Journal of Service Management [622794]

Journal of Service Management
Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research
agenda
Ruth N. Bolton A. Parasuraman Ankie Hoefnagels Nanne Migchels Sertan Kabadayi Thorsten Gruber
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro David Solnet
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ruth N. Bolton A. Parasuraman Ankie Hoefnagels Nanne Migchels Sertan Kabadayi Thorsten Gruber
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro David Solnet , (2013),"Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media:
a review and research agenda", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 245 – 267
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987
Downloaded on: 27 April 2015, At: 19:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 116 other documents.
To copy this document: [anonimizat]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16227 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Yanli Cui, Elizabeth S. Trent, Pauline M. Sullivan, Grace N. Matiru, (2003),"Cause-related marketing: how
generation Y responds", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Iss 6 pp.
310-320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550310476012
Georgios Tsimonis, Sergios Dimitriadis, (2014),"Brand strategies in social media", Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 328-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0056
Cathy Bakewell, Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, (2003),"Generation Y female consumer decision-making
styles", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 95-106 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550310461994
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Understanding Generation Y and
their use of social media:
a review and research agenda
Ruth N. Bolton, A. Parasuraman, Ankie Hoefnagels,
Nanne Migchels, Sertan Kabadayi, Thorsten Gruber,
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro and David Solnet
( Information about the authors can be found at the end of this article.)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review what we know – and don’t know – about
Generation Y’s use of social media and to assess the implications for individuals, firms and society.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper distinguishes Generation Y from other cohorts in terms
of systematic differences in values, preferences and behavior that are stable over time (as opposed tomaturational or other differences). It describes their social media use and highlights evidence ofintra-generational variance arising from environmental factors (including economic, cultural,technological and political/legal factors) and individual factors. Individual factors include stablefactors (including socio-economic status, age and lifecycle stage) and dynamic, endogenous factors(including goals, emotions, and social norms).The paper discusses how Generation Y’s use of social mediainfluences individuals, firms and society. It develops managerial implications and a research agenda.
Findings – Prior research on the social media use of Generation Y raises more questions than it
answers. It: focuses primarily on the USA and/or (at most) one other country, ignoring other regionswith large and fast-growing Generation Y populations where social-media use and its determinants
may differ significantly; tends to study students whose behaviors may change over their life cycle
stages; relies on self-reports by different age groups to infer Generation Y’s social media use; and doesnot examine the drivers and outcomes of social-media use. This paper’s conceptual framework yields adetailed set of research questions.
Originality/value – This paper provides a conceptual framework for considering the antecedents
and consequences of Generation Y’s social media usage. It identifies unanswered questions aboutGeneration Y’s use of social media, as well as practical insights for managers.
Keywords Generation Y, Millenials, Social media, Media use, Generation, Dark side, Digital media,
Social networking sites, Social norms, Social stratification
Paper type Research paper
Generation Y or the Millennial Generation exerts a peculiar fascination on both managers
and academics. In what has become common parlance, members of Generation Y are
called digital natives, rather than digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001). They are the firstgeneration to have spent their entire lives in the digital environment; information
technology profoundly affects how they live and work (Bennett et al. , 2008; Wesner and
Miller, 2008). Generation Y actively contributes, shares, searches for and consumesThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial comments and advice of Lerzan M. Aksoy,
Jay Kandampully and Allard Van Riel, as well as the reviewers. They also thank the participantsof the Thought Leadership Conference on “Connections, Communities, and Collaboration: Service
Sustainability in the Digital Age” hosted by Radboud University, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands
during June 2012. All authors contributed equally to the paper.Received 5 November 2012
Revised 10 January 2013
Accepted 30 January 2013
Journal of Service Management
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2013
pp. 245-267
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-5818
DOI 10.1108/09564231311326987Generation Y
and social media
245
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

content – plus works and plays – on social media platforms. Service managers and
researchers are interested in Generation Y’s social media usage because it may be aharbinger of how people will behave in the future.
In the popular press, articles about Generation Y have typically focused on the social
media usage patterns of young people of relatively high socio-economic status who livein developed countries where there is relatively unfettered access to informationtechnology and social media platforms. Yet, it is self-evident that (for example)
Generation Y’s social media usage in the USA is very different from South Korea due to
differences in culture and technological infrastructure – and that rich people use socialmedia in different ways than poor people. In this paper, we define Generation Y
(broadly) as all people born between 1981 and 1999 – regardless of their circumstances.
This definition allows us to examine differences in social media usage across diversemembers of Generation Y living in different contexts.
The purpose of this paper is to review what we know – and do not know – about
Generation Y’s use of social media and to assess the implications for individuals, firms and
society. The paper describes a conceptual framework for understanding Generation Y’ssocial media use, its antecedents and its consequences. We believe that it is useful toexplore stable differences in values, preferenc es and behaviors across generational cohorts
(or other market segments), but we caution against overgeneralization. Hence, the paper
concludes by outlining a research age nda to address unanswered questions about
Generation Y’s use of social media.
Service organizations, managers, researchers and public policy makers are interested
in Generation Y’s use of social media because it affects people’s behavior in manydomains – with positive and negative outcomes for customers, firms and their employees,and society. Generation Y’s social media use affects consumers’ identity formation, their
expectations regarding service, formation of habits, engagement with brands and firms,
participation in value co-creation, brand loyalty, purchase behavior and lifetime value,and (ultimately) the value of the firm. It thereby influences organizational decisions aboutservice customization and productivity, such as how resources are allocated between
labor and automation. It also profoundly influences the design and implementation of
interactive services – including location-based, retail and self-service technology(Berry et al. , 2010) – as well as customer relationship management practices. Moreover,
Generation Y’s use of social media has important ramifications for how firms hire and
manage employees. Last, social norms and behavior may be changing due to Generation
Y’s use of social media – affecting civic engagement, attitudes toward privacy, nutrition,health care practices and public safety in the general population.
This paper begins by distinguishing Generation Y from other cohorts in terms of
systematic differences in values, preferences and behavior that are stable over time(as opposed to maturational or other differences). Next, we describe Generation Y’ssocial media use and highlight evidence of intra-generational variance arising from
environmental factors affecting social media use, including economic, cultural,
technological and political/legal factors, as well as individual factors beyond birthcohort. Individual differences arise from relatively stable factors, such as individuals’socio-economic status, personal values/preferences, age and lifecycle stage – as well as
from transaction-specific, dynamic, factors such as their goals, emotions, and social
norms that may both influence and be influenced by social media use. Then, the paperJOSM
24,3
246
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

describes how Generation Y’s use of social media influences outcomes for individuals,
firms and society. It concludes with a discussion of research implications.
Who are Generation Y?
Generation Y or the Millennials
We follow Brosdahl and Carpenter’s (2011) categorization of generations, using thefollowing birth dates for each cohort: the Silent Generation (1925-1945), the Baby Boomers
(1946-1960), Generation X (1961-1981) and Generation Y (born after 1981). There is not
(as yet) widespread agreement on the start and end points for Generation Y (Gen Y). Sincethere is little research on children who have not yet entered high school (at about age 13), the
material in this paper is primarily based on studies of Gen Y members born between
1981 and 1999. Other categorization schemes have been proposed because researchers
do not agree on precisely what life events distinguish one generational group
from another (Zemke et al. , 2000), plus there are within-generation differences. Hence,
Gen Y’s characteristics are sometimes discussed in overly broad, even sweeping, terms.
Nevertheless, it is useful to briefly summarize the characteristics usually ascribed to Gen Y.
A key formative characteristic for Gen Y is early and frequent exposure to
technology, which has advantages and disadvantages in terms of cognitive, emotional,
and social outcomes (Immordino-Yang et al. , 2012). For example, they rely heavily on
technology for entertainment, to interact with others – and even for emotion regulation.Members have experienced long periods of economic prosperity (until the past few
years) and a rapid advance in instant communication technologies, social networking,
and globalization (Park and Gursoy, 2012). Initially, Gen Y seemed to lack a “significantemotional event as tumultuous as the depression of 1929-1940 to serve as a rallying
point” (Alch, 2000). However, members are now experiencing an era of economic
uncertainty and violence (Eisner, 2005), and the worst global recession since 1929.
These external events have shaped Gen Y and influenced their social media use and
buying behavior. Gen Y consumers have benefited from the increased availability ofcustomized products and personalized services (Ansari and Mela, 2003; Berry et al. ,
2010; Bitner et al. , 2000; Peterson et al. , 1997). They “want it all” and “want it now,”
particularly in relation to work pay and benefits, career advancement, work/lifebalance, interesting work and being able to make a contribution to society via
their work (Ng et al. , 2010; Twenge, 2010). Service industries traditionally rely on
younger workers to fill their customer-facing positions, leading to a growing interest inthe work-related challenges of Gen Y (King et al. , 2011; Solnet et al. , 2013).
Generational differences versus age or maturational effects
Research on generational groupings is grounded in generational cohort theory proposed
by Mannheim in 1928 (Smelser, 2001). Generational cohorts within populations
coalesce around shared experiences or events interpreted through a common lens based onlife stage (Sessa et al., 2007), rather than conventional groupings based on social class and
geography. Each generation forever shares a common perspective (Mannheim, 1952;
Simirenko, 1966). As a generation matures, it develops characteristics that differentiate itfrom previous generations: personality traits, work values, attitudes, and motivations
(Smola and Sutton, 2002). For example, a meta-analysis shows that narcissism
(exaggerated self-perceptions of intelligence, academic reputation or attractiveness)Generation Y
and social media
247
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

in Gen Y college students is higher than in previous generations of students (Twenge et al.,
2008), suggesting that this feature will endure.
One of the great challenges in generational research is that many studies are
cross-sectional and do not distinguish between the effects of age versus generational(birth) cohort (Roberts and Mroczek, 2008; Rust and Yeung, 1995; Sessa et al. , 2007).
A limited number of studies have used longitudinal methods (that distinguish between
these two effects); they confirm some generationally enduring traits (Twenge and
Campbell, 2008). A comprehensive review indicates that there are enduring qualities,such as the growing devaluation of work as central to people’s lives and a weaker workethic when comparing Generations X and Y to earlier generations (Twenge, 2010).
Social media usage
We consider social media in the broadest sense of the term and define it as any onlineservice through which users can create and share a variety of content. Although socialmedia have existed from the birth of Gen Y (1981), they were widely adopted after 2003(Boyd and Ellison, 2008). They encompass user-generated services (such as blogs),social networking sites, online review/rating sites, virtual game worlds, video sharingsites and online communities, whereby consumers produce, design, publish, or editcontent (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008).
Research on social media broadly classifies consumer activities as either
contribution (posting) or consumption (lurking or observing) activities (Schlosser,2005; Shao, 2009); it suggests that most users consume rather than contribute to social
media (Jones et al. , 2004). For example, about 53 percent of active social media users
follow a brand (Nielsen, 2009) rather than actively contribute content about the brand.A minority of users usually accounts for a large proportion of generated content(Bughin, 2007). However, over time, some less active consumers do become active(Hanna et al. , 2011). Shao (2009) has noted that some social-media activities, which
are conceptually distinct, may be difficult to differentiate – due to interdependencies asthey unfold over time. In a survey of ten global markets, social networks and blogsare the top online destinations in each country, accounting for the majority of timeonline and reaching 60 percent or more of active internet users (Nielsen, 2009).
Social media usage behavior is developing and transforming at a rapid rate. Hence,
our proposed conceptual framework (Figure 1), delineating the antecedents andconsequences of Gen Y’s social media use, considers relatively broad categories ofusage: contributing, sharing, consuming or searching for content, participating andplaying. The following sections expand on the different components, starting with ourframework’s core: Gen Y’s social media use.
Gen Y’s social media use
A “broad brush” description of Gen Y starts with the observation that many membersgrew up with the computer; they have mastered its use for many aspects of their lives,particularly communication. These digital natives, who are either students or relativelyrecent entrants to the workforce, are often described as technologically savvy and themost visually sophisticated of any generation. A need to interact with others is a keyreason for Gen Y’s use of social media (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). Social media users 18 to34 years old are more likely than older age groups to prefer social media for interactionswith acquaintances, friends and family. They are also more likely to value others’JOSM
24,3
248
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

opinions in social media and to feel important when they provide feedback about the
brands or products they use (eMarketer, 2011).
There is general agreement on Gen Y’s frequent use of social media (i.e. high intensity
of use, one of the two facets of social media use shown in Figure 1) but not on their socialmedia activities (i.e. the types of use facet). Some studies suggest that Gen Y actively
contributes content, creating and mashing (i.e. combining of content from multiple
sources); that they gravitate toward social media sites where they can participate(Dye, 2007); and that they prefer to stay connected and multitask through technology
(Rawlins et al. , 2008). On the other hand, studies of college students (a subset of Gen Y)
suggest that they spend a considerable amount of time simply consuming content(Pempek et al. , 2009), just like other generations. Moreover, Gen Y uses social media for
the same purposes as other cohorts: for information, leisure or entertainment (Park et al.,
2009), for socializing and experiencing a sense of community (Valkenburg et al. , 2006),
and for staying in touch with friends (Lenhart and Madden, 2007).
Antecedents of Gen Y’s social media use
Despite similarities within Gen Y that persist o ver time, there are many factors that influence
an individual’s adoption and use of social med ia. This section describes intra-generational
variance in Gen Y’s social media use due to environmental and individual factors.Environmental factors affecting social media use include economic, technological, cultural
and political/legal variables. Individual di fferences arise from relatively stable factors
(e.g. socio-economic status, personal values/pr eferences, age/lifecycle stage), as well as from
dynamic factors (e.g. goals, emotions and s ocial norms) that may be influenced by, and
change during, social media use. These antecedents are shown on the left hand side of
Figure 1.Figure 1.
Antecedents and
consequences of social
media use by Gen YAntecedents Consequences
Environmental Factors
Economic
Technological
Cultural
Legal/Political
Individual-Level
Factors
Stable Factors
Socio-economic status
Personal
values/preferences
Age/lifecycle stage
Dynamic Factors
Goals
Emotions
Norms/identityIndividual-Level
Social capital
Identity formation
Psychological &
emotional wellbeing
Physical wellbeing
Behavioral outcomes
Firm-Level
Market Intelligence
Brand equity/CLV
Customer-employeeinteractions
Human resources mgmt.
Societal
Civic/Politicalengagement
Privacy/SafetySocial Media
Use by Gen Y
Types of use
Contributing
Sharing
Consuming
Searching
Participating
Playing
Intensity of use
Frequency
DurationGeneration Y
and social media
249
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Environmental factors
Environmental or macro-level factors (sometimes termed “structural factors”) that
vary across countries influence Gen Y’s social media use directly – as well as indirectlyvia effects on individual-level factors such as socio-economic status. Differences in
these factors across countries may lead to conditions that foster or inhibit social media
use, as shown in Figure 1.
Economic environment . A country’s economic environment can influence social
media use due to its impact on disposable income, employment opportunities, consumer
confidence, etc. Budget constraints during an economic downturn will decrease consumerexpenditures, including on hardware that provides access to social media (Kreutzer, 2009;
Lenhart et al. , 2010). Evidence from Pakistan (Rahman and Azhar, 2011), Lithuania
(Urbonavicius and Pikturniene, 2010) and China (Chu and Choi, 2011) suggests that
differences in disposable income are associated with commensurate differences in Gen
Y’s social media use.
Within many countries, the “digital divide” is quite pronounced (Castells et al. , 2004)
and largely mirrors inequalities on the basis of education, income, occupation, social
class and neighborhood (Zhao et al. , 2008). Internet access, identified as being important
for overcoming the digital divide (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008), varies considerably
between low- and high-income economies (Andres et al. , 2010), and between urban and
rural areas (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008). In sum, affordability is an important predictorof penetration of social media use because it captures the ability to pay for devices and
services within countries and markets.
The advent of pre-paid technology has significantly increased affordability of mobile
communications in many markets. Nevertheless, the types and intensity of social media
use may still be affected by income levels. For instance, in South Africa, where internetaccess through mobile phones is almost universal among urban youth, about 23 percent do
not own a mobile phone and need to find ways to share ownership or pay per use (Donner,
2008; Kreutzer, 2009), making the phone itself a rallying point for a social network. Thisbehavior has been observed in other developing countries as well (Castells et al. ,2 0 0 4 ) .
Technological environment . Government policies about and investments in
technology infrastructures can significantly affect internet and social media use.For instance, South Korea has become one of the most technically advanced countries
in terms of broadband penetration and internet usage, thanks to the government’s
concerted efforts (Chung, 2012). In Brazil, government sponsored LAN-houses provide
internet access to the underprivileged (Horst, 2011). In South Africa, the most popular
social network is used to teach mathematics (using distance-learning methods) tochildren in remote areas (Pyramid Research, 2010).
Cultural environment . The nature and intensity of social media use can be shaped by
cultural context, such as whether it is collectivistic or individualistic (Hofstede, 2001).For instance, college students in collectivistic Korea tend to emphasize obtaining social
support from existing social relationships, whereas their counterparts in individualistic
USA focus more on seeking entertainment (Kim, Y. et al. , 2011). The proportion of
“socially close others” in Koreans’ online social networks is substantially higher than in
Americans’ online social networks (70 versus 24 percent). Other studies consistently
report lower numbers of Facebook friends for their East Asian student samples,
compared to US samples (Alhabash et al. , 2012). There are cross-cultural differences
between Chinese and US samples with respect to the topics discussed in online forumsJOSM
24,3
250
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

(Fong and Burton, 2008). At the same time, globalization may encourage homogeneity of
Gen Y social media usage in some domains.
Legal/political environment . Government policies can significantly influence the
adoption and use of social media. Enforcement of the uniform GSM standard across theEuropean Union led to much faster adoption of third generation mobile phones, comparedto the USA (Castells et al. , 2004). The dominance of state-owned NTT DoCoMo in Japan,
with resources to develop pioneering mobile internet applications, enabled youngJapanese to quickly adopt those applications, thereby contributing to intense social
media use as early as 2003 (Castells et al. , 2004). Government intervention in terms of
deregulation of telecommunication markets can also contribute to faster adoption andmore intense use of social media because greater competition improves service tocustomers. Andres et al. (2010) found higher rates of diffusion of the internet in more
competitive markets. Donner (2008) reports similar findings from liberalized, morecompetitive markets for mobile phones.
Other regulations, at times inconsistent, may affect social media use in complex ways.
Since 2003 the Brazilian Government has been promoting a “free culture” (e.g. in the realmof music and other forms of cultural expression), which has produced a generation ofyoung people willing to share but reluctant to pay for digital products (Horst, 2011). Atthe same time, Brazil’s traditional trade barriers still in place adversely affect the
availability and affordability of digital products and services, thereby contributing to
increased use of social networks for activities (e.g. file sharing) that might be consideredas digital piracy (Donner, 2008; Horst, 2011).
Social media have the potential to increase Gen Y’s civic engagement or vice versa
(more on this later). However, the political environment in countries with restrictions onfreedom of expression can influence how social media are used by citizens. In Singapore,the availability of information outside official channels increased political discourseonline, but did not change offline political activity due to restrictions (Skoric et al. ,2 0 0 9 ) .
China, which has some of the most stringent internet restrictions in the world, is keen thatits citizens have wide online access to “correct” information. There is room for expressionas long as citizens employ a degree of self-censorship (Chung, 2012). The government
collected thousands of responses to its five-year plan through a state-sponsored internet
forum. When government policies limit opinions from turning into actions, socialnetworks may become the organizing form of collective political action, especially byyoung people (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012).
Individual factors
Individual-level factors such as socio-economic status, personal values/preferencesand age/lifecycle stage also play an important role in shaping Gen Y’s social mediause (Figure 1). Several of these factors interact with or result from pertinent
environmental factors; hence, they are relatively stable, as is their impact on social media
use. In particular, Gen Y’s socio-economic status (as reflected by education, income andother markers of societal standing) in a geographic region will be strongly influenced bythe economic and technological environment, and related governmental policies. Forexample, low education may lead to low skill levels and usage that emphasizesentertainment rather than information (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008).
In addition to stable factors that have an overarching, enduring influence on Gen Y’s
social media use, each Gen Y member’s individual goals, emotions and norms/identity canGeneration Y
and social media
251
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

influence – and be influenced by – their social media use in real time (Bagozzi and
Dholakia, 2002). These individual factors are diverse; a comprehensive description is
beyond the scope of this paper. For example, extensive research based on the “uses and
gratifications” framework (Katz et al., 1973; McQuail, 1983, pp. 82-83) considers four broad
categories of individual motivations to influence usage of traditional media: information,
personal identity, integration and social interaction and entertainment. However, it is
important to emphasize that we consider individual factors to be “dynamic” – influencingand influenced by social media usage – as portrayed in Figure 1[1]. Thus, a Gen Y member
who goes online to query her social network for information may – as her interactions
with the network evolve over time 2expand her utilitarian goal to include hedonic goals.
Similarly, a Gen Y member’s emotions and norms (e.g. what is perceived as acceptable
or unacceptable behavior) may change over time during a social media interaction.
Identifying what is unique about Gen Y is challenging because the roles that social
media play in a person’s life naturally evolve across lifecycle stages. Moreover, Gen Y is
often referred to as the “Peter Pan Generation” because they tend to delay enteringadulthood by postponing living independently from their parents, marrying, and
starting a family – partly from a desire to avoid perceived “mistakes” by their parents
and to make the right decisions about family and career (Carroll et al. , 2009). For Gen Y,
age may no longer be an accurate indicator of lifecycle stage, and lifecycle stage may be a
stronger determinant of the nature and intensity of social media use. Both within-Gen Ydifferences and the dynamic, interactive links between some individual-level factors and
social media use add to the challenge of identifying Gen Y’s distinct characteristics.
Hence, we can only speculate if and how Gen Y’s usage of social media is unique andwhat short- and long-term effects this may have on individuals, firms, and society at
large. However, there are some previous findings related to Gen Y’s uniqueness vis-a`-vis
personal values/preferences that we briefly outline next.
Gen Y is often characterized as being more skeptical, blunt, and impatient relative to
their predecessors – arguably, due to being raised in an environment of information
transparency and dominated by technolo gies that offer instant gratification.
Cross-generational surveys conducted by Twenge (2007) suggest that Gen Y has a
greater sense of entitlement and a tendency to reject social conventions compared toBaby Boomers at similar ages. Findings from an historical survey of college students
showed systematic differences in personal values between Gen Y and their predecessor
cohorts, e.g. a significantly greater proportion of Gen Y students stated that beingwealthy was very important to them, and values such as developing a meaningful
philosophy of life were not (Healy, 2012). Due to exposure to rapidly changing
technology, accessible education, and highly supportive families, Gen Y members are
considered to be more open to change, technologically savvy, better learners, more
tolerant of diversity, and efficient multi-taskers (NAS, 2006).
In summary, a variety of individual-level factors, both stable and dynamic,
may influence Gen Y’s social media use. However, much is yet to be learned about how
they influence Gen Y’s social media use and whether their influences are unique toGen Y.
Outcomes for individual consumers
This paper considers the effects of Gen Y’s social media use on outcomes for
individuals, firms and society. The right hand side of Figure 1 shows some (not all)JOSM
24,3
252
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

of the consequences of Gen Y’s social media use. We first discuss potential beneficial
effects of Gen Y’s social media use, followed by detrimental effects, i.e. “dark side”.
Beneficial effects
Earlier, we mentioned that one primary reason Gen Y uses social media is to socialize
and experience a sense of community (Valkenburg et al. , 2006). As such, a positive
outcome of Gen Y’s social media use is the formation and maintenance of social capital
(Berthon et al. , 2011; Ellison et al. , 2007; Valenzuela et al. , 2009). Social networks such as
Facebook can boost young people’s social capital because their identities are shaped bywhat they share about themselves and, in turn, what others share and say about them
(Christofides et al. , 2009). Social media use may have additional salutary effects on
Gen Y’s psychological and emotional well-being. For instance, it can strengthen family
bonds (Williams and Merten, 2011) and nurture other supportive social relationships
that enhance Gen Y’s self-esteem (Valkenburg et al. , 2006).
The potential benefits of Gen Y’s social media usage extends to their physical
well-being because social media are efficient and effective in communicating healthinformation to people (Hackworth and Kunz, 2010) – especially in developing countries
with younger populations (dominated by Gen Y) who have limited access to healthcare.
While much is yet to be learned, some research-based insights are available about
effectively communicating health-related information to Gen Y. For example, based on
a meta-analysis of health-communication studies, Keller and Lehmann (2008, p. 126)
suggest that “younger audiences prefer messages about social consequences over
multiple exposures whereas older audiences are more influenced by physical
consequences, regardless of the number of exposures”.
Healthcare – relating to both psychological and physical well-being – illustrates how
social media use has individual-level consequences for Gen Y, as well as managerial
(firm-level) and policymaking (societal) implications. Gen Y’s social media use has
individual-level, firm-level and societal implications (especially vis-a`-visthe “dark side”
as discussed in the next section) in other behavioral domains as well, e.g. risk-taking,
personal-information disclosure, privacy, WOM communications, online purchasing,
ethics, and so forth.
“Dark side” or detrimental effects
Gen Y’s social media use can adversely affect virtually all facets of individual-level
consequences shown in Figure 1, including psychological, emotional and physical
well-being and social development. Since Gen Y is prone to relying heavily on technology
for communication, entertainment, and even emotion regulation, there are serious concerns
about the long-term effects of (over) use on their mental health (Immordino-Yang et al. ,
2012).
Although social media use can enhance Gen Y members’ social capital, it can also have
serious negative consequences if they disclose too much or sensitive personal information
in their quest for social approval. Adolescents and college students who spend more time
online disclose more information (Christofides et al., 2009; Christofides et al., 2012), which
can distort intimate relationships (Lewis and West, 2009). “Need for popularity” is a
strong predictor of information disclosure on Facebook (Ellison et al. , 2007). Although
people may be aware of the potential dangers of social-network participation (such as
stalking or cyber bullying), they have little control over access to their information onGeneration Y
and social media
253
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

social networks (Hundley and Shyles, 2010; Lewis and West, 2009). In addition,
individuals’ loss of privacy is linked to firm-level consequences (such as firms usinginformation from social network sites in recruiting) and societal consequences (such as
governments enacting public safety laws).
Yet another potential downside of Gen Y’s social media use is “internet addiction”
and its negative effects. Teenagers and college students report that they compulsivelycheck social network profiles and updates (Lewis and West, 2009). Online activities cannegatively influence adolescents’ school activities and sleep, and decreasetheir participation in important offline activities (Espinoza and Juvonen, 2011).Moreover, internet addiction has been linked to depression, loneliness and social anxiety(Caplan, 2007; Skoric et al. , 2009). Yet, a recent study of college students (Kittinger et al. ,
2012) found that only a minority reported frequent or occasional problems due their
online behavior; other studies of teenagers and college students suggest that depressionand loneliness may be both consequences and antecedents of internet addiction(Sheldon et al. , 2011; Tokunaga and Rains, 2010). In other words, social media use may
serve as an effective coping mechanism in the short run (thereby leading to even moreintense use), but exacerbate pre-existing problems of psychosocially unhealthyindividuals who may not realize the long-run costs (Sheldon et al. , 2011).
Finally, users of social networking web sites are more likely to engage in risky
behaviors than non-users are (Fogel and Nehmad, 2009). For example, Zhu et al. (2012)
found that online-community p articipation leads individuals to make riskier financial
decisions because they (mistakenly) believe that, if things go wrong, they will get help fromthe community, even if it consists of relative strangers. Whether and to what extent thesocial media use of Gen Y members increases th eir risk-proneness re quire further study,
especially since their risk-taking behaviors are important to firms (e.g. vis-a`-vispurchase
influence, brand trial) and to policymakers (e.g. vis-a`-vis unhealthy/harmful/illegal
behaviors).
Outcomes for firms
Social media are a potential source of market intelligence. Companies such as Appleand Whole Foods monitor social networking sites and blogs to collect relevantinformation pertaining to marketing their offerings. Social media offer opportunities tostrengthen customer relationships by encouraging customers to engage with theirbrands by interacting with each other (Van Doorn et al. , 2010; Verhoef et al. , 2010) and
by fostering online brand or user communities (Goldenberg et al. , 2009; Libai et al. ,
2010; Stephen and Toubia, 2010), which can strengthen brand equity and increase CLV.
For example, Trusov et al. (2009) have shown that referrals on social network sites
have substantially longer carryover effects than traditional advertising and producesubstantially higher response elasticities.
Research-based insights specific to Gen Y’s social media use vis-a`-visthe preceding
firm-level consequences are still pending. However, given the widespread adoption anduse of social media by Gen Y (Sultan et al. , 2009), firms that stimulate engagement,
build relationships and co-create value with their Gen Y customers stand to reap
significant rewards (Peres et al. , 2011). For example, Manchanda et al. (2011) found
that – after joining an online community – customers increased their online purchasesby 37 percent and their offline purchases by nine percent. There is also anecdotalJOSM
24,3
254
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

evidence that people’s use of social media platforms can foster innovative new business
models in developing countries (Donner, 2008).
Gen Y’s use of social media also has implications for customer-employee interactions
and for how firms hire, manage and motivate employees. These implications areespecially significant in service industries, such as hospitality, because increasing
numbers of Gen Y members are entering the workforce (Solnet and Hood, 2008), just as
the global workforce is becoming increasingly “gray” (Baum, 2010). Effectively
managing Gen Y workers and their interactions with significantly more heterogeneous,
multi-generational groups of co-workers and customers is a major challenge, especiallybecause Gen Y is different in their attitudes and approaches to employment relative to
older generations (Solnet and Kralj, 2011). An added complication is that – although
many firms check social networking sites to screen prospective employees (Brown andVaughn, 2012) and sometimes fire employees with inappropriate content (Ciochetti,
2011) – the use of such personal information for human resource decisions could be
regarded as an invasion of privacy and may adversely affect employee productivity,
health and morale (Abril et al., 2012; Ciochetti, 2011). It could also lead to the discovery of
information (e.g. sexual orientation of applicants) that, if used, could violate laws againstselection bias (Brown and Vaughn, 2012) and discrimination (Dwyer, 2011).
Outcomes for society
The previously discussed consequences (both positive and negative) for consumers
and firms of Gen Y’s social media use have corresponding consequences and
implications at the societal level as well. For example, a beneficial consequence is that
social media, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, have been used effectively to
disseminate healthcare information to communities at large, especially teens andyoung adults (Vance et al. , 2009)[2]. Regarding the dark side, humans experience
negative emotions (e.g. anger, envy, hatred and jealousy) and behave offline and online
accordingly (Bevan et al. , 2012; Lyndon et al. , 2011). Hence, the abuse of social media at
the individual level (e.g. stalking, cyber bullying) calls for appropriate legal protections
to ensure public safety. In the remainder of this section, we highlight additional societal
consequences and implications.
Sociologists have long proposed that social change originates from changes in
cohorts of young individuals with common experiences (e.g. formal education,peer-group socialization and historical events) moving through a population
(Ryder, 1965, pp. 843-844). Therefore, Gen Y’s use of social media may be leading to
changes in social norms and behavior at the societal level in domains such as civic and
political engagement, privacy and public safety. In the civic-engagement domain,
Uricchio (2004, p. 140) argues that participation in certain peer-to-peer communities“constitutes a form of cultural citizenship”. Even if individuals participate for identity
and social capital formation and do not coordinate their actions collectively or classify
them as civic engagement, their actions have civic significance. There is evidencesupporting a positive effect of Gen Y’s social media use on political engagement as
well. Social media stimulated and engaged 20-30-year-old citizens to collectively – and
successfully – protest against government plans in Bulgaria (Bakardjieva, 2011).
During the recent Arab Spring, social media connected and organized groups of young
people that triggered massive street demonstrations, followed by the ouster ofgovernment leaders in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt (Comunello and Anzera, 2012).Generation Y
and social media
255
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Members of Gen Y expect firms to respect their desire to keep their private and working
lives separate and to not be judged on the basis of their online identities (Abril et al., 2012).
However, monitoring employees’ social media persona and using the information found arelikely to become the norm unless regulations restrict it (Spinelli, 2010). Unfortunately,
legislation is not keeping up with the fast pace of online developments (Kim, W. et al., 2011).
In the absence of privacy regulations and adva nced technological controls to help people
protect their online privacy, they may start to self-censor their online communications,
thereby contributing to societies’ becoming “less free” (Abril et al., 2012). Relatedly, online
transparency and lack of privacy may become acceptable over time (Spinelli, 2010), leading
to other detrimental consequences – such as y oung people lying online because they expect
that others lie, which can have serious ethi cal consequences (Hundley and Shyles, 2010).
Research implications
The extant literature on Gen Y and its social media use raises more questions than it
answers. With few exceptions, published research in this domain:
.focuses primarily on the US and/or (at most) one other country, ignoring other
regions with large and fast-growing Gen Y populations where social-media use
and its determinants may differ significantly;
.tends to study students whose behaviors may change as they move throughlifecycle stages;
.relies on self-reports by different age groups to infer Gen Y’s social media use;and
.does not examine (in depth) the drivers and outcomes of social-media use.
The conceptual framework in Figure 1, summarizing the antecedents and consequences
of Gen Y’s social media use, and our discussion of the framework, offer a rich agenda forfurther research.
Environmental antecedents of Gen Y’s social media use
There is a need for broad-scope investigations aimed at understanding cross-cultural
and cross-national differences and similarities in Gen Y and its use of social media.As our conceptual framework posits, a variety of environmental factors such as
economic, technological, cultural and legal/political influences may have a direct bearing
on the types and intensity of social media use by Gen Y. Which facets of Gen Y’s social
media use vary significantly across countries and what is the nature of those variations?
Which facets transcend national boundaries and are invariant? If there are significantdifferences in Gen Y’s social media use across countries what factors account for those
differences and what is the relative influence of each determinant factor? Likewise,
if there are similarities in Gen Y and their social media use across regions despitedifferences in environmental factors, what might account for the similarities? Answers
to these and related questions are needed for a comprehensive (i.e. across many
countries) and fine-grained understanding of Gen Y’s social media use.
Environmental factors may also have an indirect effect on Gen Y’s social media use
through their influence on individual-level factors that influence use. For instance,the economic environment of a particular Gen Y cohort could have a bearing on its
socio-economic status and hence the financial resources available to access social media.JOSM
24,3
256
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Likewise, the cohort’s cultural and political/legal environment might play a role in
shaping its values and preferences pertaining to social media. Therefore, cross-national
investigations examining the direct influence of environmental factors on Gen Y’s social
media use should explore how and to what extent those factors affect individual-level
determinants of social media use, such as digital skills.
Individual-level antecedents of Gen Y’s social media use
Most studies consider Gen Y as a single homogeneous cohort; some of these studies
compare and contrast Gen Y with other cohorts such as Gen X and the Baby Boomers.
However, there is likely to be significant heterogeneity within Gen Y in terms of social
media use due to individual level factors identified by our framework. For instance,
researchers typically study Gen Y (defined as those born after 1981) by focusing on
distinct subgroups – high school students, college students, college graduates looking
for a job, and employees early in their careers – who differ in age and lifecycle stage and,
therefore, may differ in their social media use as well. Children (born after 1994) are not
always considered part of Gen Y; teens (ages 13-17) use social media differently than
adults do (Nielsen, 2011). Research-based insights about the nature and extent of
intra-cohort variance in Gen Y’s use of social media are necessary to enhance our
knowledge in this domain.
The characteristic of Gen Y that distinguishes it from other generational cohorts is its
intense exposure to the internet (and other modern technologies) from a very young age.
However, we know little about the consequent stable values and preferences vis-a`-vis
social media use that may be ingrained in Gen Y. Research is needed to uncover enduring
Gen Y traits and understand their roles in this cohort’s social media use. Studies are also
needed that investigate how Gen Y’s more transient and evolving qualities such as goals,
emotions and norms influence – and are in turn influenced by – its social media use.
The roles of transient individual-level drivers may change from one usage context to
another, as well as within a context due to dynamic updating as social media use unfolds.
The nature and impact of transient and evolving drivers – in contrast to enduring
drivers – is worthy of research attention for many reasons. For example, research on
these questions will ultimately help service managers and researchers better understand
how Gen Y’s engagement with brands, product categories or firms is related to their
social media usage (Calder et al. , 2009).
Types and intensity of Gen Y’s social media use
The variety of ways in which members of Gen Y engage with social media (i.e. the different
types and intensity of social media use) is another area meriting more – and more
in-depth – research attention than in the past. Some previous studies and anecdotal
evidence suggest that a majority of social media users are primarily passive observers
rather than active contributors of content. However, there is still much to be learned about:
.the incidence of the different types of social media use shown in Figure 1;
.whether there are discernible differences among Gen Y subgroups thatpredominantly engage in each type of use;
.whether individual-level antecedents have differential effects on each type of use; and
.how Gen Y compares with other cohorts on these issues.Generation Y
and social media
257
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

A related and potentially fruitful line of research is to investigate inter-generational
transfer of Gen Y’s social media use – in particular, under what circumstances and towhat extent is Gen Y’s social media use (in terms of types as well as intensity of use)likely to carry over to older generations? For example, do grandparents of Gen Y youthlearn about social media use from the latter? If so, what specific types of use do theylearn and how intensely do they engage in them?
The nature and extent of the association between types and intensity of Gen Y’s social
media use should be explored. Is the social media use of Gen Y members who engage in
diverse activities necessarily more intense (in terms of frequency of accessing and/or
time spent) than the social media use of other Gen Y members who engage in fewer typesof activities? To what extent are the types and intensity of use in one social-networkingmedium (e.g. Facebook) associated with the types and intensity of use in another(e.g. LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.)? In other words, does the nature of social media use by Gen Y(and distinct subgroups within Gen Y) differ across different media or is it mostlyconsistent? Research-based insights about such questions can serve as a starting pointfor operationalizing the social-media-use construct and developing scales to measure it.Developing behavioral measures and psychometrically sound scales to quantifysocial media use is a research priority; they are essential for rigorous empiricaltracking of diverse types of social media use and their effects on individuals, firms and
societies.
Consequences of Gen Y’s social media use
Insufficient research attention has been devoted to the impact of Gen Y’s social mediause on its members’ social identity, psychological and physical well-being, andmarket-related behaviors (both online and offline), including purchasing andconsumption, word of mouth communications, and brand and user communitybuilding. Scholarly investigations of the nature and magnitude of such individual-leveleffects will significantly add to extant knowledge. In addition, they are essential for
addressing questions that are of practical significance to firms seeking to understand
and capitalize on Gen Y’s social media use. Examples of such questions include thefollowing: what is the degree of consistency among Gen Y’s online and offline identities,preferences and behaviors, e.g. do Gen Y customers who recommend (or denigrate) abrand in social media actually buy (or boycott) the brand? What are the real-time andlong-term influences of word of mouth generated in social media by Gen Y members onother members’ purchase behaviors? Can the effects of social media on online and offlinebehavior be characterized as complements or substitutes? How can firms (or publicpolicy makers) use elements of games or play to engage, build relationships with andultimately influence the behavior of Gen Y? What are effective ways for firms to initiateand support the building of brand communities within Gen Y that foster brand equity,
and thereby contribute to CLV? What are the opportunities and pitfalls of firms
promoting their brands to Gen Y through social media, and in using personalinformation gleaned from social media to customize their offerings?
Apart from the role of Gen Y as customers, another significant facet for firms is
their role as employees. Entry-level, early-career and customer-facing positions inmany firms are likely to be dominated by Gen Y members. Hence, firms need practicalguidance on how best to incorporate insights about Gen Y social media usage into theirhuman resources strategies and policies. Cross-sectional studies show generationalJOSM
24,3
258
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

differences across a range of work attitudes including engagement (Park and Gursoy,
2012; Solnet et al. , 2012). However, it is not clear yet:
.how much of the difference is attributable to generational grouping versus age;
.how Gen Y workers can be managed to become more engaged;
.how to customize engagement practices to benefit the firm; and
.how firms can use social media to enhance employee engagement.
For instance, what are effective ways for using social media to recruit suitable Gen Y
employees and foster their engagement, commitment and loyalty to the firm?
These questions are very important due to demographic trends in many countries.
For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by 2014, nearly 50 percent ofthe population will fall within the Gen Y population. Companies will need to compete forGen Y’s talents. The popular business press offers many anecdotes, but there is littlerigorous empirical research on these questions. Nevertheless, many firms have begun touse social media platforms internally to facilitate communication, collaboration andoutreach to build an engaged and committed workforce. Gen Y employees, who havebeen brought up in a digital world, are more likely to use social media to share ideas andinformation and engage personally and professionally. Hence, research is needed toaddress questions similar to those posed regarding Gen Y members as customers. How
can firms use social media to promote teamwork among employees and enhance their
interactions with customers? What are the effects of allowing or prohibiting Gen Yemployees’ use of social media for personal purposes during work time?
An important issue arises because employees and customers will originate from
multiple generations and (hence) be heterogeneous in terms of social media useand related preferences and values. How do interactions between Gen Y employees andGen Y customers or employees differ from interactions between Gen Y employees andcustomers/employees from other generations? What are the implications of thosedifferences for employee training and related human-resources practices, as well asfor policies concerning the use of social media at work? Given the dearth of knowledgeabout inter-generational interactions in the context of social media use, addressing these
questions may require in-depth qualitative research to lay a foundation for quantitative
follow-up research.
In sum, individual-level consequences of Gen Y’s social media use, in turn, influence
firm-level consequences as well (this link is dep icted by the dotted arrow connecting the two
types of consequences in Figure 1). Likewise, individual-level consequences (collectively)raise broad, society-level issues with potentia l public-policy implications. In particular, the
“dark side” of Gen Y’s social media use for society needs to be studied. For example, doesuse (or overuse) of social media by members of Gen Y have adverse effects on their health(both psychological and physiological) and, if so, what are the resulting long-term costs tosociety at large? Longitudinal studies are also necessary to investigate, for example,
the long-term effects of social media use on the well-being of Gen Y users. Which strategies
could help reduce inappropriate use (or abuse) of social networking web sites?
There is some evidence of negative long-term consequences for society arising from
Gen Y’s social media use, such as a deterioration of civic engagement, a loss of privacyand public safety, and an increase in cyber crime (Lyndon et al. , 2011). However, more
research is required. How will social norms change – especially regarding privacy,Generation Y
and social media
259
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

given the “unforgetting” nature of the internet? Who and what factors are influencing
this trend? What are the consequences of Gen Y being “outer-directed” and having
a self-identify that is co-created by their peer group in a social network? Will
narcissistic tendencies become more dominant as the need to self-promote increasinglybecomes the norm? Which legal, technological and normative controls are necessary
to reduce the negative consequences of the “dark side” of social media use? Which
(social marketing) campaigns could help educate the next generation of social
networking site users about how to use these sites safely and responsibly? What can be
learned from successful campaigns in other areas of (social) life?
Concluding remarks
We hope this review will stimulate managers and public policy makers to identify and
develop service innovations that are beneficial to individuals, firms and society. Gen Y’s
use of social media is already changing the marketplace, the workplace and society; itwill ultimately lead to new business models, processes and products that go far beyond
the examples discussed herein. However, there are still many questions about how Gen
Y’s use of social media will influence individual, firm and societal outcomes in different
contexts. We encourage service researchers to investigate the many questions that we
have identified in this article. We believe the answers can be helpful to consumers,managers and public policy makers.
Notes
1. In research based on the media uses and gratifications approach, individual factors are usually
considered antecedents of consumers’ use of traditional (firm-generated) communicationmedia, such as newspapers and television programs (Malthouse and Peck, 2010). Thisframework has been used to study the factors influencing media usage, such as the durationtime, frequency and completion of newspaper readership (Calder and Malthouse, 2003;Malthouse and Calder, 2006). However, our focus is on social media, which are unique in thattheir “content” is generated collectively by users rather than by firms. In this context,a consumer’s benefit from one instance of social media usage can become his/her goal
(“motivation”) for a subsequent use. Hence: we consider individual factors (i.e. goals, emotions
and norms) as both antecedents and consequences of social media use – that is, they unfolddynamically over time and we categorize uses and gratifications differently – and in a lessgranular way. For example, we consider six broad categories of social media activity, as wellas how often and for how long a consumer engages in the activity, in Figure 1.
2. This article highlights positive and negative consequences of social media usage for
consumers, firms and society. Elsewhere in this issue, two articles discuss these consequencesin terms of value co-creation and describe many examples. Larivie `reet al. (2013) highlight how
value fusion emerges from consumers and firms participating in mobile networks.Van Riel et al. (2013) consider how a service constellation – that is, multiple interdependent
services – contributes to value creation, enabling innovative ways of creating value.
References
Abril, P.S., Levin, A. and Del Riego, A. (2012), “Blurred boundaries: social media privacy and the
twenty-first century employee”, American Business Law Journal , Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 63-124.
Alch, M. (2000), “The echo-boom generation: a growing force in American society”, The Futurist ,
Vol. 5, September, pp. 42-48.JOSM
24,3
260
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Alhabash, S., Park, H., Kononova, A., Chian, Y. and Wise, K. (2012), “Exploring the motivation of
Facebook use in Taiwan”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking , Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 304-311.
Andres, L., Cuberes, D., Diouf, M. and Serebrisky, T. (2010), “The diffusion of the internet:
a cross-country analysis”, Telecommunications Policy , Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, pp. 323-340.
Ansari, A. and Mela, C.F. (2003), “E-customization”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 131-145.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2002), “Intentional social action in virtual communities”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 2-21.
Bakardjieva, M. (2011), “Reconfiguring the mediapolis: new media and civic agency”, New Media
& Society , Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Baum, T. (2010), “Demographic changes and the labour market in the international tourism
industry”, in Yeoman, I., Hsu, C., Smith, K. and Watson, S. (Eds), Tourism and
Demography , Goodfellow, London.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008), “The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the
evidence”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 775-786.
Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A. (2012), “The logic of connective action”, Communication and
Society , Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 739-768.
Berry, L.L., Bolton, R.N., Bridges, C.N., Meyer, J., Parasuraman, A. and Seiders, K. (2010),
“Opportunities for innovation in the delivery of interactive retail services”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing , Vol. 24, pp. 155-167.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L. and Desautels, P. (2011), “Unveiling videos: consumer-generated ads as
qualitative inquiry”, Psychology and Marketing , Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 1044-1060.
Bevan, J.L., Pfyl, J. and Barclay, B. (2012), “Negative emotional and cognitive responses to being
unfriended on Facebook: an exploratory study”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 1458-1464.
Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M.L. (2000), “Technology infusion in service encounters”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 139-149.
Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008), “Social network sites: definition, history and scholarship”,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 13, pp. 210-230.
Brosdahl, D.J. and Carpenter, J.M. (2011), “Shopping orientations of US males: a generational
cohort comparison”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 18, pp. 548-554.
Brown, V.R. and Vaughn, E.D. (2012), “The writing on the (Facebook) wall: the use of social network
sites in hiring decisions”, Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 219-225.
Bughin, J. (2007), “How companies can make the most of user-generated content”, available at:
www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract_visitor.aspx?ar ¼2041and12 ¼16and13
Calder, B.J. and Malthouse, E.C. (2003), “The behavioral score approach to dependent variables”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology , Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 387-394.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An experimental study of the relationship
between online engagement and advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing , Vol. 23, pp. 321-331.
Caplan, S.E. (2007), “Relations among loneliness, social anxiety and problematic internet use”,
CyberPsychology and Behavior , Vol. 10, pp. 234-242.
Carroll, J.S., Badger, S., Willoughby, B.J., Nelson, L.J., Madsen, S.D. and Barry, C.M. (2009),
“Ready or not: criteria for marriage readiness among emerging adults”, Journal of
Adolescent Research , Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 349-375.Generation Y
and social media
261
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J.L. and Sey, A. (2004), “The mobile communication
society, a cross-cultural analysis of available evidence on the social uses of wirelesscommunication technology”, Research Report for the International Workshop on Wireless
Communication Policies and Prospects, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Christofides, E., Muise, A. and Desmarais, S. (2009), “Information disclosure and control on
Facebook: are they two sides of the same coin or different processes?”, CyberPsychology
& Behavior , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-345.
Christofides, E., Muise, A. and Desmarais, S. (2012), “Hey mom, what’s on your Facebook?
Comparing Facebook disclosure and privacy in adolescents and adults”, Social Psychology
and Personality Science , Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 48-54.
Chu, S. and Choi, S.M. (2011), “Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites:
a cross-cultural study of the United States and China”, Journal of Global Marketing ,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Chung, J. (2012), “Comparing online activities in China and South Korea, the internet and the
political regime”, Asian Survey , Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 727-751.
Ciochetti, C.A. (2011), “The eavesdropping employer: a twenty-first century framework for
employee monitoring”, American Business Law Journal , Vol. 48 No. 2.
Comunello, F. and Anzera, G. (2012), “Will the revolution be tweeted? A conceptual framework
for understanding the social media and the Arab Spring”, Islam and Christian – Muslim
Relations , Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Donner, J. (2008), “Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: a review of the
literature”, The Information Society , Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 140-159.
Dwyer, C. (2011), “Privacy in the age of Google and Facebook”, IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine , Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 58-63.
Dye, J. (2007), “Meet Generation C: creatively connecting through content”, E Content , Vol. 30 No. 4.
Eisner, S. (2005), “Managing Generation Y”, SAM Advanced Management Journal , Vol. 1 No. 9,
pp. 34-42.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfeld, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), “The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: social capital
and students’ use of online social network sites”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication , Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1143-1168.
eMarketer (2011), Social Media Outlook for 2011, eMarketer Webinar, available at: www.
emarketer.com
Espinoza, G. and Juvonen, J. (2011), “The pervasiveness, connectedness and intrusiveness of social
network sites”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking , Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 705-709.
Fogel, J. and Nehmad, E. (2009), “Internet social network communities: risk-taking, trust and
privacy concerns”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 153-160.
Fong, J. and Burton, S. (2008), “A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and
country-of-origin effects”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 233-242.
Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D.R. and Hong, J.W. (2009), “The role of hubs in the adoption
process”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Hackworth, B.A. and Kunz, M.B. (2010), “Health care and social media: building relationships via
social networks”, Academy of Health Care Management Journal , Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all connected: the power of the social
media ecosystem”, Business Horizons , Vol. 54, pp. 265-273.
Hargittai, E. and Hinnant, A. (2008), “Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the
internet”, Communication Research , Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 602-621.JOSM
24,3
262
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Healy, M. (2012), “Millenials might not be so special after all, study finds”, USA Today , 15 March.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Horst, H. (2011), “Free, social and inclusive: appropriation and resistance of new media
technologies in Brazil”, International Journal of Communication , Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 437-462.
Hundley, H. and Shyles, L. (2010), “US teenagers’ perceptions and awareness of digital
technology: a focus group approach”, New Media & Society , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 417-433.
Immordino-Yang, M.H., Christodoulou, J.A. and Singh, V. (2012), “Rest is not idleness:
implications of the brain’s default mode for human development and education”,
Perspectives on Psychological Science , Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 352-364.
Jones, Q., Ravid, G. and Rafaeli, S. (2004), “Information overload and the message dynamics of
online interaction spaces”, Information Systems Research , Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 194-210.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. and Gurevitch, M. (1973), “Uses and gratifications research”, Public Opinion
Quarterly , Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 509-523.
Keller, P.A. and Lehmann, D.R. (2008), “Designing effective health communications: a meta
analysis”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing , Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 117-130.
Kim, W., Yeong, O.-R. and So, J. (2011), “The dark side of the internet: attacks, costs and
responses”, Information Systems , Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 675-705.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D. and Choi, S. (2011), “Cultural differences in motivations for using social
network sites: a comparitive study of American and Korean college students”, Computers
in Human Behavior , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 365-372.
King, C., Funk, D.C. and Wilkins, H. (2011), “Bridging the gap: an examination of the relative
alignment of hospitality research and industry priorities”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 30, pp. 157-166.
Kittinger, R., Correia, C.J. and Irons, J.G. (2012), “Relationship between Facebook use and
problematic internet use among college students”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking , Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 324-327.
Kreutzer, T. (2009), Generation Mobile: Online and Digital Media Usage on Mobile Phones Among
Low-Income Urban Youths in South Africa , Centre for Film and Media Studies, University
of Cape Town, Cape Town, available at: www.tinokreutzer.org/mobile
Krishnamurthy, S. and Dou, W. (2008), “Advertising with user-generated content: a framework
and research agenda”, Journal of Interactive Marketing , Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-7.
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2007), Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks: How Teens
Manage Their Online Identities and Personal Information in the Age of MySpace , Pew
Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. (2010), Social Media and Mobile Internet Use
Among Teens and Young Adults , Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Lewis, J. and West, A. (2009), “‘Friending’: London-based undergraduates’ experience of
Facebook”, New Media & Society , Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 1209-1229.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bugel, M.S., de Ruyter, K., Gotz, O., Risselada, H. and Stephen, A.T. (2010),
“Customer-to-customer interactions: broadening the scope of word of mouth research”,Journal of Service Research , Vol. 13, pp. 267-282.
Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J. and Crattty, A. (2011), “College students’ Facebook stalking of
ex-partners”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking , Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 711-716.
McQuail, D. (1983), Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction , Sage, London.Generation Y
and social media
263
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Malthouse, E.C. and Calder, B.J. (2006), “Demographics of newspaper readership: predictors and
patterns of US consumption”, Journal of Media and Business Studies , Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Malthouse, E.C. and Peck, A. (2010), Medill on Media Engagement , Hampton Press, New York, NY.
Manchanda, P., Packard, G. and Pattabhiramaiah, A. (2011), “Social dollars: the economic impact
of customer participation in firm-sponsored online community”, MSI Report 11-115,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Mannheim, K. (1952), “The problem of generations”, in Kecskemeti, P. (Ed.), Essays on the
Sociology of Knowledge , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 276-320.
NAS (2006), Generation Y: The Millennials …Ready or Not, Here They Come , National Academy
of Sciences.
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study
of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology ,V o l .2 5N o .2 ,p p .2 8 1 – 2 9 2 .
Nielsen (2009), “How teens use media”, Nielsen Report, available at: www.nielsen.comNielsen (2011), “State of the media”, Nielsen Social Media Report Q3, available at: www.nielsen.com
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital
Natives , Basic Book, New York, NY.
Park, J. and Gursoy, D. (2012), “Generation effects on work engagement among US hotel
employees”, International journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1195-1202.
Park, N., Kee, K.F. and Valenzuela, S. (2009), “Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes”, CyberPsychology
& Behavior , Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 729-733.
Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A. and Calvert, S.L. (2009), “College students’ social networking
experiences on Facebook”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology ,V o l .3 0N o .3 ,
pp. 227-238.
Peres, R., Shachar, R. and Lovett, M.J. (2011), “On brands and word of mouth”, MSI Report 11-111,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Peterson, R., Balasubramanian, S. and Bronnenberg, B. (1997), “Exploring the implications of the
internet for consumer marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 329-346.
Prensky, M. (2001), “Digital natives, digital immigrants”, On the Horizon , Vol. 9 No. 5.
Pyramid Research (2010), “The impact of mobile services in Nigeria: how mobile tecnologies
are transforming economic and social activities”, available at: www.pyramidresearch.com
Rahman, S. and Azhar, S. (2011), “Xpressions of Generation Y: perceptions of the mobile phone
service industry in Pakistan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics , Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 91-107.
Rawlins, J., Simeon, D.T., Ramdath, D.D. and Chadee, D.D. (2008), “The elderly in trinidad: health,
social and economic status and issues of loneliness”, West Indian Medical Journal , Vol. 57
No. 6, pp. 589-595.
Roberts, B.W. and Mroczek, D. (2008), “Personality trait change in adulthood”, Current Directions
in Psychological Science , Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-35.
Rust, R.T. and Yeung, K.W. (1995), “Tracking the age wave: parsimonious estimation in cohort
analysis”, in Kardes, F.R. and Sujan, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research , Vol. 22,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 680-685.
Ryder, N.B. (1965), “The cohort as a concept in the study of social change”, American Sociological
Review , Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 843-861.JOSM
24,3
264
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Schlosser, A.E. (2005), “Posting versus lurking: communication in a multiple audience context”,
Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 260-265.
Sessa, V.I., Kabacoff, R.I., Deal, J. and Brown, H. (2007), “Generation differences in leader values
and leadership behaviors”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-74.
Shao, G. (2009), “Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification
perspective”, Internet Research , Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Sheldon, K.M., Abad, N. and Hinsch, C. (2011), “A two-process view of Facebook use and
relatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 766-775.
Simirenko, A. (1966), “Mannheim’s generational analysis and acculturation”, The British Journal
of Sociology , Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 292-299.
Skoric, M.D., Ying, D. and Ng, Y. (2009), “Bowling online, not alone: online social capital and
political participation in Singapore”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication ,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 414-433.
Smelser, N.J. (2001), Mannheim, Karl (1893-1947 ), Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 9187-9191.
Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 23, pp. 363-382.
Solnet, D. and Hood, A. (2008), “Generation Y as hospitality employees: framing a research
agenda”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , Vol. 15, pp. 59-68.
Solnet, D. and Kralj, A. (2011), “Generational difference in work attitudes: evidence from the
hospitality industry”, FIU Hospitality and Tourism Review , Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 37-47.
Solnet, D., Kralj, A. and Baum, T. (2013), “360 degrees of pressure: the changing role of HR
professionals in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research ,
2 January.
Solnet, D., Kralj, A. and Kandampully, J. (2012), “Generation Y employees: an examination of
work attitude differences”, The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship ,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 35-52.
Spinelli, C.F. (2010), “Social media: no ‘friend’ of personal privacy”, The Elon Journal of
Undergraduate Research in Communications , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 59-69.
Stephen, A.T. and Toubia, O. (2010), “Deriving value from social commerce networks”, Journal of
Marketing Research , Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 215-228.
Sultan, F., Rohm, A. and Gao, T. (2009), “Factors influencing consumer acceptance of mobile
marketing: a two-country study of youth markets”, Journal of Interactive Marketing ,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 308-328.
Tokunaga, R.S. and Rains, S.A. (2010), “An evaluation of two characteristics of the relationships
between problematic internet use, time spent using the internet and psychosociological
problems”, Human Communication Research , Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 512-545.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional
marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 73
No. 5, pp. 90-102.
Twenge, J.M. (2007), Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident,
Assertive, Entitled- and More Miserable than Ever Before , The Free Press, New York, NY.
Twenge, J.M. (2010), “A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work
attitudes”, Journal of Business and Psychology , Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-210.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits and
their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology , Vol. 23, pp. 862-877.Generation Y
and social media
265
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

Twenge, J.M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Campbell, W.K. and Bushman, B.J. (2008), “Egos inflating
over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory”,
Journal of Personality , Vol. 76, pp. 875-901.
Urbonavicius, S. and Pikturniene, I. (2010), “Consumers in the face of economic crisis: evidence
from two generations in Lithuania”, Economics and Management , Vol. 15, pp. 827-834.
Uricchio, W. (2004), “Cultural citizenship in the age of P2P networks”, in Bondebjerg, I.
and Golding, P. (Eds), European Culture and the Media , Intellect Books, Bristol, pp. 139-163.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N. and Kee, K.F. (2009), “Is there social capital in a social network site?
Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust and participation”, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 875-901.
Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J. and Schouten, A.P. (2006), “Friend networking sites and their
relationship to adolescents’ wel l-being and social self-esteem”, CyberPsychology
& Behavior , Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 584.
Vance, K., Howe, W. and Dellavalle, R. (2009), “Social internet sites as a source of public health
information”, Dermatologic Clinics , Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 113-136.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010),
“Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal
of Service Research , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective
in customer management”, Journal of Service Research , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 247-252.
Wesner, M.S. and Miller, T. (2008), “Boomers and Millenials have much in common”,
Organizational Development , Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 89-96.
Williams, A. and Merten, M.J. (2011), “iFamily: internet and social media technology in the family
context”, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 150-170.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace , AMACOM, New York, NY.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. and Martin, J. (2008), “Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment
in anchored relationships”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1816-1836.
Zhu, R., Dholakia, U.M., Chen, X. and Algesheimer, R. (2012), “Does online communitiy
participation foster risky financial behaviour?”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 394-407.
Authors’ affiliations
Ruth N. Bolton is based at the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona, USA.
A. Parasuraman is based at the School of Business Administration, University of Miami,
Coral Gables, Florida, USA.
Ankie Hoefnagels and Nanne Migchels is based at the Institute for Management Research,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sertan Kabadayi is based at the Schools of Business, Fordham University, New York City,
New York, USA.
Thorsten Gruber is based at the School of Business and Economics, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK.
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro is based at the Schools of Business, Fordham University,
New York City, New York, USA.
David Solnet is based at the School of Tourism, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia.JOSM
24,3
266
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

About the authors
Dr Ruth N. Bolton is Professor of Marketing at the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona StateUniversity. She studies customers’ relationships with service organizations over time. She servedas Executive Director of the Marketing Science Institute (2009-2011) and as Editor of the
Journal of Marketing (2002-2005). She previously worked in research and development at Verizon
Communications from 1987 to 1995 and served on the faculty of several universities.Ruth N. Bolton is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ruth.bolton@asu.edu
A. Parasuraman (“Parsu”) is Professor and Holder of the James W. McLamore Chair in
Marketing and Director of PhD Programs at the School of Business, University of Miami.
He teaches and does research in the areas of services and technology’s role in serving customers.He has published extensively in scholarly journals, written a textbook on Marketing Research ,
and co-authored several research monographs and three business books.
Ankie Hoefnagels is a PhD candidate at Radboud University Nijmegen, Institute for
Management Research, a Senior Lecturer in Communication Management at Zuyd Universityand member of the Research Centre International Business and Communication. Her research
focuses on intercultural competence as an antecedent of relationship quality in service settings.
She has published several conference papers and a textbook on intercultural communication inthe hospitality & tourism industry.
Nanne Migchels is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Nijmegen School of Management,
Radboud University Nijmegen. He teaches and does research in the areas of social media and
customer behaviour. He has co-authored a case book for teaching marketing and strategy anda handbook that introduces marketing to artists and other cultural entrepreneurs.
Sertan Kabadayi is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Schools of Business, Fordham
University. He conducts research primarily in the areas of distribution channels, multiplechannel strategies, social media and web site loyalty. He has published in a variety of academicjournals including Journal of Marketing ,Journal of Business Research ,Industrial Marketing
Management andPsychology& Marketing .
Thorsten Gruber is Chair and Professor in Marketing and Service Management at
Loughborough University. His research interests include consumer complaining behavior,services marketing and the development of qualitative online research methods. His work has
been published in journals such as Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of
Product Innovation Management ,Journal of Business Research, Journal of Service Management,
andIndustrial Marketing Management.
Yuliya Komarova Loureiro is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Fordham University
Schools of Business, New York City. She earned her Doctorate from the University of
South Carolina in 2010. Her research interests lie primarily in the realms of affect-related biasesin consumer judgment, ethics in advertising, and neuroeconomics. In particular, she focuses on
public policy implications of consumers’ suboptimal economic decisions as a consequence of
their mood, emotions and feelings.
Dr David Solnet is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Tourism at the University of Queensland
in Brisbane, Australia; and managing director of Shift Directions, a consulting firm specialising
in service quality improvement and managerial level training. He comes from a restaurant
background, with many years managing restaurants in the USA and Australia. He has publishedwidely in the academic literature, focused on HRM, service excellence and service climate.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprintsGeneration Y
and social media
267
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1.D. Christopher Taylor, Nelson A. Barber, Cynthia Deale. 2015. To tweet or not to tweet: that is the
question for hoteliers: a preliminary study. Information Technology & Tourism . [CrossRef ]
2.Rodney Graeme Duffett. 2015. The influence of Facebook advertising on cognitive attitudes amid
Generation Y. Electronic Commerce Research . [CrossRef ]
3.Ronald Ferguson, Jennifer Gutberg, Kaspar Schattke, Michèle Paulin, Nina Jost. 2015. Self-determination
theory, social media and charitable causes: An in-depth analysis of autonomous motivation. European
Journal of Social Psychology n/a-n/a. [ CrossRef ]
4.Michèle Paulin, Ronald J. Ferguson, Kaspar Schattke, Nina Jost. 2014. Millennials, Social Media,
Prosocial Emotions, and Charitable Causes: The Paradox of Gender Differences. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing 26, 335-353. [ CrossRef ]
5.Girish Prayag, Giacomo Del Chiappa. 2014. Hotel disintermediation in France: perceptions of students
from Generation Y. Anatolia 25, 417-430. [ CrossRef ]
6.Girish Prayag, Giacomo Del ChiappaPerceptions of Hotel Disintermediation: The French Generation Y
Case 121-127. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF] [PDF]
7.Ufuoma Akpojivi, Ayesha Bevan-Dye. 2014. Mobile advertisements and information privacy perception
amongst South African Generation Y students. Telematics and Informatics . [CrossRef ]
8.Gerard Stone, Brenton Andrew Fiedler, Chris Kandunias. 2014. Harnessing Facebook for Student
Engagement in Accounting Education: Guiding Principles for Accounting Students and Educators.
Accounting Education 23, 295-321. [ CrossRef ]
9.Michele Paulin, Ronald J. Ferguson, Nina Jost, Jean-Mathieu Fallu. 2014. Motivating millennials to
engage in charitable causes through social media. Journal of Service Management 25:3, 334-348. [ Abstract ]
[Full Text ] [PDF]
10.Jochen Wirtz, Sven Tuzovic, Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. The role of marketing in today's enterprises.
Journal of Service Management 25:2, 171-194. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF]
11.Ainsley James, Bev Taylor, Karen Francis. 2014. Researching with young people as participants: Issues in
recruitment. Contemporary Nurse 47, 36-41. [ CrossRef ]
12.Peter S.H. Leeflang, Peter C. Verhoef, Peter Dahlström, Tjark Freundt. 2014. Challenges and solutions
for marketing in a digital era. European Management Journal 32, 1-12. [ CrossRef ]
13.Ainsley James, Bev Taylor, Karen Francis. 2013. Researching with young people as participants: issues in
recruitment. Contemporary Nurse 4564-4573. [ CrossRef ]
14.Souad Djelassi, Isabelle Decoopman. 2013. Customers' participation in product development through
crowdsourcing: Issues and implications. Industrial Marketing Management 42, 683-692. [ CrossRef ]
15.V. Kumar, Veena Chattaraman, Carmen Neghina, Bernd Skiera, Lerzan Aksoy, Alexander Buoye, Joerg
Henseler. 2013. Data‐driven services marketing in a connected world. Journal of Service Management 24:3,
330-352. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF]
16.Bart Larivière, Herm Joosten, Edward C. Malthouse, Marcel van Birgelen, Pelin Aksoy, Werner H. Kunz,
Ming‐Hui Huang. 2013. Value fusion. Journal of Service Management 24:3, 268-293. [ Abstract ] [Full
Text] [PDF]
17.Allard C.R. van Riel, Giulia Calabretta, Paul H. Driessen, Bas Hillebrand, Ashlee Humphreys, Manfred
Krafft, Sander F.M. Beckers. 2013. Consumer perceptions of service constellations: implications for service
innovation. Journal of Service Management 24:3, 314-329. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF]
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)

18.Jochen Wirtz, Anouk den Ambtman, Josée Bloemer, Csilla Horváth, B. Ramaseshan, Joris van de
Klundert, Zeynep Gurhan Canli, Jay Kandampully. 2013. Managing brands and customer engagement in
online brand communities. Journal of Service Management 24:3, 223-244. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF]
19.Vera Blazevic, Wafa Hammedi, Ina Garnefeld, Roland T. Rust, Timothy Keiningham, Tor W. Andreassen,
Naveen Donthu, Walter Carl. 2013. Beyond traditional word‐of‐mouth. Journal of Service Management
24:3, 294-313. [ Abstract ] [Full Text ] [PDF]
20.Ellen Stokinger, Wilson OzuemSocial Media and Customer Retention: 200-222. [ CrossRef ]
Downloaded by New York University At 19:22 27 April 2015 (PT)