Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication

618

Published on

Invited talk at the Brown Bag Seminar Jena Graduate School Human Behavior in Social & Economic Change, 11.07.2012 …

Invited talk at the Brown Bag Seminar Jena Graduate School Human Behavior in Social & Economic Change, 11.07.2012

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
618
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Absent ties!
  • Durchschnittsalter 24, 72% weiblich
  • Volg-like gedrag door low and comm. Commitment, nothuman voice!Participationhuman voice and flow
  • Transcript

    • 1. Context collapse on social media: implicationsfor interpersonal and marketing communication Sonja Utz VU University Amsterdam & NHL Leeuwarden 11.07.2012 Brown Bag Seminar Jena Graduate School Human Behavior in Social & Economic Change
    • 2. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    • 3. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Strong tie emotional support Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    • 4. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Weak tie information Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    • 5. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues absent tie useless Amsterdam friends Friends from school Sonja Utz
    • 6. My social network today Sonja Utz
    • 7. Characteristics of social media• Blurring boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication, between private and public communication Context collapseImplications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or brands Sonja Utz
    • 8. Social network sitesWe define social network sites as web-based servicesthat allow individuals to(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,(2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.(boyd & Ellison, 2007) Sonja Utz
    • 9. Dealing with information on own profile: The privacy-paradox Sonja Utz
    • 10. Privacy settings Sonja Utz
    • 11. Who can see the profiles?• Early studies => about 70% of all profiles public (Gross & Acquisti, 2006; Lewis et al. ,2008; Thelwall, 2008)• Meanwhile => majority of profiles only accessible for „friends“ (Utz & Krämer, 2009) Sonja Utz
    • 12. Privacy-Network, German Sample (n = 809) Visible for…Part profile me friends Friends of everybody everybody friends in the networkcontact details 51,4% 46,1% 1% 0,5% 1%birthday 12,1% 72,5% 7,7% 4% 3,7%relationship status 27,9% 62,4% 4,5% 2,4% 2,8%occupation/university 6,9% 58,6% 11,7% 14,3% 8,5%place of residence 15,8% 57,4% 10,2% 9,1% 7,5%interests 8,1% 75% 9,3% 3,3% 4,2%status updates 3,7% 87% 7% 0,8% 1,5%profile picture 1% 35,1% 10,5% 27,8% 25,6 Supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1) Sonja Utz
    • 13. Factors influencing choice of privacy settings Privacy concerns + + Norms Restrictive - Privacy settings Narcissism/ - need for popularitysee Utz & Krämer (2009); Utz, Tanis & Vermeulen (2012) Sonja Utz
    • 14. Only “friends”• Dutch students 2010: Hyves M = 249 (SD = 149) Facebook M = 204 (SD = 129)• Dutch pupils, 2012: Hyves M = 240 (SD = 188) Facebook M = 78 (SD = 91)• German SNS users, 2011: M = 204 (SD = 138) Sonja Utz
    • 15. Potential audience: Who are these “friends”? friends 100 other family members 90 colleagues 80 partner 70 expartner 60 people Im interested in 50 parents 40 boss/teacher 30 people I know but havent 20 met in person celebrities 10 strangers 0 (grand)children %Supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1) Sonja Utz
    • 16. Audience management (Schmidt, 2011)• Potential audience: people who can receive the message• Intended audience: people the sender has in mind when posting the message• Empirical audience: people who actually read the message Sonja Utz
    • 17. Intended audience: mainly friends 100 potential audience intended audience 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 friends other family colleagues partner expartner people Im parents boss/teacher people I celebrities strangers members interested in know butSupported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR havent met498/11-1) in person Sonja Utz
    • 18. Intended vs. empirical audience not intended, but empirical intended, but not empirical201816141210 8 6 4 2 0 friends other family colleagues partner expartner people Im parents boss/teacher people I know celebrities strangers members interested in but havent met in person Sonja Utz
    • 19. What do people disclose? students NHL teachers NHL543210 Sonja Utz
    • 20. Predictors of self-disclosure• Facebook use: – Login frequency, number of friends, number of face-to-face friends, public use (status updates, likes,…), private use (chat, privat message) – Network diversity – Privacy settings• Personality – Need for popularity, privacy concerns, impression management Sonja Utz
    • 21. Results students R2adj = .38 age - .19 .38Public use Self- disclosure .14, p < .10Private use .14, p < .10 Network diversity Sonja Utz
    • 22. Results teachers R2adj = .46 Impression .41management .48 Public use Self- disclosure Sonja Utz
    • 23. Conclusion privacy  self- presentation• People use SNS to stay in touch with people; self- presentation not main goal• Change over time: more sensitive privacy-settings => “only friends”• but: many „friends“• Problematic: discrepancy between potential, intended and empirical audience• Self-disclosure – Younger people: strong positivity norm – Older people: strategic impression management Sonja Utz
    • 24. Characteristics of social mediaImplications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or brands Sonja Utz
    • 25. SNS and romantic relationships Sonja Utz
    • 26. SNS and romantic relationships• More information about partner available• Socially accepted way of “monitoring” the partner• Public display of the information, at least within circle of “friends”• => can be very self-threatening Sonja Utz
    • 27. Prior research• Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais (2009)• Facebook jealousy scale• Predicted mainly by trait jealousy, but also by Facebook use Sonja Utz
    • 28. Goals present research• Focus also on positive effects: relationship happiness• Replicate and extend the findings by Muise et al. (2009)• Examine the role of need-for-popularity• Examine the moderating role of self-esteem Sonja Utz
    • 29. The role of need for popularity and self-esteem• SNS ideal venue for people with a high need for popularity => idealized self-presentation + relevant audience• People want to display their relationships (Zhao et al., 2008)• => partner can threaten this idealized self- presentation (public self-threat; Afifi et al., 2001)• Self-esteem moderator in relationship research; face-threat should be higher for low self-esteem individuals Sonja Utz
    • 30. Hypotheses – SNS jealousy• H1:Trait jealousy is positively related to SNS jealousy.• H2: Monitoring behavior is positively related to SNS jealousy.• H3: SNS use, especially use for grooming, is positively related to SNS jealousy.• H4: Need for popularity is positively related to SNS jealousy.• H5: Self-esteem moderates the effects of SNS use and need for popularity on SNS jealousy. Sonja Utz
    • 31. Hypotheses – SNS relationship happiness• H6: Relationship satisfaction is positively related to SNS relationship happiness.• H7: SNS use, especially use for grooming, is positively related to SNS relationship happiness.• H8: Need for popularity is positively related to SNS relationship happiness.• H9: Self-esteem moderates the effects of SNS use and need for popularity on SNS relationship happiness. Sonja Utz
    • 32. Method• Online survey among students• SNS jealousy: Scale by Muise et al. (2009)• SNS relationship happiness: similar scale, positive aspects, e.g. “How likely are you to become happy if your partner posted an accurate relationship status”• SNS use: frequency of logins, SNS intensity (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), SNS use for profile maintenance, SNS use for grooming• Trait jealousy (one item), monitoring behavior (e.g., check partner’s email, search partner’s bags)• Relationship satisfaction (1= not at all happy – 5 = very happy) Sonja Utz
    • 33. Results 54.5 43.5 32.5 low self-esteem 2 high self-esteem1.5 10.5 0 happiness jealousy Sonja Utz
    • 34. SNS jealousy Sonja Utz
    • 35. SNS jealousy Sonja Utz
    • 36. SNS happiness Sonja Utz
    • 37. SNS happiness Sonja Utz
    • 38. Discussion• Effects on SNS jealousy stronger• Need-for-popularity important predictor for low self-esteem individuals (jealousy and happiness)• => “wrong” behavior of the partner on a SNS is a public face-threat• Relationship happiness mainly influenced by SNS use => avoiding negative impression more important? Sonja Utz
    • 39. Conclusion• SNS play an important role for romantic relationships• In general: more relationship happiness than jealousy• But: low self-esteem individuals with a high need for popularity feel easily threatened Sonja Utz
    • 40. Characteristics of social mediaImplications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or brands Sonja Utz
    • 41. Does interaction with voters help? Sonja Utz
    • 42. Experiment • 2 (position of the politician: left-wing vs. right-wing) x 2 (interaction with voters: yes vs. no) - design Sonja Utz
    • 43. Right-wing politicians benefit from interaction no interaction interaction 3.2 3 evaluation of the politician 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 right-wing left-wing political orientation of the candidate Sonja Utz
    • 44. Left-wing voters pay more attention to interaction reaction no reaction 3,4 3,2Evaluation of the politician 3 2,8 2,6 2,4 2,2 2 left-wing right-wing Political orientation of the participant Sonja Utz
    • 45. marketing context Sonja Utz
    • 46. Prior research on the role of interactivity• Different types of interactivity (e.g., McMillan, 2002) – (user-to-document) – user-to-user – user-to-system• Flow as mediator (Van Noort, Voorveld & Van Reijmersdaal, in press) Sonja Utz
    • 47. Model flowUser-to-system interactivity Affective and cognitiveBrand-to-user responses interactivity Need-to-belong Communicated commitment human voice
    • 48. Method• Online experiment 2 (brand-to-user interactivity: low vs. high) x 2 (user-to-system interactivity: low vs. high) x 2 (need-to-belong: low vs. high) – design• Case: Facebook Fanpage Bijenkorf• Dependent variables: attitude towards the fanpage, intention to like the fanpage, participation intention, loyalty, buying intention• Controlled for prior attitude towards Bijenkorf Sonja Utz
    • 49. Results: main effects of brand-to-userinteractivty on Facebook-related variables low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity6543210 attitude liking fanpage * participation buying loyalty fanpage * fanpage * intention Sonja Utz
    • 50. Results: interaction effect on participation intention low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 low user-to-system interactivity high user-to-system interactivitySimilar pattern, but marginal effect on attitude towards the Fanpage Sonja Utz
    • 51. Results: marginal interaction need-to-belong and brand-to- user interactivity on attitude toward the fanpage low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity6543210 low need-to-belong high need-to-belong Sonja Utz
    • 52. Results: effects on possible mediators low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity6543210 communicated-commitment human voice flow Sonja Utz
    • 53. mediation analysis 1 Communicated commitment 2 human voice 3 flow • attitude Fanpage (all three)Brand-to-user • liking intention (1 + 3) interactivity •participation (2 + 3) Sonja Utz
    • 54. hypothetical model flowUser-to-system interactivity Affective and cognitiveBrand-to-user responses interactivity Need-to-belong Communicated commitment human voice
    • 55. empirical model User-to-system interactivity FacebookBrand-to-user variables interactivity Communicated commitment human voice flow
    • 56. Discussion• Brand-to-user interactivity matters much more than user-to-system interactivity• Not much influence of need-to-belong; effects stronger for people with low need-to-belong• Flow, communicated commitment and human voice as mediators Sonja Utz
    • 57. Implications• (potential) consumers want human interaction on social media• flow plays an important role• mainly effects on Facebook-related variables => transfer to offline-world problematic Sonja Utz
    • 58. Wrap up
    • 59. Summary• Context collapse on social mediaImplications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or brands Sonja Utz

    ×