Social Media & New Media Course Overview
How did traditional communication occur?
Among people and between people and organizations
Extensive Media Landscape
Internet: New (Digital) Media + Web 2.0: Social Media
Media Landscape
Traditional/old (e.g., newspaper, magazine, TV, radio) + ‘new’ (digital) and social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.)
Examples of Traditional/Old Media
Newspaper, magazine, TV, and radio
Examples of ‘New’ (Digital) and Social Media
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.
Significance of Digitalization
Digital culture offers new opportunities and sets new requirements for how we communicate
Nomophobia
Abnormal dependency of your smartphone and an excessive fear of not being continuously reachable via mobile phone
The Two Media Characteristics
Social Presence & Media Richness
Social Presence (Media Characteristic)
Mediation & Immediacy (space and time of communication)
Media Richness (Media Characteristic)
Amount of information
Social Characteristic
Self-Presentation
Self-Presentation (Social Characteristic)
Extent and forms of self-disclosure
An example of high self-disclosure + low media richness
Blogs
An example of high self-disclosure + medium media richness
Social networking sites (e.g., Facebook)
An example of high self-disclosure + high media richness
Virtual social worlds (e.g., Second Life)
An example of low self-disclosure + low media richness
Collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia)
An example of low self-disclosure + medium media richness
Content communities (e.g., YouTube)
An example of low self-disclosure + high media richness
Virtual game worlds (e.g., World of Warcraft)
Describe a Telephone Conversation using Social & Media Characteristics
Mediation: (Telephone technology) Medium-high
Immediacy: High
Media Richness: Use of tone, volume, word choice
Missing: Gestures, facial expressions, and body posture
Medium Factors (Herring, 2007)
Synchronicity
Message Transmission
Persistence of the Transcript
Size of message channels of communication
Synchronicity (Medium Factor)
Asynchronous (different time of producing & receiving)
Synchronous (e.g., Zooms and Lives)
Message Transmission (Medium Factor)
One-to-one (phone call)
One-to-many (Twitter)
Many-to-many (group zoom call)
Persistence of the Transcript (Medium Factor)
Ephemeral (temporal messages, e.g., Snapchat)
Archived (permanent posts)
Size of Message Channels of Communication (Medium Factor)
Amount of text converted, words, images, and sound
Extended Self (Belk, 1988)
Viewing external objects that we own as part of ourselves (material goods become a part of our identity)
Why do our possessions become personalized?
They act as memory markers: souvenirs, photos, and gifts
We use them as cues to show others who we are/want to be
5 Ways to Extend Self in a Digital World
Dematerialization
Re-embodiment
Sharing (of private life & possessions)
Co-construction of Self
Distributed Memory
Dematerialization
Converting to intangible and immaterial possessions (e.g., ‘Cloud‘)
New ‘virtual’ possessions
Sharing once-private possessions and interests digitally
Re-Embodiment
Presenting ourselves differently (more ‘attractive’) through online self-presentation (with avatars, Bitmojis, and edited photos/videos)
Experiment with different or multiple identities
Sharing (of Private Life & Possessions)
Oversharing due to disinhibition (inhibitions are lower/eliminated online)
Toxic Disinhibition: Trolling and flaming
Determining something as ‘ours’ creates a sense of belonging to a group
Shared sense of space (third places like multiplayer online games)
Co-Construction of Self
Self-image is increasingly shaped by our interactions with others
Seek affirmation in social media
Distributed Memory
Online saving and archiving of memories
Memory is shared with others: collective memory
Digital clutter
Digital immortality/legacy (an immortal virtual self)
FOMO: Fear of Missing Out
Fear of missing an interesting/fun social event
A danger of technology as an extension of our social lives: Constantly wanting to know what others are doing
A consequence of predominantly positive updates on social media: We are always confronted with what we DO NOT have and where we ARE NOT present
Causes: Relentlessness, dissatisfaction, and regret
Socialbesity
If you cannot live without your smartphone, because you want to monitor social media at all times
Common effects: others comment on your excessive mobile phone use (addiction?) and you may get annoyed or angry
2 Kinds of Self-Presentation (Hogan, 2010)
Performance: By actors (synchronous situations)
Artefacts: Result of performances by actors (asynchronous exhibitions) → Social Media?
Goffman’s Dramaturgical Approach (1959)
‘Life as a stage’
‘Performances’:
Demarcated setting
For a specific audience
Playing a specific role
Idealized instead of authentic
Front Stage vs. Back Stage
‘Putting on a front’
‘Conflict’: When fronts collide/when different versions of yourself collide
Goffman’s Approach to Social Media + Critique
Goffman’s Approach: Facebook is a backstage = private messages just to friends
Critique: BUT private DOES NOT = backstage!
Facebook is a specific front stage for online content as performances
Audience is not clear
Can be watched at different a different time and when cyber performers are NOT present
Hogan’s Exhibitional Approach: ‘Reproducible Artefacts’
Data
Hogan’s Exhibitional Approach: ‘Storehouses’
Databases
Hogan’s Exhibitional Approach: ‘Curators’
Their role: Filter, order, and search
Like algorithms on social media that decide which posts to show to a certain audience
True or False: Hogan’s Exhibitional Approach is always applicable.
False: It is not applicable to all social media like Wikis, online games, WhatsApp, etc.
Difference between Exhibition Sites/Spaces and Offline Performances
Exhibition sites/spaces are:
Asynchronous
Limited control over audience
Broader definitions of ‘friends’
Collapsed context
Lowest common denominator
Hogan’s Exhibitional Approach: ‘Filter Bubble’
Digital content is curated for the user
Collapsed Context
Overlapping social circles of (family members, coworkers, actual friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc.) in one space
Lowest Common Denominator
Audience member(s) you would make yourself most aware of when presenting yourself online (i.e., inappropriate post for a boss or grandparent to see)
Social Media
Communication through a network of participants where anyone can publish or share on these platforms
Internet-based sites and services that promote social interaction between participants
Delivers content via a network of participants where it can be published by anyone and still distributed across potentially large-scale audiences
Examples: Discussion forums, blogs, wikis, podcasts, social network sites, conent0sharing sites, apps, and virtual worlds
Mass Media
Presented as a one-to-many broadcasting mechanism
Examples: TV, radio, newspaper
Why is the historical/chronological context of the development of social media important?
It suggests the increasingly multinational nature of those interactions
Difference between Web 1.0 and 2.0?
2.0 reflected an apparent shift towards web users as creators (rather than just consumers) of content
What affordances does the online environment allow for self-presentation?
Asynchronicity & Anonymity
“I can show my best qualities online”
Less clear self-concept + high social anxiety
“I enjoy acting out different identities online”
Less clear self-concept + lower self-esteem + less self-monitoring
“I feel my personality online is the real me”
Clearer self-concept + more self-monitoring
“I prefer being online than offline”
Low self-esteem + high social anxiety + low self-monitoring
Permanence (Affordance of Social Media)
Prolonged accessibility
Easy to locate (high visibility)
Elevated interactivity (high social interactivity)
Self-Concept
The collection of beliefs and attitudes of an individual about themself. While some aspects are stable, it remains malleable
What do the affordances of social media facilitate?
Scanning and internalizing of presented behaviours. (Due to the interactive process between the self-concept and the self-presentation)
The 2 Rival Theories (Choi et al., 2020)
Public Commitment Theory and Self-Symbolizing Theory
Public Commitment Theory
Once individuals make a commitment, they feel pressured to be consistent with it.
Permanent self-presentation = stronger public commitment
Greater accessibility = perceived larger audience
Self-Symbolizing Theory
Striving to acquire symbols of a desired self-concept and wanting them to be noticed by an audience
Audience = passive witness
Self-constructed self-presentation rather than a strategic self-presentation
How is self-change driven?
By commitment to self-concept attainment with little consideration for the audience
Choi et al.’s conclusion on “Ephemerality”
Little concern for self-presentation and more authenticity
Function of Algorithm
Sorts through online data to show users the content they are most likely to engage with
How does TikTok algorithm work?
Time spent per video
User interactions (likes, comments, etc.)
Creator quality
The Networked Self
Self is performed through displays of social connection
Props = text, photo, video, etc.
The Algorithmized Self
Engaging with one’s previous self-representations rather than one’s social connections. Self-making practices are sold and rendered into consumer profiles. These categories are then projected back onto the user → “algorithmic identity”.
What is the Agency of the Algorithmized Self?
Low
Users have NO role
The infrastructure is not merely a stage or a tool
What is the Agency of the Networked Self?
High
Advantages of an Algorithm
Users have agency over the algorithm
The algorithm ‘understands’ me”
Disadvantages of an Algorithm
Too much of the same
Over-fitted
Feels weird
Echo chamber leads to confirmation bias
Social Currency
Trends, memes, current events, cultural knowledge. The media content itself has a stronger role in self-making than social and networking processes (less about the user, and more about the content than the creator)
Twitter vs. TikTok
Twitter:
Self-identification via content relevant for identity
Interactions such as liking, retweeting, blogging
Direct messaging used for sharing content
Compared to TikTok:
Twitter feed is mostly determined by who you are following
YouTube & Instagram vs. TikTok
YouTube & Instagram:
Content is prioritized
Strong role of an algorithm
Comapred to TikTok
In content communities, social aspects require following others
Includes discussion of content via comments
Facebook vs. TikTok
Facebook:
Possible to see the activities of others in your network
Can engage with others via messages, comments, and duets
Compared to TikTok:
Interactions are rarely used for intended purpose
Selective Self-Presentation: Why is it important?
Present yourself favourably because: It increases your chances of a match/date
Acceptable Misrepresentation Factors
Asynchronicity
Reduced cues
Shared contextual expectations
Online profile as a PROMISE
Asynchronicity
Time to create ideal or possible future self (i.e., quit smoking)
Reduced Cues
Foggy mirror (i.e., a once-body builder has fallen out of shape, but still puts ‘athletic’ in their profile)
Shared Contextual Expectations
Context of dating sites/apps (i.e., ‘everyone looks different in person than online)
13 Motives for using Dating Apps
Entertainment/pass time
Curiosity
Socializing
Love
Ego boosting
Distraction
Flirting
Peer pressure
Travelling
Casual sex
Forgetting ex
Belongingness
LGBTQ+
The Five Factor Model (FFM)/Big 5 Personality Traits
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism (opposite of emotionally stable)
Results of Timmermans & De Caluwé’s (2017) Tinder Study
Individual differences in singles can account for Tinder motives
Tinder users = more extraverted and open to new experiences than non-users
Non-users = more conscientious than Tinder users
No significant differences between agreeableness and neuroticism
What makes TikTok different from other platforms?
Awareness of the algorithm
Content without context
Self-creation across (/in comparison to other) platforms
CMC
Computer-mediated communication
Deception
Intentionally presenting incorrect information OR omitting important information (goal: misleading to get a date)
Catfishing
Extreme misleading, romantic scam
Two Hypotheses of CMC on Friendship
Displacement Hypothesis & Stimulation Hypothesis
Displacement Hypothesis
Substitute for real friendship
Stimulation Hypothesis
Improve real friendships
Characteristics of friendship vs. acquaintances?
Co-constructed
Reciprocity
Closeness
Intimacy
Factors with Friendship Formation
Proximity/Propinquity: Physical or psychological
Homophily: People’s tendency to become friends with similar people
Consequences of New Media for Friendship
Intimacy/closeness
Companionship of new media for friendship
Social support
Tangible support & protection
Exclusiveness
Intimacy/Closeness (in New Media Friendship)
Fewer signals via CMC than face-to-face
‘True self’, self-expression, self-disclosure
Companionship (in New Media Friendship)
CMC is mostly ‘talking’
Shared activities are richer offline
Social Support (in New Media Friendship)
More support possible via online channels
Friendships can start with a call for help/support
Forum communities
Subjects that are difficult to discuss
Offline - more difficult to find people experiencing same things/can understand you
Tangible Support & Protection (in New Media Friendship)
Protection from conflicts can only be offered for cyberbullying
No material support online, but …
Financial support is easier to offer via online mobile banking + donations and crowdfunding
Exclusiveness (in New Media Friendship)
Making time for each other is more difficult on social media
Exclusively sharing info is more difficult
Number of online friends and public interactions with them are visible on social media (cause jealousy)
Consequences of New Media on Conflict in Friendship
Online messages are perceived more negatively
Lack of non-verbal and paralinguistic cues can cause misunderstandings and conflicts
Easier to terminate online friendships (stop responding, block, and unfriend)
Characteristics of Bonding Social Capital
Strong ties
Exclusive
Group identity
Characteristics of Bridging Social Capital
Weak ties
Inclusive
Information dissemination