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

transcript

Sonja UtzVU University Amsterdam & NHL Leeuwarden

11.07.2012Brown Bag Seminar Jena Graduate School

Human Behavior in Social & Economic Change

How my social network used to be

Amsterdam friends

ColleaguesFamily

ReDefTie Sonja UtzReDefTie Sonja Utz

Friends from school

Amsterdam friends

ColleaguesFamily

Strong tieemotional support

ReDefTie Sonja Utz

Friends from school

Amsterdam friends

ColleaguesFamily

Weak tieinformation

ReDefTie Sonja Utz

Friends from school

Amsterdam friends

ColleaguesFamily

absent tieuseless

Sonja Utz

Friends from school

My social network today

Sonja Utz

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

brandsSonja Utz

Social network sites

We define social network sites as web-based services that 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

Dealing with information on own profile: The privacy-paradox

Sonja Utz

Privacy settings

Sonja Utz

• 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

Who can see the profiles?

Privacy-Network, German Sample (n = 809)

Visible for…

Part profile me friends Friends of friends

everybody in the

network

everybody

contact 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

Factors influencing choice of privacy settings

Restrictive Privacy settings

Privacy concerns +

Narcissism/need for

popularity

see Utz & Krämer (2009); Utz, Tanis & Vermeulen (2012)

Sonja Utz

Only “friends”

• Dutch students 2010:Hyves M = 249 (SD =

149)Facebook M = 204 (SD =

• Dutch pupils, 2012:

Hyves M = 240 (SD = 188)

Facebook M = 78 (SD = 91)

• German SNS users, 2011: M = 204 (SD = 138)

Sonja Utz

Potential audience: Who are these “friends”?

100 friends

other family members

colleagues

partner

expartner

people I'm interested in

parents

boss/teacher

people I know but haven't met in person

celebrities

strangers

(grand)childrenSupported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1)

Sonja Utz

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

Intended audience: mainly friends

friends other family members

colleagues partner expartner people I'm interested in

parents boss/teacher people I know but

haven't met in person

celebrities strangers0

100 potential audience intended audience

Supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR 498/11-1)

Sonja Utz

Intended vs. empirical audience

20 not intended, but empirical intended, but not empirical

Sonja Utz

What do people disclose?

nice eve

holiday

achieve

happiness

everyd

ay stuff

other news (

TV, movie

enthousiasm

product

disappointm

ent pro

failure

health

politica

l news

falling in

relationsh

ip problems

5students NHL teachers NHL

Sonja Utz

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

Results students

Self-disclosure

Public use

age - .19

Private use

.14, p < .10

Network diversity

.14, p < .10

R2adj = .38

Sonja Utz

Results teachers

Self-disclosure

Public use

Impression management

R2adj = .46

Sonja Utz

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

Implications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or

brands

Sonja Utz

SNS and romantic relationships

Sonja Utz

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

Prior research

• Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais (2009)• Facebook jealousy scale• Predicted mainly by trait jealousy, but also by

Facebook use

Sonja Utz

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

The role of need for popularity andself-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

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

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

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

Results

happiness jealousy0

low self-esteemhigh self-esteem

Sonja Utz

SNS jealousy

Sonja Utz

SNS jealousy

Sonja Utz

SNS happiness

Sonja Utz

SNS happiness

Sonja Utz

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

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

Implications for• dealing with information on own profile• dealing with information from friends• dealing with information from politicians or

brands

Sonja Utz

Does interaction with voters help?

Sonja Utz

Experiment

• 2 (position of the politician: left-wing vs. right-wing) x 2 (interaction with voters: yes vs. no) - design

Sonja Utz

Right-wing politicians benefit from interaction

right-wing left-wing 2

no interaction interaction

political orientation of the candidate

Sonja Utz

Left-wing voters pay more attention to interaction

left-wing right-wing

ation o

Political orientation of the participant

reaction no reaction

Sonja Utz

marketing context

Sonja Utz

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

Affective and cognitive responses

Communicated commitmenthuman voice

Need-to-belong

User-to-systeminteractivity

Brand-to-userinteractivity

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 BijenkorfSonja Utz

Results: main effects of brand-to-user interactivty on Facebook-related variables

attitu

de fanpag

liking f

particip

ation fa

npage *

buying i

ntention

loyalty

0123456

low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity

Sonja Utz

Results: interaction effect on participation intention

low user-to-system interactivity high user-to-system interactivity0

Similar pattern, but marginal effect on attitude towards the Fanpage

Sonja Utz

Results: marginal interaction need-to-belong and brand-to-user interactivity on attitude toward the fanpage

low need-to-belong high need-to-belong0

Sonja Utz

Results: effects on possible mediators

communicated-com-mitment

human voice flow0

6low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity

Sonja Utz

mediation analysis

3 flow

2 human voice

1 Communicated commitment

• attitude Fanpage (all three)

• liking intention (1 + 3)• participation (2 + 3)

Sonja Utz

hypothetical model

Affective and cognitive responses

Need-to-belong

empirical model

Facebookvariables

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

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

Wrap up

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

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

Technology