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

965 views

Published on

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
965
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Absent ties!
  • Durchschnittsalter 24, 72% weiblich
  • Volg-like gedrag door low and comm. Commitment, nothuman voice!Participationhuman voice and flow
  • Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication

    1. 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. 2. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    3. 3. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Strong tie emotional support Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    4. 4. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues Weak tie information Amsterdam friends Friends from school ReDefTie Sonja Utz
    5. 5. How my social network used to be FamilyColleagues absent tie useless Amsterdam friends Friends from school Sonja Utz
    6. 6. My social network today Sonja Utz
    7. 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. 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. 9. Dealing with information on own profile: The privacy-paradox Sonja Utz
    10. 10. Privacy settings Sonja Utz
    11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19. What do people disclose? students NHL teachers NHL543210 Sonja Utz
    20. 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. 21. Results students R2adj = .38 age - .19 .38Public use Self- disclosure .14, p < .10Private use .14, p < .10 Network diversity Sonja Utz
    22. 22. Results teachers R2adj = .46 Impression .41management .48 Public use Self- disclosure Sonja Utz
    23. 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. 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. 25. SNS and romantic relationships Sonja Utz
    26. 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. 27. Prior research• Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais (2009)• Facebook jealousy scale• Predicted mainly by trait jealousy, but also by Facebook use Sonja Utz
    28. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 33. Results 54.5 43.5 32.5 low self-esteem 2 high self-esteem1.5 10.5 0 happiness jealousy Sonja Utz
    34. 34. SNS jealousy Sonja Utz
    35. 35. SNS jealousy Sonja Utz
    36. 36. SNS happiness Sonja Utz
    37. 37. SNS happiness Sonja Utz
    38. 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. 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. 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. 41. Does interaction with voters help? Sonja Utz
    42. 42. Experiment • 2 (position of the politician: left-wing vs. right-wing) x 2 (interaction with voters: yes vs. no) - design Sonja Utz
    43. 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. 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. 45. marketing context Sonja Utz
    46. 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. 47. Model flowUser-to-system interactivity Affective and cognitiveBrand-to-user responses interactivity Need-to-belong Communicated commitment human voice
    48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 52. Results: effects on possible mediators low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity6543210 communicated-commitment human voice flow Sonja Utz
    53. 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. 54. hypothetical model flowUser-to-system interactivity Affective and cognitiveBrand-to-user responses interactivity Need-to-belong Communicated commitment human voice
    55. 55. empirical model User-to-system interactivity FacebookBrand-to-user variables interactivity Communicated commitment human voice flow
    56. 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. 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. 58. Wrap up
    59. 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

    ×