), "Social media platforms and sleep problems: a systematic literature review, synthesis and framework for future research", Internet Research , Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1121-1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2020-0187

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Learning sustainability: post-graduate students’ perceptions on the use of social media platforms to enhance academic writing.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. online communication through social media for educational purposes, 2.2. academic writing, 2.3. social media, academic writing, and the fourth goal of sustainable development, 3. research questions.

• How do post-graduate students perceive the role of social media platforms in enhancing their academic writing?
• What are the obstacles to the use of social media platforms that hinder enhancing academic writing?

4. Methodology

4.1. participants, 4.2. research approach, 4.3. research procedure, 4.4. data collection and analysis.

• What social media tools were used by you in writing the research plan?
• Which of these tools do you prefer to use? Why?
• Describe your experience using your favorite tool in some detail.
• What do you think of the use of these tools in terms of their usefulness in improving the quality of your writing of the research plan? Why?
• From your point of view, what are the disadvantages of using these tools that may negatively affect the quality of your writing of the research plan? Why?
• From your point of view, what are the obstacles to using these tools that may reduce their usefulness in improving the quality of your writing of the research plan? Why?
• Do you prefer using social media tools or traditional methods of communicating with the supervisor regarding the development of the research plan? Why?
• Familiarizing yourself with your data: The authors of the study were the interviewers. Therefore, they were very familiar with the data.
• Generating initial codes: The initial interesting codes from the data were identified. The codes were then assessed in a meaningful way regarding the research questions.
• Searching for themes: Here the analysis re-focused on the codes on a broader level, which is generating themes. In this phase, different codes are sorted into potential themes.
• Reviewing themes: The initial list of themes was refined, and some candidate themes that did not have enough data to support them were ignored.
• Defining and naming themes: In this phase, the data were defined by identifying the essence of what each theme was about and were refined by determining what aspect of the data each theme captured. Table 2 illustrates the themes and frequencies of the interview data revealed from the thematic analysis.
• Producing the report: This phase involved the final analysis under the themes and write-up of the final report. The final report of the data analysis and the concluded findings will be reviewed in the following section.

5. Findings and Discussion

6. limitation, 7. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Graham, L.; Berman, J.; Bellert, A. Sustainable Learning: Inclusive Practices for 21st Century Classrooms ; Cambridge University Press: Sydney, Australia, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO. Incheon Declaration: Education 2030: Towards Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All ; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Mulhim, E.N. Technology Fatigue During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Distance Project-Based Learning Environments. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2023 , 24 , 234–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alshammary, F.M.; Alhalafawy, W.S. Sustaining Enhancement of Learning Outcomes across Digital Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. J. Pos. Sch. Psyc. 2022 , 6 , 2279–2301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismaeel, D.A.; Al Mulhim, E.N. E-teaching Internships and TPACK during the Covid-19 Crisis: The Case of Saudi Pre-service Teachers. Int. J. Instr. 2022 , 15 , 147–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vision 2030. National Transformation Program. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/vision-2030/vrp/national-transformation-program/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
• Glazer, H.R.; Breslin, M.; Wanstreet, C.E. Online professional and academic learning communities: Faculty perspectives. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2013 , 14 , 123–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thormann, J.; Fidalgo, P. Guidelines for online course moderation and community building from a student’s perspective. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2014 , 10 , 374–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Froment, F.; García González, A.J.; Bohórquez, M.R. The Use of Social Networks as a Communication Tool between Teachers and Students: A Literature Review. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. TOJET 2017 , 16 , 126–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vlachopoulos, D.; Makri, A. Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. Int. Rev. Educ. 2019 , 65 , 605–632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Habibi, A.; Mukminin, A.; Riyanto, Y.; Prasojo, L.D.; Sulistiyo, U.; Sofwan, M.; Saudagar, F. Building an online community: Student teachers’ perceptions on the advantages of using social networking services in a teacher education program. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2018 , 19 , 46–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chugh, R.; Ruhi, U. Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook. Edu. Info. Tech. 2018 , 23 , 605–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faramarzi, S.; Tabrizi, H.H.; Chalak, A. Telegram: An instant messaging application to assist distance language learning. Teach. Engl. Technol. 2019 , 19 , 132–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aghajani, M.; Adloo, M. The Effect of Online Cooperative Learning on Students’ Writing Skills and Attitudes through Telegram Application. Int. J. Instr. 2018 , 11 , 433–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• VanDoorn, G.; Eklund, A.A. Face to Facebook: Social media and the learning and teaching potential of symmetrical, synchronous communication. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2013 , 10 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Northey, G.; Bucic, T.; Chylinski, M.; Govind, R. Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. J. Mark. Educ. 2015 , 37 , 171–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process ; D.C. Heath & Co Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget, J. The Psychology of the Child ; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. Mind in Society ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelm, O.R. Social media: It’s what students do. Bus. Commun. Q. 2011 , 74 , 505–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Churcher, K.; Downs, E.; Tewksbury, D. “Friending” Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building through Classroom Social Media Use. J. Eff. Teach. 2014 , 14 , 33–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrader, D.E. Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social Media: Changing Minds and Learning Communities. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2015 , 144 , 23–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akpan, V.I.; Igwe, U.A.; Mpamah, I.B.I.; Okoro, C.O. Social constructivism: Implications on teaching and learning. Br. J. Edu. 2020 , 8 , 49–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buriro, G.A.; Charan, A.A. Social media tools at developing academic writing skills. UICELL Conf. Proc. 2018 , 2 , 29–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, C.E.; Ritter, N.L.; Fowler, R.M.; Franks, A.D. Developing a community of academic writers: Using social media to support academic accountability, motivation, and productivity. J. Lit. Technol. 2019 , 20 , 61–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seneviratne, L.C. An Intervention Using Digital Social Media to Support Academic Writing of University Students: A case study. Available online: https://research.usq.edu.au/download/18d93bd589ccde0d3b5b95e600ee9d06efbd1d9a943116acbc0a780f5856e943/3486702/Seneviratne_2018_whole.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
• Zheng, B. Social Media and Classroom Writing: Participation, Interaction, and Collaboration. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/f69e557a16831d2576ba1fc607fde189/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (accessed on 27 July 2023).
• Sun, Y.C. Extensive writing in foreign-language classrooms: A blogging approach. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2010 , 47 , 327–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsamadani, H.A. The Effectiveness of Using Online Blogging for Students’ Individual and Group Writing. Int. Educ. Stud. 2018 , 11 , 44–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeboah, J.; Ewur, G.D. The impact of WhatsApp messenger usage on students performance in Tertiary Institutions in Ghana. J. Educ. Pract. 2014 , 5 , 157–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abdul Fattah, S.F.E.S.A. The Effectiveness of Using WhatsApp Messenger as One of Mobile Learning Techniques to Develop Students’ Writing Skills. J. Educ. Pract. 2015 , 6 , 115–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, W.C.; Yang, S.C. Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. Engl. Teach. Pract. Crit. 2011 , 10 , 88–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, X.; Chu, S.K.; Ki, W.W.; Woo, M.M. Using a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2012 , 28 , 159–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Woo, M.M.; Chu SK, W.; Li, X. Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2013 , 61 , 279–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baishya, D.; Maheshwari, S. WhatsApp Groups in Academic Context: Exploring the Academic Uses of WhatsApp Groups among the Students. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2020 , 11 , 31–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, M.Z.; Alradhi, H.I.; Alhumaidi, A.A.; Alshaikh, K.H.; AlObaid, A.M.; Alhashim, M.T.; AlSheikh, M.H. Telegram as a tool to supplement online medical education during COVID-19 crisis. Acta Inform. Med. 2020 , 28 , 94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Suárez-Lantarón, B.; Deocano-Ruíz, Y.; García-Perales, N.; Castillo-Reche, I.S. The Educational Use of WhatsApp. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 10510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yılmazsoy, B.; Kahraman, M.; Köse, U. Negative Aspects of Using Social Networks in Education: A Brief Review on WhatsApp Example. J. Educ. Technol. Online Learn. 2020 , 3 , 69–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Revere, L.; Kovach, J.V. Online Technologies for Engaged Learning A Meaningful Synthesis for Educators. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 2011 , 12 , 113–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Padilla, D.A.; Tortolero-Blanco, L. Social media influence in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2020 , 46 , 120–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Global Education Monitoring Report Team (UNESCO). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education: A Tool on whose Terms? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Mulhim, E.N.; Zaky, Y.A.M. Sustainability in E-Learning: E-Books and Academic Procrastination among Secondary Students. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 14668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fülöp, M.T.; Breaz, T.O.; Topor, I.D.; Ionescu, C.A.; Dragolea, L.L. Challenges and perceptions of e-learning for educational sustainability in the “new normality era”. Front. Psychol. 2023 , 14 , 1104633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Prasetyanto, D.; Rizki, M.; Sunitiyoso, Y. Online Learning Participation Intention after COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: Do Students Still Make Trips for Online Class? Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geith, C.; Vignare, K. Access to Education with Online Learning and Open Educational Resources: Can they Close the Gap? On. Lear. 2019 , 12 , 105–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sobaih, A.E.E.; Moustafa, M.A.; Ghandforoush, P.; Khan, M. To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Com. Hum. Behav. 2016 , 58 , 296–305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006 , 3 , 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Al Mulhim, E.N.; Ismaeel, D.A. Learning Sustainability: Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Social Media Platforms to Enhance Academic Writing. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135587

Al Mulhim EN, Ismaeel DA. Learning Sustainability: Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Social Media Platforms to Enhance Academic Writing. Sustainability . 2024; 16(13):5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135587

Al Mulhim, Ensaf Nasser, and Dina Ahmed Ismaeel. 2024. "Learning Sustainability: Post-Graduate Students’ Perceptions on the Use of Social Media Platforms to Enhance Academic Writing" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135587

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw

Twenty-Five Years of Social Media: A Review of Social Media Applications and Definitions from 1994 to 2019

Thomas aichner.

1 Department of Business Administration, John Cabot University, Rome, Italy.

Matthias Grünfelder

2 Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria.

Oswin Maurer

3 Faculty of Economics and Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy.

Deni Jegeni

In this article, the authors present the results from a structured review of the literature, identifying and analyzing the most quoted and dominant definitions of social media (SM) and alternative terms that were used between 1994 and 2019 to identify their major applications. Similarities and differences in the definitions are highlighted to provide guidelines for researchers and managers who use results from previous research to further study SM or to find practical applications. In other words, when reading an article about SM, it is essential to understand how the researchers defined SM and how results from articles that use different definitions can be compared. This article is intended to act as a guideline for readers of those articles.

Introduction

The term “social media” (SM) was first used in 1994 on a Tokyo online media environment, called Matisse. 1 It was in these early days of the commercial Internet that the first SM platforms were developed and launched. Over time, both the number of SM platforms and the number of active SM users have increased significantly, making it one of the most important applications of the Internet.

With a similarly fast pace, businesses have moved their marketing interests toward SM platforms. The presence of both businesses and users on SM has further led to a shift in how companies interact with their customers, who are additionally no longer limited to a passive role in their relationship with a company. 2 Customers give feedback, ask questions, and expect quick and customized answers to their specific problems. In addition, customers post text, pictures, and videos. Managers came to the understanding that the brand transition to SM ultimately involves a re-casting of the customer relationship, where the customer has become an ally or an enemy, not an audience. 3

In research, SM is generally used as an umbrella term that describes a variety of online platforms, including blogs, business networks, collaborative projects, enterprise social networks (SN), forums, microblogs, photo sharing, products review, social bookmarking, social gaming, SN, video sharing, and virtual worlds. 4 Given this broad spectrum of SM platforms, the applications of SM are quite diverse and not limited to sharing holiday snapshots or advertising and promotion.

As of January 2020, there are more than 110,000 publications that have the term “social media” in their title. Over the past 25 years in which these works were published, countless researchers have formulated quite varying definitions of SM—sometimes using alternative terms. In this period, the perceptions and understanding of what SM is, what it includes, and what it represents have also varied considerably. This can make it difficult for both researchers and companies to interpret and apply research findings; for example , when referring to SM in general, rather than referring to a specific type of SM, such as SN. It can be problematic to quote previous research that was carried out exclusively on one SM platform as being generalizable to SM, or to refer to results from research that defined SM as being more or less inclusive in terms of which platforms qualify as SM and which do not.

Major Applications of SM

This section serves as the background of SM functions, rather than how the definition has changed. It provides a general, although not comprehensive, overview of some of the most important applications of SM over the past two and a half decades. This is important, as it highlights that SM cover a broad variety of scopes with specific functions and applications that can differ greatly between the different types of SM. Consequently, also the purpose and the users' perceived value of using SM varies. From a research perspective, this section serves as a foundation for classifying and discussing the SM definitions that are presented in the following chapters.

Socializing with friends and family

Although not all SM platforms are specifically designed to facilitate socialization between its users, it may be considered one of the most apparent commonalities of all types of SM. 4 Sometimes referred to as online communities, these SM platforms are valuable given that people often do not perceive a difference between virtual friends and real friends, as long as they feel supported and belong to a community of like-minded individuals. 5 The SM helps to strengthen relationships through the sharing of important life events in the form of status updates, photos, etc., reinforcing at the same time their in-person encounters as well. 6

The SM has also become a common tool for communication in families. A study conducted by Sponcil and Gitimu 7 showed that for 91.7 percent of students the main reason for using SM is communicating with family and friends. In addition, 50 percent of the students communicated with their family and friends every day, and another 40 percent at least a few days a week. Williams and Merten 8 suggest that by using SM in everyday life, people strengthen the relationships with family. Especially in relation to globalization and constant migration, it has become a vital tool for maintaining contact within migrant families. The need for transnational communication between family members and the people they left behind is of great importance. 9

Romance and flirting

Several studies suggest that SM significantly influences the romantic aspects of life. Aside from facilitating human interaction, communication technologies are also shaping and defining our relationships. 10 It has been shown that SM is important in the starting phases of a relationship and has a significant influence on the relationship of many couples in the long run. 11 The SM can help when starting a romantic relationship, for example , contacting a crush through SM can have special benefits for introverts, who otherwise would avoid face-to-face contact and would otherwise communicate less. 7 Moreover, in some cases, online dating is preferable to live dating, as it gives the same feeling and allows users to avoid unnecessary discomforts. 11 Finally, rejection on SM is less painful compared with face-to-face rejection. 10 Further, users can contemplate their responses and do not have to worry about their physical appearance while conversing/chatting online, making it a less stressful environment to flirt with people on SM than face-to-face conversations. 12

Interacting with companies and brands

It is estimated that close to 100 percent of larger companies (both B2C and B2B) are using some sort of SM platform to inform their customers, gather information, receive feedback, provide after-sales service or consultancy, and promote their products or services. The key characteristic that makes SM so relevant for companies is the fact that SM allows for two-way communication between the brand and the customer. 13 Sometimes referred to as “social customer relationship management,” 14 SM can be viewed as an effective tool used to get closer to the customer. However, some studies suggest that what customers seek is somewhat different from what companies offer through SM. 14 Customers are mainly interested in communicating easily and quickly with the company. From a business perspective, the company wants to make sure customers receive the right information in a timely manner, linking the customer closer to the brand and, simultaneously, controlling the flow of information. Successful SM managers understand how an SM platform works and is used by its customers, and they then develop corporate communication tools that fit the behavior of their users. Many researchers highlight the need for customer relationship management to adapt to the rise of SM 2 to efficiently manage relationships with modern, connected, and empowered customers.

Job seeking and professional networking

Another application of SM is to connect job seekers with employers. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies use LinkedIn for talent acquisition. 15 With more than 660 million users in 2020, it is an important tool for companies searching to expand their talent pool. This pool of individuals is extended, as the nature of SM also allows recruiters to identify and target, apart from active users, talented candidates who are passive or semi-passive and lure them to prospective job positions. 16 In fact, through SM platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, recruiters can post job advertisements to lure potential applicants who are not actively looking for a job. 17 Rather than the costly and time-consuming traditional ways of staffing with interviews and tests, hiring through SM offers recruiters the benefit of free access to prospects' profiles and an instant means of communication. For users, LinkedIn profiles allow them to create an idealized portrait by displaying their skills to recruiters and peers. 18 Indeed, LinkedIn asks members to highlight their relevant skills, promoting their abilities and strengths, urging them to complete their profiles through getting recommendations and praise from peers/colleagues and clients for their performance or skills. 19

Doing business

The SM has a considerable impact on how companies approach clients and vice versa. In addition, SM utilizing SM as a means of understanding and informing customers has become imperative for businesses to remain competitive. The SM providers have created possibilities for companies to improve their internal operations and communicate in new ways with customers, other businesses, and suppliers. 20 At the same time, companies can actively engage customers, encouraging them to become advocates of their brands. 2 This is certainly important, as users can create online customer communities, which potentially add value to the brand beyond just increased sales. 20 The engagement of customers can be beneficial, as they will frequently interact with the brand and share positive word-of-mouth since they have become more emotionally attached to the brand. 21 This electronic word-of-mouth created in SM communities helps consumers in their purchasing decisions. 22 This suggestion is important given that customers are actually more interested in other users' recommendations and word-of-mouth rather than the vendor-created product information. 23

Research questions

Reviewing the existent literature about SM applications inevitably leads to the question of whether the researchers had the same definition in mind when talking about SM, SN, online communities, and the like. It is also apparent that the focus of the researcher's interest has changed over time, and that the time when the research was conducted could have an impact on how the findings should be interpreted. Therefore, the remainder of this article aims at answering the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1: How has the definition of social media changed from 1994 to 2019? RQ2: What are the differences and commonalities in social media definitions from 1994 to 2019?

To answer the two RQ, we decided to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR). Using a multi-step SLR approach as recommended by Tranfield et al. 24 ( Fig. 1 ), we structurally examined the literature between 1994 and 2019 to find all relevant SM definitions to identify the major differences and commonalities.

Structure and process of the systematic literature review.

After identifying 88 potential papers, all the articles were read to find original definitions for SM or related terms. In addition, we used backward and forward snowballing, two methods frequently employed in academic research to find additional relevant sources based on the references used in the original publication (backward snowballing) and searched papers that cited the article (forward snowballing), respectively. 25 In combination with the SLR, the backward snowballing led to the identification of a total number of 21 original definitions, including some definitions that were published in books and conference proceedings, which were not included in the SLR.

In this chapter, we present all major definitions of SM (and synonymous terms) that were formulated from 1994 to 2019 ( Table 1 ). Table 1 further includes details about the source and the number of citations according to Google Scholar as of August 2020.

Social Media Definitions with Author Names, Source, and the Number of Citations As of August 2020

Before we assess the meaning and compare the definitions in terms of the two RQ, a few quantitative results are provided. Analyzing the 21 definitions, we found a lexical density (i.e., the percentage of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs) of 57.5 percent. The most frequently used word with 23 occurrences is “social,” followed by “people” with 12 occurrences, and “virtual,” “content,” “user,” and “network” with 8 occurrences each. In terms of two-word phrases, “social network[s]” (8 occurrences) is followed by “social media” and “social networking” (5 occurrences each), as well as “virtual communities” (VC) (4 occurrences).

Notably, the first formal definition is from 1996 and uses “computer-supported social networks” or “CSSNs,” although the term “SM” was coined about 2 years earlier. Later, researchers used different terms such as “virtual communities,” “social networks,” “social networking services,” “online social network,” “social networking sites,” “social network sites,” and “social media.” Although there are small variations in these terms, they can be classified into three categories: VC, SN, and SM. It is important to mention that all these definitions describe the same concept, but with different terms. Assessing the SM definitions that resulted from the SLR reveals that from 1997 to 2002, VC was the dominant term. In contrast, SN was used over a longer period, but it was dominant from 2005 to 2009. It was only in 2010 that researchers started using predominantly SM. But how did the definitions—independent from their terminology—change?

Throughout the observed period, the role of SM, as an enabler for human interaction as well as an avenue to connect with other users, has been a constant in defining SM. In early definitions, the focus was mainly on people and how people interact, whereas later definitions (after 2010) have largely substituted the term “people” with “user” and placed more focus on generating and sharing content. This changed focus, with regard to both the application of SM and the terminology of people versus user, may also reflect the increasingly important role of anonymity in SM. 47

The role of user-generated content is not reflected in early definitions, whereas it has become a central part of recent definitions. It was Kaplan and Haenlein 38 who first mentioned “creation,” whereas later definitions use terms such as “user-supplied content” and “user-driven platforms” in addition to “user-generated content,” which is the common term used in research and practice today.

Another notable change is that until 2009, several researchers included the common interests that linked people with each other, whereas this link is completely missing in post-2010 definitions. Again, this may be reflected by the fact that in the early days, SM users were mostly close or loosely related friends communicating with each other, whereas in recent years, SM has evolved to a set of media that are also used as a powerful tool by companies, celebrities, and influencers to reach the masses. 48

Finally, although sharing information and content is generally not the central aspect in defining SM, the terminology has changed over time. Until 2010, researchers used “exchange” or “upload,” which were substituted with the term “share” in subsequent years. The underlying meaning, however, remained the same.

Conclusions

About 60,000 articles have cited the SM definitions summarized in this article. Therefore, the value this research provides goes beyond a simple overview of the definitions and major applications of SM in the 25 years, since the term was originally coined. The result is a timeline of SM definitions that helps researchers and practitioners to quickly put the results of previous research in perspective and to avoid time-consuming research of the single definitions in different papers. Why is this necessary? This is because, based on the definition, the results may need to be interpreted in a more or less different way.

One notable result is that, although SM is one of the main research areas in social sciences (and beyond) and its landscape has been changing quickly, only a handful of scholars have made an effort to develop a definition of SM. Although some elements, for example , the fact that SM connects people, are common, the definitions are rather different from each other. The commonalities and differences highlighted in the previous section allow for the division of the definitions into two main streams: those published before 2010 and after 2010. Before 2010, SM was commonly approached as a tool of connectivity for people with common interests. After 2010, the focus changed to creating and sharing user-generated content.

These results are in line with previous research about the evolution of SM literature, which concluded that SM definitions changed over time, namely from platforms for socializing in the past to tools for information aggregation. 45 Similarly, Kapoor et al. 45 found that there was an evolution in SM definitions and a cut in the early 2010. Our research shows that there is no single or commonly accepted definition, but that several definitions have been co-existing and found broad acceptance in literature.

Future SM researchers can use these findings to better compare SM articles and avoid flaws in their theory or methodological design. Especially when comparing the results of empirical studies, it may be critical to consider both when the study was conducted and which SM definition was used as a basis for hypothesis development and data analysis. In addition, this article gives SM researchers the possibility to make an informed choice of which SM definition to use for their studies.

Given the method employed to identify the SM definitions, we are confident that this is the most comprehensive overview that includes all major publications. However, the results may be limited by the original search terms used to identify the papers to be included in the SLR. Although the use of backward snowballing should have helped in minimizing this risk, there may still be some less explicit definitions of SM that were not included in this article. In addition, non-English articles and other gray literature were not considered, which is common criticism in academic research. Future research could also try to identify the differences in how SM is defined by researchers from different scientific backgrounds, for example , marketing versus medicine versus psychology versus anthropology versus engineering versus information technology. It would also be insightful to see whether there are tendencies of certain researchers, for example , from engineering, to base their research on specific definitions rather than on others. For example, if one definition is dominant in engineering but not in medical research, this would imply that interdisciplinary research about SM applications needs to be compared more carefully, as the basic definition differs. Similarly, it would be interesting to link the use of SM definitions to the cultural or national context of where the research was carried out, for example , to identify whether European versus American versus Asian researchers have a generally different understanding of SM and its applications. These possible cultural differences in the definition or selection of an SM definition as a basis for research could be linked to the fact that in different countries and cultural clusters different SM platforms are more or less popular. 49 Overall, our research will help compare findings from SM literature more easily and avoid misinterpretations of past and future research.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This work was supported by the Open Access Publishing Fund of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.

Supreme Court says Florida, Texas social media laws need more review

WASHINGTON, D.C. - APRIL 19, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., is the seat of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Judicial Branch of government. (Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Supreme Court sends Trump immunity case back to lower court

The Supreme Court says Donald Trump – and all presidents – enjoy immunity for official acts of the presidency, but not unofficial acts. It will now be up to a lower court to decide which of Trump's alleged crimes were part of his official powers.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute, while another upheld the Texas law. But both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

(Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

But much has changed since then. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and, besides changing its name, eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.

UCF student says he'll stop tracking Elon Musk's private jet on X if he does one thing

Years after Elon Musk reportedly offered Jack Sweeney $5,000 to stop tracking his private jet on social media, the Florida college student now has a proposition of his own.

President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained governments’ ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumer interests. Lawyers for Trump filed a brief in the Florida case that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.

The cases are among several the justices have grappled with over the past year involving social media platforms, including one decided last week in which the court threw out a lawsuit from Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative points of view.

During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested then that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.

But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states’ arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for "censoring other speech." Alito also equated the platforms’ content moderation to censorship.

The justices also worried about too broad a ruling that might affect businesses that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.

• White House
• Energy/Environment
• Health Care
• Transportation
• Heard on the Hill
• Fintech Beat
• Political Theater
• Donald Trump
• White House Calendar
• White House Releases
• Press Seating Chart
• Donald Trump Twitter
• Correspondents Dinner
• Newsletters
• Capitol Ink
• Roll Call e-Edition
• Classifieds

Supreme Court defers on state online content moderation laws

Separate from the basic outcome, Kagan wrote for a six-justice majority criticizing the 5th Circuit decision that upheld the Texas law and stating that social media content moderation is free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation — and then organizing and presenting the included items — is expressive activity of its own,” Kagan write.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote separately, largely agreeing with the majority, but also raising concerns that technology, including algorithm-based content moderation and artificial intelligence may affect the constitutionality of internet regulation.

Barrett wrote that challenging the laws broadly “likely forces a court to bite off more than it can chew” and said that social media companies may be better served challenging the laws’ application piecemeal.

“While the governing constitutional principles are straightforward, applying them in one fell swoop to the entire social-media universe is not,” Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, criticized the court’s majority’s “broad ambition” that shot down the 5th Circuit’s approach to the social media laws and raised concerns about the power of social media companies.

“Social-media platforms are diverse, and each may be unique in potentially significant ways,” Alito said, writing that the court should not have made such broad statements about the free-speech protections of content moderation.

Alito wrote that the justices should give “serious treatment” to the idea that social media platforms are common carriers that could be regulated like phone companies, and forced to carry all messages that meet general terms.

The laws have some differences, which came up during oral arguments, such as how the Florida law includes up to $100,000 in damages for violations but the Texas law does not.

In a separate case this term, the justices tossed an effort by Republican-led states and social media users to limit communications between the Biden administration and social media companies over alleged censorship of conservative views online.

Recent Stories

Supreme Court eases time limits on challenges to federal rules

Historians, legal experts express dismay at Trump immunity ruling

Supreme Court shields presidents from prosecution for official acts

Newer crop of tax writers prepares to take on legacy 2017 law

Lawmakers request review of two defense industry acquisitions

Supreme Court: Florida, Texas social media laws need more review

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday kept a hold on efforts in Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content posted by their users.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts in challenges from trade associations for the companies.

READ: Supreme Court sends Trump immunity case back to lower court

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. The cases are among several this term in which the justices are wrestling with standards for free speech in the digital age.

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter, now X, to cut then-President Donald Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

SIGN UP: Click here to sign up for the FOX 13 daily newsletter

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute, while another upheld the Texas law. But both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

The US Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew ANGERER / AFP) (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images)

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

But much has changed since then. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and, besides changing its name, eliminated teams focused on content moderation, welcomed back many users previously banned for hate speech and used the site to spread conspiracy theories.

President Joe Biden's administration sided with the challengers, though it cautioned the court to seek a narrow ruling that maintained governments’ ability to impose regulations to ensure competition, preserve data privacy and protect consumer interests. Lawyers for Trump filed a brief in the Florida case that had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the state law.

The cases are among several the justices have grappled with over the past year involving social media platforms, including one decided last week in which the court threw out a lawsuit from Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing federal officials of pressuring social media companies to silence conservative points of view.

During arguments in February, the justices seemed inclined to prevent the laws from taking effect. Several justices suggested then that they viewed the platforms as akin to newspapers that have broad free-speech protections, rather than like telephone companies, known as common carriers, that are susceptible to broader regulation.

But two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared more ready to embrace the states' arguments. Thomas raised the idea that the companies are seeking constitutional protection for "censoring other speech." Alito also equated the platforms' content moderation to censorship.

The justices also worried about too broad a ruling that might affect businesses that are not the primary targets of the laws, including e-commerce sites like Uber and Etsy and email and messaging services.

The upcoming main navigation can be gotten through utilizing the tab key. Any buttons that open a sub navigation can be triggered by the space or enter key.

Search Lawfare

The supreme court rules on social media first amendment cases.

Julien Berman

On July 1, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits regarding laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate social media platforms. The Supreme Court remanded the cases for further proceedings, requiring a more comprehensive analysis of the facial challenges under the First Amendment.

Of the nine Justices, six emphasized the need to determine whether the laws’ applications to social media platforms substantially infringe on free speech rights of the companies. 

In the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Kagan wrote, “Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of NetChoice’s challenge.” However, she expressed the need to provide guidance to the lower courts on the proper First Amendment standard, expressing concern that one or both laws might “prevent[] exactly the kind of editorial judgments this Court has previously held to receive First Amendment protection.” Further, she suggested that laws cannot prevent “a platform from compiling the third-party speech it wants in the way it wants, and thus from offering the expressive product that most reflects its own views and priorities.”

Florida and Texas both passed laws seeking to prevent social media companies from censoring speech. The Texas law, H.B. 20, bars social media platforms with at least 50 million active users from blocking, removing, or demonetizing content based on the users’ views. The Florida law, S.B. 7072, prohibits social media companies from banning political candidates and journalistic enterprises. 

The two trade groups representing the social media platforms argued that these platforms are “speakers” protected by the First Amendment and that their decisions to allow and remove certain content constitute editorial discretion—a form of protected speech. The states argued that social media platforms are simply in the business of transmitting users’ speech and thus do not have First Amendment rights themselves.

The cases originated in the Northern District of Florida and the Western District of Texas, where both district courts granted preliminary injunctions blocking the respective statutes from taking effect. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law. The Fifth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court consolidated both cases and agreed to review the decisions.

See Lawfare ’s previous coverage analyzing the case .

You can find the ruling here or below.

More Articles 

Lawfare Daily: The Supreme Court Rules in Murthy v. Missouri

A Jawboning Executive Order for Day One of a New Administration

Tort Law and Frontier AI Governance

Other topics.

Subscribe to Lawfare

• Today on Lawfare
• The Week That Was

Supreme Court delivers ‘gut punch,’ allows White House coercion of social media platforms

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered Team Biden an “important election year victory, as CNN characterized a ruling Wednesday allowing the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI to lean on social media platforms to censor content viewed as misinformation.

Hunter Biden’s laptop fell into this category in the runup to the 2020 pandemic-marred election, as did COVID-19 information shared by medical professionals that did not support the prescribed pro-vaccine narrative at the time — the censored content standing up to the test of time, of course.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the three liberal justices in throwing out claims the Biden administration unlawfully coerced social media companies into removing contentious content, NBC News reported.

The decision overturned an injunction that would have limited contact between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues, according to the network.

Barrett said the plaintiffs, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, failed to show they had suffered harm.

More from NBC News:

She noted that social media platforms routinely moderated content even before the alleged coercion happened. “In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content moderation policies before the government defendants got involved,” she added. While the evidence shows government officials “played a role” in moderation choices, that is not enough to justify a sweeping injunction, Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, said in the dissent he authored that the case was “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years,” according to CNN.

“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote. “That is regrettable.”

Alito mincing no words in what SCOTUS has done with Murthy ruling: “The Court…permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think” pic.twitter.com/uYYnNifJoF — Billy McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) June 26, 2024

Alito would also characterize the conduct of the officials sued in the case as “unconstitutional,” “coercive” and “dangerous.”

George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal, voiced the frustration felt by those who value free speech.

“The government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment,” Turley said during an appearance on Fox News.

Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri. “The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF — Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024

The reaction on social media was swift.

“Huge victory at the Supreme Court for anti-speech movement,” posted The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway.

Huge victory at the Supreme Court for anti-speech movement. — Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 26, 2024

Here is a sampling of other responses from X, including Glenn Beck, who called the ruling “an absolute gut punch.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that, practically, the government can continue pressuring social media companies to censor Americans. This is an absolute gut punch. — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) June 26, 2024

The Supreme Court got it wrong – and has failed to uphold its responsibility to the Constitution by finding no standing in Murthy v. Missouri. My case of Kennedy v. Biden will proceed in the trial court where there is no question that @ChildrensHD and I have standing. Justice… — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 26, 2024

Today’s disappointing Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri, holding that the various states were not harmed by government and Big Tech censorship, is a wake up call to all Americans. Even with “conservative” judges like Amy Coney Barrett, we can’t expect any help from… — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 26, 2024

The Supreme Court’s ruling and opinion on the widespread federal government campaign to censor and banish accounts that shared factual information about ongoing government operations is an abomination that ignores both the facts and the law. I never thought I would see the… pic.twitter.com/v5FzqQorPC — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 26, 2024

Protecting the Administrative State https://t.co/PkuPaTQPNc — Max Edwards (@MaxEdwards1) June 26, 2024

The First Amendment is supposed to prevent the government from censoring speech and punishing people for expressing different views. Apparently, the Biden Regime is (D)ifferent. — ℎ (@chiIIum) June 26, 2024

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

• Recent Posts

• ‘That’s never been who Joe Biden has been’: Crockett blasts Dems in self own for wanting ‘best of the best’ - June 30, 2024
• ‘Delusional’: Biden claims at NJ fundraiser his debate efforts won over ‘more undecided voters than Trump’ - June 30, 2024
• Billionaire ‘Democrat’ Bill Ackman DEMOLISHES media propagandists, warns beware ‘the Big Lie’ - June 28, 2024

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member . We'd love to have you!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Latest Articles

• job opportunities
• privacy policy
• DUMPSTER FIRE NEWS
• * NEW * WE THE PEOPLE WINE
• * NEW * WE THE PEOPLE STORE

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

FILE - The Meta logo is seen at the Vivatech show in Paris, France, Wednesday, June 14, 2023. Meta said Monday, June 10, 2024, it wants to use data from users in privacy-conscious Europe to train its artificial intelligence models. It’s facing concerns about data protection while battling to keep up with rivals like OpenAI and Google. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus, File)

The Supreme Court building is seen, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Journalists await the Court’s decisions outside the Supreme Court, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices threw out lower-court rulings that favored Louisiana, Missouri and other parties in their claims that federal officials leaned on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court that the states and other parties did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision should not affect typical social media users or their posts.

AP AUDIO: The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports the Biden administration has scored a Supreme Court win in a social media dispute with conservative states.

The case is among several before the court this term that affect social media companies in the context of free speech. In February, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. In March, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers .

The cases over state laws and the one that was decided Wednesday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints.

The states had argued that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who applied “unrelenting pressure” to coerce changes in online content on social media platforms.

The justices appeared broadly skeptical of those claims during arguments in March and several worried that common interactions between government officials and the platforms could be affected by a ruling for the states.

The Biden administration underscored those concerns when it noted that the government would lose its ability to communicate with the social media companies about antisemitic and anti-Muslim posts, as well as on issues of national security, public health and election integrity.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the court reached the right outcome because “it helps ensure the Biden Administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in critical work to keep Americans safe.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called the decision “unfortunate and disappointing.” The court majority, Murrill said in a statement, “gives a free pass to the federal government to threaten tech platforms into censorship and suppression of speech that is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. The majority waves off the worst government coercion scheme in history.”

The justices did not weigh in on the substance of the states’ claims or the administration’s response in their decision Wednesday.

“We begin — and end — with standing,” Barrett wrote. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

In dissent, Alito wrote that the states amply demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices in the minority.

Jen Easterly, director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said she was pleased with the decision and reiterated the agency “does not and has never censored speech.”

“Every day, the men and women of CISA execute the agency’s mission of reducing risk to U.S. critical infrastructure in a way that protects Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy,” Easterly said in a statement.

Some free speech advocates praised the result, but lamented how little guidance the court provided.

“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, and so it’s crucial that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. “This guidance would have been especially valuable in the months leading up to the election.”

Nina Jankowicz was named in the original lawsuit after being appointed in 2022 to lead a new board within the Department of Homeland Security to tackle disinformation. The board was dissolved within weeks amid conspiracy theories and criticism from Republicans and conservative activists who saw the effort as a political tool to regulate free speech.

Jankowicz, an expert in disinformation, said the Supreme Court had done what she had expected. But she said the damage from the lawsuit is not easily fixed.

“Unfortunately, there is an entire class of people that now believes the government, in coordination with independent researchers, is censoring some part of the American population,” she said. “I don’t think that’s going to go away anytime soon.”

The court’s ruling comes as many social media companies have removed guardrails against hate and disinformation.

The social media platform X, under the leadership of owner Elon Musk, has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and extremists who were previously banned. It also has gutted teams that once fought misinformation on the platform, leaving the community of users to moderate itself.

Experts say the shrinking of such teams, a development that many blame on political pressure, could make election-related disinformation across social media worse in 2024 than it was in 2020.

Meanwhile, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has pivoted away from emphasizing news and political content on its platforms after facing years of accusations that it mishandles misinformation and contributes to political polarization .

A panel of three judges on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled earlier that the administration had probably brought unconstitutional pressure on the media platforms. The appellate panel said officials cannot attempt to “coerce or significantly encourage” changes in online content.

The decision was the sixth this term in which the court threw out rulings by the 5th Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. Last week, the court upheld a gun restriction aimed at protecting domestic violence victims, overturning a 5th Circuit panel.

Earlier in June, the court unanimously ruled that anti-abortion doctors lacked standing to challenge Food and Drug Administration decisions to ease access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

The case is Murthy v. Missouri, 23-411.

Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court