Interpersonal needs theory applied in social networks in Romania

There is no doubt technology has changed the way we communicate, leaving its footprint on intrapersonal, interpersonal and group communication: from diaries we got to blogs, from letters we got to emails, from telephones we got to mobiles, from meetings we got to online conferences.

Defined, interpersonal communication takes place between two individuals (called a dyad) and has a number of determinants, among which the most important are age, gender, personality, education, occupation, social class and nationality (Rosengren, 2006). Several theories have tried to explain why people engage in communication with one other. Among these there is the interpersonal needs theory, according to which people engage in interpersonal communication to fulfill needs. Schutz (1958, cited in Sammut, 2010) suggests three such needs:

• Inclusion – the need to establish identity with others;
• Control – the need to exercise leadership and prove one’s abilities (applied in group communication as well);
• Affection – the need to develop relationships with people.

Group communication takes place between more people who establish certain relationships among themselves. This type of communication is also influenced by certain variables, just like in the case of dyads.

With social networks interpersonal and group communications have moved online and the needs behind engaging into “relationships” (virtual ones) are changing.

A study conducted by Daedalus Millward Brown provides an insight on why Romanians use social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Hi5, explaining the needs behind engaging into virtual interpersonal and group communication in case of Romanian people (variable considered: nationality).

The results show Romanians use:

• Twitter for problem-solving, personal development, promoting opinions and ideas;
• Facebook for a sense of belonging, virtual entertainment;
• Hi5 for self-promotion.

I find interesting analyzing these findings and Schutz’s proposals from the perspective of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.


Whereas in Shutz’s view communication needs are more related to the love/belonging level of Maslow pyramid, in case of social networks and online communication needs are more focused on the esteem and self-actualization levels.

Given the fact that in Maslow's hierarchy needs are fulfilled on levels from bottom to top (which means people reaching esteem and self-actualization needs have already satisfied the love-related ones), we can conclude that with social networks people not only fulfill affection needs but go beyond them. Consequently, the highest peak in terms of satisfying personal needs can be reached with Twitter, Facebook and Hi5, at least in case of Romanians.

Evaluating online PR

Evaluation of the PR activity has always been an issue. In the book Effective Media Relations published by the Chartered Institute for Public Relations, Anne Gregory (2000) draws attention to the two schools of thought regarding the assessment of the public relations efforts. The first claimed the results of PR were intangible and impossible to measure. The second believed PR can be measured and looked at the number of press cuttings. A variation on the second school was to measure the cost of advertising in the media.

In the last years offline PR has been evaluated based on the following criteria, among others (Wilcox, 2009):
• measurement of advertising value equivalency - based on the size and position of an article in a media outlet
• measurement of media impressions – number of people exposed to the article and the messages given by circulation or readership
• measurement of key messages – counting how many pre-established messages were actually included in the articles
• measurement of production - total number of generated articles in a given period and the number of publications reached
• measurement of editorial slant – analyzing tone of voice: positive, neutral or negative
• event attendance – number of people attending an event

Although these are still not totally satisfactory methods they have been doing their job so far.


But PR is now moving towards online and the evaluation methods have to do the same.

Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are the most common social media and assessment of online PR can be done for each one separately, as presented below. I underline that both quantitative and qualitative evaluation can be made for social media.

Metrics for blog (one can use Google Analytics for blog metrics):
• no of visitors
• no of unique visitors
• page views
• bounce rate
• average time spent on blog
• no of comments
• no of followers
• no of track-backs to blog

Metrics for Twitter:
• no of followers
• influence of followers
• no of company/brand/etc mentions
• no of direct messages
• attitude of tweets: positive, negative, neutral
• no of re-tweets

Metrics for Facebook fan page:
• no of fans
• no of “likes”
• no of comments
• general tone of comments: positive, negative, neutral

Metrics for YouTube channel:
• no of channel views
• no of views for individual video
• no of comments
• type of comments: positive, negative, neutral
• subscribers to channel
• ratings

Websites are also used in online PR even though I think they are not so much of a novelty. :) I will however list some metrics for websites:
• no of visitors
• no of unique visitors
• page views
• bounce rate
• average time spent on website

Besides the above metrics, PR pros can also determine some “returns” as presented by Brian Solis. He wrote about four ways to assess social media efforts:
• return on participation – measuring the time spent for engaging in social media e.g conversations
• return on involvement – evaluating touchpoints
• return on attention –seize, hold and measure attention in terms of produced responses activities
• return on trust – measuring loyalty and referrals

The online Kit Kat Jesus campaign is a great example of a high return on participation, involvement and attention. :)