Invited talk at the Brown Bag Seminar Jena Graduate SchoolHuman Behavior in Social & Economic Change, 11.07.2012

1. Context collapse on social media: implications
for 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. How my social network used to be
Family
Colleagues
Amsterdam
friends
Friends from
school
ReDefTie Sonja Utz

3. How my social network used to be
Family
Colleagues
Strong tie
emotional support
Amsterdam
friends
Friends from
school
ReDefTie Sonja Utz

4. How my social network used to be
Family
Colleagues
Weak tie
information
Amsterdam
friends
Friends from
school
ReDefTie Sonja Utz

5. How my social network used to be
Family
Colleagues
absent tie
useless
Amsterdam
friends
Friends from
school
Sonja Utz

6. My social network today
Sonja Utz

7. Characteristics of social media
• Blurring boundaries between interpersonal and
mass communication, between private and public
communication
 Context collapse
Implications for
• dealing with information on own profile
• dealing with information from friends
• dealing with information from politicians or
brands
Sonja Utz

8. 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

9. Dealing with information on own profile:
The privacy-paradox
Sonja Utz

10. Privacy settings
Sonja Utz

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. Privacy-Network, German Sample
(n = 809)
Visible for…
Part profile me friends Friends of everybody everybody
friends in the
network
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

13. Factors influencing choice of
privacy settings
Privacy
concerns +
+
Norms Restrictive
- Privacy settings
Narcissism/ -
need for
popularity
see Utz & Krämer (2009); Utz, Tanis & Vermeulen (2012)
Sonja Utz

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. Potential audience: Who are these
“friends”? friends
100
other family members
90
colleagues
80
partner
70
expartner
60
people I'm interested in
50
parents
40
boss/teacher
30
people I know but haven't
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. 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. 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 I'm parents boss/teacher people I celebrities strangers
members interested in know but
Supported by the “Young Scholar’s Network on Privacy and the Web 2.0” (DFG TR haven't met
498/11-1) in person
Sonja Utz

18. Intended vs. empirical audience
not intended, but empirical intended, but not empirical
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
friends other family colleagues partner expartner people I'm parents boss/teacher people I know celebrities strangers
members interested in but haven't
met in person
Sonja Utz

19. What do people disclose?
students NHL teachers NHL
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sonja Utz

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. Results students
R2adj = .38
age - .19
.38
Public use Self-
disclosure
.14, p < .10
Private
use .14, p < .10
Network
diversity
Sonja Utz

22. Results teachers
R2adj = .46
Impression .41
management
.48
Public use
Self-
disclosure
Sonja Utz

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. 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

25. SNS and romantic relationships
Sonja Utz

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. Prior research
• Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais (2009)
• Facebook jealousy scale
• Predicted mainly by trait jealousy, but also by
Facebook use
Sonja Utz

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Results
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 low self-esteem
2 high self-esteem
1.5
1
0.5
0
happiness jealousy
Sonja Utz

34. SNS jealousy
Sonja Utz

35. SNS jealousy
Sonja Utz

36. SNS happiness
Sonja Utz

37. SNS happiness
Sonja Utz

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. 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. 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

41. Does interaction with voters help?
Sonja Utz

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

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. Left-wing voters pay more
attention to interaction
reaction no reaction
3,4
3,2
Evaluation 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. marketing context
Sonja Utz

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. Model
flow
User-to-system
interactivity Affective and
cognitive
Brand-to-user responses
interactivity
Need-to-belong
Communicated commitment
human voice

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. Results: main effects of brand-to-user
interactivty on Facebook-related variables
low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
attitude liking fanpage * participation buying loyalty
fanpage * fanpage * intention
Sonja Utz

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 interactivity
Similar pattern, but marginal effect on attitude towards the Fanpage
Sonja Utz

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 interactivity
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
low need-to-belong high need-to-belong
Sonja Utz

52. Results: effects on possible mediators
low brand-to-user interactivity high brand-to-user interactivity
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
communicated-commitment human voice flow
Sonja Utz

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. hypothetical model
flow
User-to-system
interactivity Affective and
cognitive
Brand-to-user responses
interactivity
Need-to-belong
Communicated commitment
human voice

55. empirical model
User-to-system
interactivity
Facebook
Brand-to-user variables
interactivity
Communicated commitment
human voice
flow

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. 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. Wrap up

59. Summary
• Context collapse on social media
Implications for
• dealing with information on own profile
• dealing with information from friends
• dealing with information from politicians or
brands
Sonja Utz