Context collapse on social media: implications for interpersonal and marketing communication
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
How my social network used to be
Amsterdam friends
ColleaguesFamily
Strong tieemotional support
ReDefTie Sonja Utz
Friends from school
How my social network used to be
Amsterdam friends
ColleaguesFamily
Weak tieinformation
ReDefTie Sonja Utz
Friends from school
How my social network used to be
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
Norms
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 =
129)
• 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”?
% 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
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
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 not intended, but empirical intended, but not empirical
Sonja Utz
What do people disclose?
nice eve
nts
holiday
achieve
ments
happiness
everyd
ay stuff
other news (
cultu
re, s
port)
TV, movie
s
enthousiasm
product
disappointm
ent pro
duct
failure
anger
health
politica
l news
falling in
love
relationsh
ip problems
0
1
2
3
4
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
.38
.14, p < .10
Network diversity
.14, p < .10
R2adj = .38
Sonja Utz
Results teachers
Self-disclosure
Public use
Impression management
.41
.48
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
Characteristics of social media
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
0.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.55
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
Characteristics of social media
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
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
no interaction interaction
political orientation of the candidate
eva
lua
tion
of t
he
po
litic
ian
Sonja Utz
Left-wing voters pay more attention to interaction
2
2,2
2,4
2,6
2,8
3
3,2
3,4
left-wing right-wing
Evalu
ation o
f th
e p
olit
icia
n
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
Model
Affective and cognitive responses
flow
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
e *
liking f
anpag
e *
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
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity
Sonja Utz
Results: effects on possible mediators
communicated-com-mitment
human voice flow0
1
2
3
4
5
6low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity
Sonja Utz
mediation analysis
Brand-to-userinteractivity
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
flow
Communicated commitmenthuman voice
Need-to-belong
User-to-systeminteractivity
Brand-to-userinteractivity
empirical model
Facebookvariables
Communicated commitmenthuman voice
flow
User-to-systeminteractivity
Brand-to-userinteractivity
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