Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Digital crowding: When social media goes bad
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

Digital crowding: When social media goes bad

902
views

Published on

Slides on 'digital crowding' for a talk on 13th May at a SAS Design event. Somehow lost the images acknowledgement page in the final save - will rebuild and replace....

Slides on 'digital crowding' for a talk on 13th May at a SAS Design event. Somehow lost the images acknowledgement page in the final save - will rebuild and replace....

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
902
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
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

Transcript

  • 1. Social media: a danger to itself?
    • Dr. Adam N. Joinson
    • Interactions Lab,
    • School of Management
    • University of Bath
    • www.interactionslab.net
    • [email_address]
  • 2.  
  • 3.  
  • 4. 2 Crowding != Density
  • 5. 3 Crowding is a psychological response to spatial constraints
  • 6. 4 4 Crowding leads to Mental health problems (stress, depression, suicide, anxiety) Problematic social relations
  • 7. 5 Increased territoriality
  • 8. 6 Physical illness Increased desire to withdraw Family quarrels Aggressive behavior
  • 9. 7 The mental attitude of the people of the metropolis to one another may be designated formally as one of reserve... Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the inner side of this external reserve is not only indifference but more frequently than we believe, it is a slight aversion, a mutual strangeness and repulsion which, in a close contact which has arisen any way whatever, can break out into hatred and conflict. Georg Simmel (1903)- The Metropolis and Mental life
  • 10. social media and crowding
    • Disruption of dynamic boundary regulation
    • Overlapping social spheres, audiences
    • Unfettered sharing of personal information
    8 8
  • 11. Openness and Intimacy
    • Intimacy theories follow an ‘ideology of openness’ (Parks, 1992)
    • Self-disclosure associated with relationship satisfaction, ratings of closeness, love.
    • Propinquity & mere exposure effects
    • Danger of uncertainty (Knobloch, 2007)
      • especially out of character behaviour (Turner, 1990)
    • Lack of monitoring can be a problem
    9 9 openness and relationships
  • 12.
    • The move to real names from pseudonyms
    • Lack of privacy control (real, normative)
    • Need to generate value (relational and for the organisation)
    • Historical and current information
    • Social graph information
    • Google
    • Broadcasting & persistence (Binder et al, 2009)
    10 10 openness and social media
  • 13. 11 Radical transparency
  • 14. 12
  • 15. 13
  • 16. 14 14 “ There are good reasons to balance openness with secrecy in a relationship ” (Petriono, 1991)
  • 17. 15 15 “ withholding information is sometimes benign or even useful ” (Afifi et al., 2007, p.78)
  • 18. Why lots of information can be bad...
    • Familiarity breeds contempt (Norton et al., 2008)
    • Distant relationships (Stafford and Reske, 1990)
    • Space for storytelling
    • 100% predictability = dull
    • Trust requires uncertainty - e.g. kids location tracking
    16 16
  • 19. 17 17
  • 20. 18 18
  • 21. 19 19
  • 22. Disruption of boundary regulation
    • We achieve a ‘desired’ state of privacy / intimacy by regulating boundaries (physical and psychological)
    • These rules are negotiated, developed, shared by groups (norms)
    • Social media rarely allows for nuanced sharing, or variable depth of sharing
    20 20
  • 23. Overlapping social spheres
    • Social media has become more popular
    • This means, we are increasingly connecting to people from multiple spheres
    • The causes problems....
    21
  • 24. 22 22 Source: Marder & Joinson, in review. Sample: 546 Facebook users (UK)
  • 25. 23 23
  • 26. Sending the wrong photo?
    • 400+ participants
    • Completed measures of photo sharing, and relationship outcomes
    24 24
  • 27. 25 25
  • 28. 26 26
  • 29. 27 27
  • 30. 28 28
  • 31. 31
  • 32. Likely response? 29
  • 33. Likely response?
    • Less sharing
    • More privacy concern
    30
  • 34.
    • How do we design social media that encourage intimacy / positive relations while preserving privacy?
      • New (social) media encourages sharing, openness (with peers and organisations)
      • Lack of trust, privacy leads to behavioral & communication management of privacy
    • What would new media designed for intimacy look like?
    32 32 Challenges?
  • 35. Thanks!
    • [email_address]
    • twitter: @joinson
    • www.interactionslab.net
    • www.joinson.com
    33 33