Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Winter all the-single_ladies_–_relationship_status_and_its_relation-142
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

Winter all the-single_ladies_–_relationship_status_and_its_relation-142

258

Published on

A GOR presentation

A GOR presentation

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
258
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. All the Single Ladies Relationship Status and its Relation toSelf-Presentation on Social Networking Sites Stephan Winter 1 Nina Haferkamp 2 Yvonne Stock 1 Nicole C. Krämer 1 University of Duisburg-Essen 1 University of Dresden ² General Online Research, 16 March 2011 Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 2. Overview• Introduction• Impression Management on Social Networking Sites – Need to belong – Popularity and Social Attractiveness• Method: Content Analysis• Results• Discussion Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 3. Introduction• Social networking sites (SNS): various opportunities for communicating personal information – Ideal setting for getting in contact with other users• Online impression management as a complex phenomenon – Personality characteristics (e.g. Buffardi & Campbell, 2008) – Age and gender (e.g. Lenhart et al., 2010) – Goals of communication (e.g. Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007) What is the effect of relationship status on online self-presentation? Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 4. Impression Management• Online profile: – Basic personal information – Photographs – Favorite music, movies… – User groups – Information on relationship status• Selective self-presentation – Strategical selection (Walther, 2007) – Broad audience (Krämer & Winter, 2008) Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 5. Impression Management• Possibilities for online dating in SNS – Attractive self-presentation / „lies“ about age, weight and height in online dating sites (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008) – Desire to present an authentic image (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006)• SNS use for affiliation: need to belong – especially relevant for singles (who are more likely to be searching for a new relationship) H1: Singles present more visual information about themselves on their profiles than persons who are in a relationship. Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 6. Impression Management• Popularity as an indicator of social attractiveness – Research on the need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) – SNS: many (but not too many) friends = positive impression (Kleck et al., 2007; Tong et al., 2008) – Wall postings of attractive friends = positive impression (Walther et al., 2008) Presenting social bonds as a reasonable strategy H2: Singles present higher numbers of friends … H3: Singles display more group memberships … H4: Singles display more wall postings … …than people who are in a relationship RQ1: Does relationship status impact the type of group a person joins? Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 7. Method• Content analysis of 100 StudiVZ profiles – 25 for each relationship status (single / in a relationship / engaged, married / not specified) – Only users who had hosted their profile for more than one year• Independent variables – Relationship status – Gender (Age as a covariate) Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 8. Method: Dependent measures• Number of friends• Number of uploaded photographs• Number of uploaded photographs showing the user• Number of wall postings• Number of groups• Qualitative categories: Type of group (Krämer & Winter, 2008) Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 9. Method: Categories – Type of groupCATEGORY EXAMPLE• Personal data My name is David• Own looks The curly hair club• Art and culture I like Monet• Sexual statements I‘m not afraid of having sex after lunch• Audiovisual Media Forrest Gump• University and job University of Düsseldorf• Music Red Hot Chili Peppers!• (Active) Hobbies and interests Cologne diving association• Politics Young and liberal• Sports Basketball – I love this game• Alcohol Alcohol improves my foreign language skills• Party My blackout was longer than your party• Own character traits I hate chaos, but chaos loves me• Fun and nonsense I wear sunglasses at night• Meta-groups of StudiVZ My group list is longer than your list of friends Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 10. Results• Number of uploaded photographs – Significant effect of relationship status (p = . 001) – Post hoc contrasts: Singles upload more photographs than persons who are in a relationship• Number of uploaded photographs showing the profile owner – Significant effect of relationship status (p = .024) – Singles present more photographs than users in a relationship H1 supported Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 11. Results• Number of friends – Significant effect of relationship status (p = .012) and gender (p = .005) – But: Users who did not specify their relationship status have the most friends H2 not supported• Number of groups – Significant effect of relationship status (p < .001) – Singles have more groups than users in relationships H3 supported• Number of wall postings – Signficant effect of relationship status (p = .001) – Users in the „not specified“ group and singles have more postings / but no post hoc difference between singles and people in a relationship H4 not supported Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 12. Results Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 13. Results• Significant effects of relationship status on type of group – Personal data (p = .013) – Sexual statements (p = .006) – Party (p = .019) – Alcohol (p = .025) – Fun and nonsense (p = .001) – Own character traits (p = .008) – Meta groups on StudiVZ (p = .025) Highest numbers for singles Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 14. Discussion• Singles disclose more visual information about themselves – Make use of oppurtinites offered by SNS to create a detailed profile• People who do not reveal their relationship status have the highest number of friends – No further data about this group (people with privacy concerns?)• Singles also display a higher number of groups – Primarily used for self-presentation (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2009) – More groups in categories like „Party“ and „Sexual statements“ Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 15. Discussion• People who are searching for a relationship anticipate interpretation processes and place high priority on displaying a large network of social bonds• Relationship status influences self-presentation – even on sites that are not especially dedicated to dating behavior Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer
  • 16. Thank you for your attention!REFERENCESBaumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.Buffardi, L., & Campbell, K. (2008). Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303-1314.Ellison, N. Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Exploring the relationship between college students use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 1143-1168.Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self- Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33, 152-177.Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N.C. (2009). “When I was your age, Pluto was a planet”: Impression Management and need to belong as motives for joining groups on social networking sites. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ICA, May 2009, Chicago, Illinois.Kleck, C.A., Reese, C., Ziegerer-Behnken, D., & Sundar, S. (2007). The Company You Keep and the Image You Project: Putting Your Best Face Forward in Online Social Networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco.Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0. Self-presentation on social networking sites and its relationship to personality. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 106-116.Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating Fact from Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023-1036.Tong, S. T., Van der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531–549.Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.Walther, J., Van der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S.T. (2008). The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior and Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are we Known by the Company We Keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49. Computer Science & Applied Cognitive Science Social Psychology: Media and Communication Stephan Winter, Nina Haferkamp, Yvonne Stock, Nicole C. Krämer

×