Mobile donation in America

Mobile Media and Communication

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 196-212

  Chen, Wenhong ^a   Givens, Travis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

civic engagement; digital divides; donation; mobile communication; U G

Indexed keywords

EID: 85002657672     PISSN: 20501579     EISSN: 20501587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2050157913476028     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agre P. E., (2002). Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. The Information Society, 18(5), 311–331. doi: 10.1080/01972240290075174
2. American Red Cross. (2010). FAQ mobile giving. Retrieved from: https://american.redcross.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=%2Fntld_Haiti_text2help_faqs#Q1
3. Andreoni J., Brown E., Rischall I., (2003). Charitable giving by married couples. Journal of Human Resources, XXXVIII(1), 111–133. doi: 10.3368/jhr.XXXVIII.1.111
4. Bekkers R., (2010). Who gives what and when? A scenario study of intentions to give time and money. Social Science Research, 39, 369–381. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.008
5. Bilton N., (2012, January 30). Obama and Romney campaigns adopt Square for funding. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/obama-and-romney-campaigns-adopt-square-for-funding/
6. Burrell J., (2010). Evaluating shared access: Social equality and the circulation of mobile phones in rural Uganda. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(2), 230–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2010.01518.x
7. Campbell S.W., Kwak N., (2010a). Mobile communication and social capital: An analysis of geographically differentiated usage patterns. New Media & Society, 12(3), 435–451. doi: 10.1177/1461444809343307
8. Campbell S. W., Kwak N., (2010b). Mobile communication and civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political engagement. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 536–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.2010.01496.x
9. Campbell S. W., Kwak N., (2011a). Mobile communication and civil society: Linking patterns and places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication Research, 37(2), 207–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2958.2010.01399.x
10. Campbell S. W., Kwak N., (2011b). Political involvement in “mobilized” society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1005–1024. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.2011.01601.x
11. Campbell S. W., Russo T. C., (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: An application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 317–334. doi: 10.1080/0363775032000179124
12. Chen K., Lo V.-H., Wei R., Xu X., Zhang G., (2012). A comparative study of the relationship between mobile phone use and social capital among Asian college students. Paper presented at the Mobile Communication, Community and Locative Media Practices: From the Everyday to the Revolutionary Preconference, International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
13. Chen W., Wellman B., (2005). Minding the gaps: The digital divide and social inequality. In Romero M., Margolis E., (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Social Inequalities (pp. 523–545). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14. Cheung C.-K., Chan C.-M., (2000). Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning. 23, 241–253. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149–7189(00)00003–3
15. Donner J., (2008). Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: A review of the literature. The Information Society, 24(3), 140–159.
16. Gil de, Zúñiga H., Valenzuela S., (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397–421. doi: 10.1177/0093650210384984
17. Gillum J., (2012, June 11). FEC allows campaign donations via text messaging. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/11/2844665/fec-allows-campaign-donations.html
18. Giving USA Foundation. (2011). Annual report on philanthropy.
19. Hampton K. N., Livio O., Goulet L. S., (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701–722. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.2010.01510.x
20. Heath T., (2010, January 19) U.S. cellphone users donate $22 million to Haiti Earthquake Relief via text. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803792.html
21. Horrigan J., (2009). The mobile difference. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
22. Jensen M. J., Danziger J. N., Venkatesh A., (2007). Civil society and cyber society: The role of the Internet in community associations and democratic politics. Information Society, 23(1), 39–50. doi: 10.1080/01972240601057528
23. Katz E., Blumler J. G., Gurevitch M., (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. doi: 10.1086/268109
24. Katz J.E., Aakhus M., (2002). Conclusion: Making meanings of mobile – a theory of apparatgeist. In Katz J.E., Aakhus M., (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 301–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Katz J.E., (2008). Handbook of mobile communication studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Kluitenberg E., (2006). The network of waves. Open, 11, 6–17.
27. Lee Y., Chang C., (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1173–1180.
28. Lenhart A., Horrigan J., Rainie L., Allen K., Boyce A., Madden M., O’Grady E. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project.
29. Leung L., Wei R., (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308–320. doi: 10.1177/107769900007700206
30. Ling R., Yttri B., (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In Katz J.E., Aakhus M., (Eds.) Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Ling R., (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
32. Ling R., (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Ling R., Yttri B., Anderson B., DiDuca D., (2003). Mobile communication and social capital in Europe. In Nyiri K., (Ed.), Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self, and politics (pp. 359–373). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
34. Little R. J. A., Rubin D. B., (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-InterScience.
35. mGive Foundation (2011). Text giving donor survey report. http://www.mgive.com/Studies/DonorSurveyReport.aspx.
36. Mobile Accord. (2012). The Mobile Accord and mGive story. http://www.mgive.com/AboutUs.aspx
37. Norris P., (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Norris P., Inglehart R., (2009). Cosmopolitan communications: Cultural diversity in a globalized world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011). Trend Data (Adults). http://www.pewinternet.org/Data-Tools/Download-Data/Trend-Data.aspx
40. Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N. P., (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.5.879
41. Putnam R.D., (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
42. Reinstein D., (2011). Does one charitable contribution come at the expense of another? http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol11/iss1/art40
43. Rheingold H., (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York: Basic Books.
44. Rogers E. M., (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
45. Rojas H., Puig-i-Abril E., (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the Digital Age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 902–927. doi: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2009.01475.x
46. Rubanenko G., (2006). Online gift donor profile. Charleston, SC: Blackbaud, Inc.
47. Rubin A.M., (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 67–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1984.tb02174.x
48. Rubin D. B., (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.
49. Ruggiero T. E., (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37. doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02
50. Selwyn N., (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362. doi: 10.1177/1461444804042519
51. Seo M., Sun S., Merolla A. J., Zhang S., (2012). Willingness to help following the Sichuan Earthquake: Modeling the effects of media involvement, stress, trust, and relational resources. Communication Research, 39, 3–25. doi: 10.1177/0093650210388407
52. Shah D., Kwak N., Holbert L., (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141–162. doi: 10. 1080/105846001750322952
53. Smith A., (2010). Mobile access 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
54. Smith A., (2011a). Americans and their cell phones. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
55. Smith A., (2011b). Americans and text messaging. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
56. Smith A., (2012). Real time charitable giving. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
57. Smith A., Schlozman K. L., Verba S., Brady H., (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
58. Starbird K., Palen L., (2011). “Voluntweeters”: Self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11, (pp. 1071–1080). New York, NY: ACM.
59. StataCorp. (2011). Stata multiple imputation reference manual release 12. Stata Press. College Station, TX.
60. TeleNav Inc. (2011). Survey finds one-third of Americans more willing to give up sex than their mobile phones. http://www.telenav.com/about/pr-summer-travel/report-20110803.html.
61. Vargas J. A., (2008). Obama raised half a billion online. The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html.
62. Vieweg S., Hughes A. L., Starbird K., Palen L., (2010). Microblogging during two natural hazards events: What twitter may contribute to situational awareness. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’10, (pp. 1079–1088). New York, NY: ACM.
63. Vincent J., (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(1), 39–44. doi: 10.1007/s12130–006–1013–7
64. Walker R., (2011). Eight is not enough: A historical, cultural, and philosophical analysis of the flash mob. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112011–102646/
65. Weberling B., (2010). Mobilizing disaster relief: U.S. media coverage and public response to the tsunami and Pakistan earthquake. International Communication Research Journal, 45(3–4), 50–80.
66. Weberling B., Waters R., (2012). Gauging the public’s preparedness for mobile public relations: The ‘Text for Haiti’ campaign. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 51–55.
67. Woyke E., (2010). What the Red Cross learned from its Haiti mobile campaign. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2010/08/26/what-the-red-cross-learned-from-its-haiti-mobile-campaign/
68. Zillien N., Hargittai E., (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291.