nicole ellison icwsm 2010 "researching interaction in social media"
Post on 21-Oct-2014
1.751 views
DESCRIPTION
Nicole Ellison talk at ICWSM - Researching interaction in social media: Examining online and offline communication processes in online dating & social network sitesTRANSCRIPT
Nicole Ellison Telecommunication, Information Studies & Media Michigan State University
• Because user perceptions can be important. • Because offline activity is often not evident in online data. • Because user-‐generated data has biases.
How do communication technologies reshape how we form, maintain, and access our social relationships? Two primary research contexts: social network sites and online dating
RQ: Does Facebook use play a role in enabling individuals to accrue and maintain social capital? Yes (Ellison et al., 2007; Burke et al., 2010; others)
RQ: What online and offline communication patterns are associated with Facebook use – and what are their social capital implications? Does the quality and quantity of “Friends” matter?
“connections among individuals -‐ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000)
Putnam distinguishes between bridging and bonding social capital
reflects strong ties with family and close friends, who might be in a position to provide emotional support or access to scarce resources
is linked to “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1982), loose connections who may provide useful, novel information or new perspectives for one another (but typically not emotional support)
“… technologies that expand one’s social network will primarily result in an increase in available information and opportunities — the benefits of a large, heterogeneous network” (Donath & boyd, 2004).
• Surveys – August, 2005: series of items in survey given to entire incoming first-‐
year class at MSU (N=1440) – April, 2006: random sample of MSU undergraduates (N=286) – April, 2007: participants from 2005 survey (N=94) plus new random
sample (N=482) – April, 2008: new random sample (N=450) and panel data – April, 2009: new random sample (N=373) and panel data – April, 2010: new random sample and panel data
• Interviews and cognitive walk-‐throughs – Spring, 2007: Focus on FB “Friendship” (N=18) – Spring, 2010: Focus on adult FB users and info-‐seeking (N=18)
• Automated capture of web content – Spring, 2006: Periodic downloads of the MSU Facebook site
What are the communication practices that Facebook users are engaging in? “Meeting new people” vs maintaining old ties
Are some Facebook-‐enabled communication strategies more productive than others? Are some friends more helpful than others?
Total stranger: “Imagine a [university] student you've never met in real life or had a face-‐to-‐face conversation with.”
Someone from your residence hall (latent tie): “Imagine someone at [university] who lives in your residence hall who you would recognize but have never spoken to.”
Close Friend: “Think about one of your close friends.”
I use Facebook to meet new people. Total stranger: Browse their profile on Facebook
Total stranger: Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook
Total stranger: Add them as a Facebook friend
Total stranger: Meet them face-‐to-‐face
Close friend: Browse their profile on Facebook
Close friend: Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook
Close friend: Add them as a Facebook friend Close friend: Meet them face-‐to-‐face
I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially.
I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes.
I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me.
Imagine someone at X University who lives in your residence hall who you would recognize but have never spoken to. How likely are you to browse their profile on Facebook?
“Approximately how many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have at [university] or elsewhere?” Median: 300
“Approximately how many of your TOTAL friends do you consider actual friends?” Median: 75 (25%)
I feel I am part of the [X] University community Interacting with people at [X] makes me want to try new things
Interacting with people at [X] makes me feel like a part of a larger community
I am willing to spend time to support general [X] activities
At [X], I come into contact with new people all the time
Interacting with people at [X] reminds me that everyone in the world is connected
There are several people at [X] I trust to solve my problems.
If I needed an emergency loan of $100, I know someone at [X] I can turn to.
There is someone at [X] I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions.
The people I interact with at [X] would be good job references for me.
I do not know people at [X] well enough to get them to do anything important. (Reversed)
Year in school, daily Internet hours, self esteem, minutes on Facebook
Total Friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook (squared term) Social Information-‐seeking
Adj. R2 Without Information-‐Seeking: .14 Adj R2 With Information-‐Seeking: .18
Year in school*, daily Internet hours, self esteem***, minutes on Facebook
Total Friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook*** Actual friends on Facebook (squared term)* Social Information-‐seeking***
*: p<.05 ***:p<.0001
Year in school, daily Internet hours, self esteem, minutes on Facebook
Total Friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook (squared term) Social Information-‐seeking
Adj. R2 Without Information-‐Seeking: .09 Adj R2 With Information-‐Seeking: .11
Year in school, daily Internet hours, self esteem***, minutes on Facebook
Total Friends on Facebook Actual friends on Facebook*** Actual friends on Facebook (squared term)* Social Information-‐seeking***
*: p<.05 ***:p<.0001
Different SNS communication practices (‘connection strategies’) exist and have different implications for social capital levels Of the three (Maintaining, Initiating, & Social Information-‐Seeking), only Social Information-‐seeking significantly predicts social capital levels.
Users distinguish between Facebook Friends and “actual” friends on the site; only “actual” friends impact perceptions of social capital (curvilinear relationship)
Participants are using the site to learn more about the people around them. This information can be used to find common ground, lower barriers to interaction, guide conversations to socially relevant topics
Extends notions of latent ties (Haythornthwaite, 2005): Facebook provides not only the technical ability to connect, but also the personal social context that can make these interactions socially relevant (vs digital “crank calling”)
Friends vs Actual Friends Friends who are not considered actual friends are less likely to provide social capital benefits
Actual Friends are productive – but only to a point SNSs as a proxy for proximity?
Identity information/self-‐expression (profile) Bring together those with shared interests More communication opportunities
User perceptions are important. Actual vs all Friends: All Friends are not equal. Perceptions of social capital
Offline activity is often not evident in online data. Social information-‐seeking (an important predictor of social capital): using the site to find out more about those with whom users have a minimal offline connection with. Online profile information can facilitate offline interactions.
Unlike other forms of CMC, anticipated future face-‐to-‐face interaction is expected and highly salient.
How do online daters negotiate their desire to engage in selective self-‐presentation with their need to present an authentic self?
To what extent do online data represent offline characteristics? Ground truth regarding deception in this context.
Interviewed 34 online daters about online self-‐presentation & impression formation Small cues matter (e.g., spelling, timing of email) Need to balance desirability and accuracy ▪ One strategy: Portraying one’s ‘Ideal Self’ ▪ “I think they may not have tried to lie; they just have perceived themselves differently because they write about the person they want to be...In their profile they write about their dreams as if they are reality.”
Establishing credibility (Show, don’t tell)
• Investigated the extent to which online dating profiles accurately represented offline characteristics (establishing “ground truth”)
• Methods notes: • Data collection took place in NYC • 80 (heterosexual) participants, 40 male/40 female • Paid $30 incentive to participate in a study on “Self-‐Presentation in Online Dating”
Appear attractive Reduced cues; editable; asynchronous (Walther, ‘96)
Appear attractive Reduced cues; editable; asynchronous (Walther, ‘96)
Appear honest Anticipated future interaction; recordability of profile
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/2197990074/
Appear attractive Lie Frequently
Appear honest Lie Subtly
Profile-‐based Self-‐Presentation
Observed Self-‐Presentation
In lab measure:
Cross-‐Validation
Height Age
Weight Income
Photograph
Overall! Males! Females!Lied about height! 48.10! 55.30! 41.50!Lied about weight! 59.70! 60.50! 59.00!Lied about age! 18.70! 24.30! 13.20!Lied in any category! 81.30! 87.20! 75.60!
% Participants Providing Deceptive Information
shorter in reality than profile info
shorter in reality than profile info
taller in reality than profile info
taller in reality than profile info
Height
Female Male
Lighter in reality than profile info
lighter in reality than profile info
heavier in reality than profile info
Heavier in reality than profile info
Weight
younger in reality than profile info
younger in reality than profile info
older than profile info
older in reality than profile info
Female Male Age
Appear attractive Lie Frequently 81% of participants lied at least once weight most frequently, age least
Appear honest Lie Subtly Small magnitude for most lies 1 – 5% deviations from actual self But there were a few whoppers!
3 inches; 35 pounds; 9 years
User-‐generated data has biases Some are predictable; others are not. Multiple methods may be needed to understand a particular online context ▪ Technical constraints & affordances, participants’ goals, site norms, etc.
Understanding a particular social context is critical for knowing how to interpret data produced by its participants.
How do online dating participants determine what kinds of misrepresentations are acceptable and which are unacceptable (lies)?
“For the most part people give a fairly accurate description of themselves. They might have a little leeway here and there like I do. … I kind of expect that, you know, they’ll say “I’m 35” and in fact they’re 39. I mean if they don’t look the difference, what’s the big deal to me? It’s not skin off my nose. If they’re 19 and they say they’re 29 then I’ve got a problem with that.... If you misrepresent to the point where it’s going to be a problem in the relationship, that’s not acceptable. If you’re just fudging to get over the hump, so to speak, OK, it’s ‘no harm no foul.’
• Because user perceptions can be important. • Because offline activity is often not evident in online data. • Because user-‐generated data has biases.
• email: [email protected] • papers: https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/pubs.html
• thanks to collaborators and co-‐authors (in order of appearance): jennifer gibbs, rebecca heino, chip steinfield, cliff lampe, jeff hancock, catalina toma, danah boyd, & jessica vitak.