Exploiting Emotion = Engagement: Communication and Mental Health in the Age of Social Media Platforms
By Louie Oestreicher
MA Thesis for New Media and Digital Cultures 2017/18
Student Number: 11623837 Words: 2 2,945 Due: 2 9th June 2018 Supervisor: A lex Gekker Second Reader: M arc Tuters
Abstract
Modern age communication is being dictated by Social Media Platforms (SMPs) and running parallel to this digital domination is a rise in mental health issues, particularly in adolescents. Emotion and attention are the key commodities being mined in the digital age and are the backbone of SMP business. A system is proposed in the form of the Social Media Capitalist Engagement Cycle (SMCE cycle) to explain how SMPs manipulate users into increased usage and how this benefits SMPs financially. This cycle ultimately suggests the instigator for SMPs links to users poor well-being. Causality between SMPs and mental health has been critically suggested but is difficult to determine, and as such previous findings from the fields of medical and psychopathology are contemplated. Generally previous research indicated that users with previously diagnosed mental health issues were more likely to be affected by the use of SMPs, however some forms of interaction with SMPs could be be determined a risk. A media theory approach is then taken to offer an alternative to the previous research. An original methodological framework is then proposed in the form of the Imagined Affordance Infrastructure Framework (IAIF), which is grounded in varying theories of affordance and its differing historical and contemporary definitions. The IAIF is then applied to case studies highlighting troubling features of SMPs in the form of Snapstreaks (Snapchat), read-receipts (Facebook) and Safety Check (Facebook). All prove to be theoretically and logically detrimental to mental health especially when compared to media theory and the previous medical research. All are summated in relation to the Facebook “Mood Experiment” of 2012. The IAIF is applied again but with alternate findings due to users lack of awareness of the experiments occurrence. Public responses to combat the negative causality conclude the thesis including considerations of the “Time Well Spent” movement and recent examples of SMPs having a political effect.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 2 Table of Contents Abstract 2
1. Chapter One - Introduction 4
2. Chapter Two - Social Media Platforms and “Addiction” 13
3. Chapter Three - Affordance as Method 18 3.1 - History of Affordance 18 3.2 - Contemporary Affordance 20 3.3 - Methodology 23
4. Chapter Four - Case Studies 29 4.1 - Snapstreaks (Figure 6) 29 4.1.1 - Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 6 - 1) 29 4.1.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 6 - 2.1) 31 4.1.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 6 - 2.2) 32 4.1.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 6 - 3) 32 4.1.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 6 - 4.1 & 4.2) 35 4.2 Facebook 36 4.2.1. Facebook Case 1: Read Receipts (Figure 8) 37 4.2.1.1. Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 8 - 1) 38 4.2.1.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 8 - 2.1) 39 4.2.1.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 8 - 2.2) 40 4.2.1.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 8 - 3) 42 4.2.1.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 8 - 4.1 & 4.2) 43 4.2.2. Facebook Case 2: Safety Check Feature (Figure 12) 44 4.2.2.1. Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 12 - 1) 45 4.2.2.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 12 - 2.1) 46 4.2.2.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 12 - 2.2) 47 4.2.2.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 12 - 3) 48 4.2.2.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 12 - 4.1 & 4.2) 50 4.3 Case Studies Summation 51
5. Chapter Five - Facebook Mood Experiment 53
6. Chapter Six - Conclusion 61 6.1 Conclusion 61 6.2 Limitations & Future Research 62
Bibliography 63
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 3 1. Chapter One - Introduction
A staple rule of modern society stipulates that one is twinned with some form of electronic technology regardless of income, social status or geography. With five billion people expected to own a mobile phone by 2019 and over half of those being smartphones (see Statista: Smartphone Users), it is evident that one of the main focuses of humans twinning with technology regards communication. Through our internet-accessible phones, laptops and tablets the endless ways to interact with each other becomes overwhelming. As we continue to produce content, building our online personas and evolving our digital döppelgangers, the interdependency between the technological and the societal intertwines evermore. Through the “rise of user-generated content and value in 2.0 culture” Stephen Wright has fashioned the term usership with reference to the participatory community of users inhabiting these platforms (66). Networked culture embodies the rise of users playing a key role as “producers of information, meaning and value, breaking down the long-standing opposition between consumption and production” (Wright: 1). Any previous, passive and individualist presence of “the user” is diminishing in present social media realms, and instead the collective usership contribute, combine and intertwine to manufacture our digitised social spheres. Consequently, when a situation arises where there is anomaly within the techno-social ecosystem, the usership of such technologies and platforms have logical license for aggravation.
A fitting example can be found in February 2018 when Snapchat released an update for their mobile application (app). It heralded an enormous outcry from its usership resulting in the signing of a 800,000+ strong petition pleading for a reversal on its redesign (Watson). Scorn was simultaneously tweeted by many high-profile endorsers of the app which, combined with the might of the petition, convinced Snapchat to oblige and revert to its previous design (Godlewski). Any thankful reaction expected by Snapchat was largely undermined however due to one problem with the reversal: it was deleting users Snapstreaks. A Snapstreak (or streaks) is a term for when two friends have “snapped” (sent an image but not texted) each other within twenty-four hours for more than three consecutive days (see Snapchat). This is signified by the fire emoji next to a friends name (Figure 1).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 4
Figure 1. Screenshot of Snapstreaks (Lorenz).
Streaks are counted with the number of days represented beside the emoji (different emojis are introduced to represent lengthier streaks) and when a streak is nearing expiration, users are notified by an hourglass emoji. Naturally before the update reversal, many users had collected numerous lengthy streaks and the thought of losing them was upsetting. As one adolescent describes, not only were they losing the effort and time they had put into the app but “if you lose the streak, you lose the friendship” (Lorenz: Business Insider). Through quantifying friendship, Snapchat had emotionally invested users in their app to such an extent that a lack of input resulted in the success or indeed the downfall of a users social status. Snapstreaks is just one of many examples that highlights the severity of social media platforms (SMP/s) consuming nature and the emotional dependency certain technologies and platforms afford their usership.
Over 40% of Americans credit technology as being the most important factor in an improvement of lifestyle over the last fifty years (Strauss) and consequently technology corporations want to make this absolutely apparent in their marketing. One of Apple’s founding taglines was “the power to be your best” (Apple), as well as a similar Microsoft campaign in the last decade touting “Your potential. Our Passion” (Microsoft). Most recently PayPal took the unsubtlest of stances by plainly stating that they are simply “making life easier, one click at a time” (PayPal). Understandably technology companies are not going to reveal too much about their business models through their advertising and will generally take a somewhat neutral stance in this respect. Facebook for instance championed a new mission statement in June 2017 with the goal to “build community and bring the world closer together” (Constine: ‘Facebook Changes Mission Statement’). While that message denotes positive connotations of networking and human
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 5 interaction, what is hidden from such statements is how these companies in fact make their money. With respect to Facebook and Snapchat, personalised advertising fuel their business models as well as other avenues including harvesting data for resale to third-parties. These are inherent processes for these technology companies but is also something that is not explicitly promoted to the end-users of such platforms. Combine these details with the fact that to ensure such processes are efficient and financially beneficial, users are being emotionally exploited, the situation becomes concerning. Technology is being advertised as positive but in doing so is distracting from the potential issues such technologies have on their userships due to their exploitative business practices.
While it is clear that modern technology is being advertised as the ever-evolving phenomenon which is greatly improving our lives, its positive trajectory is mirrored by a significant rise in mental health issues in the last 25 years, particularly in adolescents (Bedell; Twenge, Martin & Campbell). Any potential correlation between these occurrences has begun to be seriously appraised particularly where internet and SMPs are concerned. Indeed in 2013 when the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was released by the American Psychiatric Association, it included the addition of “internet addiction” to its list of diagonsible dysfunctional compulsions (Davies: 346). Addiction is a strong and loaded term which can be used exaggeratedly in common parlance especially in the dramatic arena of tabloid media. Where internet usage is concerned, while experts believe 6% of the world population suffer from such an addiction, confirming this clinically is debatable due to a lack of “consistent criteria” for measurement (Cheng & Li in Longstreet & Brooks; Walters). Media commentators including Philip Agre, still conclude however that “technological change is generally inseparable from broader social changes” (747).
In William Davies’s book The Happiness Industry he draws attention to the work of Richard Graham, a psychologist who studied the impact of video games on the behaviour of young people (347). Graham treated a young boy who consistently played World of Warcraft up to fifteen hours a day for over three-years. When his concerned parents unplugged the modem denying networked access to the game; he became violent. Graham posited that “the boy was not simply addicted to technology but to a particular type of egocentric relationship which networked computers are particularly adept at providing” (348-9). He further stressed that the boy was not addicted to the computer game as such but more that he desperately desired some form of human interaction but only within a very particular, private and autonomous space (349).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 6 Thinking of this example in relation to Snapstreaks, it would be naive to oversimplify the source of upset as an interference with a form of internet addiction. Considering the update of the app in a purely literal sense, Snapchat had simply interrupted an innate human desire: to interact. As humans we are naturally programmed to communicate and one of the several methods of modern life that affords this possibility are SMPs. In this sense is it not perfectly warranted for users to be upset if their mediation of communication and interaction is altered or removed? Perhaps then the use of the term “addiction” has to be reassessed, as what is being witnessed is more definitively the manipulation of the inherent human desire to interact.
With this in mind, it is evident that with the advent of the smartphone and “the app”, technology companies such as Facebook are defining social practices and embedding their platforms as necessities for communication. The result of this leads many of us to abide in a state of being “always on” or “constant[ly] “connect[ed]” (Turkle: 16). A normal day is dictated by a consistent stream of notifications varying from the important to the pointless. With such regularity and frequency of information, one comes to expect it. Consequently when it is lacking, anxiety replaces the lack of dopamine we crave when our “obsession” for notification isn’t being satisfied; not unlike an addiction (Parkin). A precedent to be “liked” or an expectancy to be “replied to” are just a couple of the many anxieties that are now twinned with a digital lifestyle fuelled by SMPs. Ex-Facebook founder Sean Parker admitted in November 2017 that Facebook exploited “a vulnerability in human psychology” from the outset of the platforms creation (Parkin). Parker revealed that in the beginnings of Facebook’s development the goal was to create ways to consume users time and attention. It was with such a mindset that the “like” button was made, exploiting the human desire to be “liked” or appreciated, instigating “a little dopamine hit” when received and subsequently further encouraging content production (Solon: Ex-Facebook President). A diluted Pavlovian conditioning is now at work as users anticipate and crave human interaction in the form of notifications, signalled by a vibration or the sound of ringtone. This engrained practice has even bore a new phenomenon dubbed Phantom Vibration Syndrome where one believes one’s phone has vibrated or “dinged” when it has not. Indeed nine in ten suffer from this modern affliction according to a 2015 study (Rosenberger).
As ex-Google Ethicist Tristan Harris denotes, the social media monopoly are vying for the “market share of attention” which fundamentally fuels their business (Center for Humane Technology). Our attention and engagement is profit, so entrapping our devout attention equals monumental financial gain. Our captivation ensnared, SMPs capitalise on their catch by treating attention as commodity. These actors further subject their harvest to multiple forms of personalised advertising contributing to the cyclical nature of this “attention economy” in which we now dwell (Davenport & Beck). I propose a system to
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 7 depict this situation in the form of the “Social Media Capitalist Engagement Cycle” (SMCE cycle) and offer a prototype for visualisation below (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Social Media Capitalist Engagement Cycle (SMCE Cycle).
Beginning with the target of every profit-orientated, ad-revenue-based company for increasing profits (Stage 1), methods to manipulate users (Stage 2) into further engagement (Stage 3) are employed with the goal of amassing higher quality and quantities of data (Stage 4). With the increased wealth of user data, SMPs are then continually able to offer more personalised and targeted advertising (Stage 5). Marketing on SMPs that follow such models deem this an attractive space for advertisers, all of whom will be willing to pay competitive amounts for such lucrative opportunities, thus increasing the profits of SMPs (Stage 6). Other SMPs may follow different methods like LinkedIn who employ a “freemium” model; allowing free access to selected features, but with an additional paid option for all-access. There are numerous variants of differing models however this thesis solely concentrates on those who rely on advertising to fuel their SMP.
Through this cycle the “attention economy” is evidently at work as human engagement becomes a commodity to be traded for financial gain. Indeed as Benjamin Grosser states when studying the metrics of
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 8 Facebook, its “value is entirely dependent on how much users participate and contribute to its databases” as its “survival depends on its ability to sell targeted advertising” (4, 8). This cycle provides the condition for this thesis in the form of a conceptualisation under which the “attention economy” functions and as such will be a prominent reference when considering the case studies.
Tiziana Terranova offers a more contemporary angle on Davenports definition in respect to the information overload overwhelming the attention of userships, as she deems our attention a “scarce resource” (2). This scarcity of attention encourages new practices to be designed and administered (Figure 2 - Stage 2). Within existing SMP spheres a prime example is the quantification of sociality through the measurement of units. In metaphorical contrast, Harris defines such design practices as grounds for attention “hijacking” and which he cites as a cause for concern. Here one is caught between Terranova’s defining of attention as commodity and Harris’s depiction of attention as a form of vehicle which can be redirected. It is my belief that both forms are valid as indeed attention can be consumed but also certainly rerouted from its original concentrations. I suggest an alternative metaphor in the form of attention being the new “oil”. While it can still be deemed a commodity to be mined by the original owners of attention, it also has the potential to be immorally siphoned off by illicit miners. The “original owners” of attention could be anything from other websites to spending time with family, while the siphoning by illicit miners in this case would be akin to the manipulative features of SMPs. This new metaphor of “attention as oil” allows more of a fluidity to its depiction as it sits within an economy that gives the ability for it to be consumed as well as “hijacked”. Whichever way the attention economy is depicted, not only is it troubling due to the autotelic nature of SMPs processes, but it is even moreso when considering the further ethical ramifications and responsibilities of SMPs in relation to their consumers.
If SMPs all tamper with our natural human desire for interaction in return for monetary gain, at what point will our well-being be seriously abused to continue to favour their SMCE cycles? That is to say, if they are not already doing so. As Parker states the very foundations of Facebook were based on such “vulnerabilities”, so when do these “vulnerabilities” become dangers to our mental health? And as such should these companies not be investigated and potentially regulated against such detrimental emotional manipulation?
Facebook came under massive scrutiny in 2012 after it published results of a psychological experiment that altered the newsfeed of over 650,000 users. Developers programmed newsfeeds to portray either predominantly positive or negative content in an effort that determined that they could alter the emotional
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 9 state of their users through emotional contagion (Kramer et al.). It is fitting at this juncture to explore Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri’s concept of “Empire” so that social media behemoths like Facebook (and to an extent Snapchat) can be critically situated. Hardt & Negri depict “Empire” as such:
The concept of Empire posits a regime that effectively encompasses the spatial totality, or really that rules over the entire “civilized” world...Empire not only manages a territory and a population but also creates the very world it inhabits. It not only regulates human interactions but also seeks directly to rule over human nature (Hardt & Negri: xiv - xv).
The existence of Empire is usually consigned to the annals of history but when placed metaphorically within a 21st century context, reappears fittingly in a contemporary form particularly alongside the mite of SMPs. Facebook for example sits well in this notion of Empire, not only because of their monumental reach to users of the “civilized” world, but particularly due to the aforementioned regulation of “human interactions”. Indeed Hardt & Negri describe the global economy in a stage of post-modernisation that favours “the production of social life itself” over that of mass factory labour, leaving “the economic, the political, and the cultural [to] increasingly overlap and invest one another” (xiii). Respectively one finds this imperial dominance in the sheer occurrence of the “Mood Experiment”, epitomising Facebook as Empire through the SMPs ability to “directly rule over human nature” (Hardt & Negri: xv).
While surprised and apologetic towards the negative backlash received upon publishing these results, in doing so, Facebook had revealed an imperial influence over their monumental usership that includes roughly a third of the world population (2.2 billion monthly users - see Statista: Facebook Users). As Silicon Valley’s engineering elite conjure evermore cunning, alluring and manipulative interface designs, as users we are simultaneously being influenced into a emotional dependency, enticing us to engage in their apps hungry for more. But at what cost to our well-being?
If the techno-determinist narrative fed to us by these powerful technology behemoths is to be accepted, it is important to consider who is promoting such an agenda and who the actors are in this arena. The methods of the technology companies is a patent beginning for critique and analysis and it is at this crux where the basis of this thesis takes place.
It is paramount that this technological monopoly of attention siphoning and engagement exploitation is
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 10 examined as well as considering its future. Similarly, it is of great importance to critique the many claims of correlation between mental health and SMPs made by medical professionals. When considering the previous research in this arena, Varnum & Grossmann highlight the challenge that medicine and psychopathology face with current research methods (in Twenge). They acknowledge there is a general difficulty in pinpointing forces and causality for cross-cultural change (in Twenge: 12). However despite this and with respect to current methods, it is deduced that the most likely cause for a cultural force leading to lower well-being could be the increase in electronic communication (Twenge: 12). This lack of certainty needs to be clarified further but can only be realised through an alternative approach that can contribute and complement previous medical research. In this vein, this thesis proposes an alternative method for analysis that avoids the limitations of empirical work by approaching the subject from a media perspective. As such one of the goals for this thesis was to explore the existing research and elaborate on any findings through the use of a media theory lens. In this respect, Natasha Schülls “Machine Zone” is appropriate for a comparison as she considers the plight of those suffering from gambling addictions. The potential similarities to userships suffering supposedly at the hands of SMPs are proportional, as in both cases interaction is manipulated through interface design. Similarly Davies work can also complement previous research by providing another fitting theoretical coupling. His questioning of the World of Warcraft example and whether addiction can indeed be defined as such, provides a perfect theoretical accompaniment for the medical research on SMP addiction and well-being.
Furthermore in response to Varnum & Grossmann’s challenges in pinpointing a correlation between a cultural causality, I include further musings on media theory in my research by employing the application of affordances and grammars. If an object's affordance is what it “offers” the individual interacting with it, the notion of grammars can depicted as the traits of the object’s affordance (Gibson: 127; Agre: 745-6). Such definitions of the terms here are basic to provide insight however the many varying intricacies are deliberated further on in Chapter Three. Applying such concepts to SMPs allows a novel angle for analysis and one not currently present in previous research. As such this thesis endeavours to answer the following research questions:
● What are the cultural and societal grammars being afforded by the design of features present in the Facebook and Snapchat platforms? ● How are these design choices manipulating and exploiting the userships of such platforms to encourage regular and frequent engagement? And what is the effect of this design on user mental health?
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 11 ● How is the potential causality between social media and mental health being challenged? And what does the future hold?
In order to determine the outcome of these questions, Chapter Two firstly scrutinizes medical articles and their relevant findings to associations between mental health and SMPs. Seabrook, Kern & Rickard’s Social Networking Sites Depression and Anxiety: A Review is used as a core text and provides the basis for contemplative reference for a variety of medical research throughout the chapter and rest of the thesis. Absolutist claims are easy to administer within such boundaries, especially where many present variables cannot be eliminated or underestimated, so a careful concern for any causality is undertaken in this section. Any medical findings are complemented by media theory such as Schüll’s “Machine Zone” linking interaction design to addictive gambling behaviours as well as William Davies notion of addictions relationship with emotions. Chapter Three grounds the succeeding case studies within a theoretical media framework. Firstly I detail and explore the evolution of affordance as definition, as well as grammars of action (Gibson; Agre). A mixture of historical and contemporary definitions are combined together for the proposal of an original methodological framework to be applied to the case studies. Chapter Four applies the proposed framework to the SMP case studies which includes Snapstreaks, read-receipts present within the Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp platforms and the Facebook Safety Check feature. Chapter Five discusses the other case studies in relation to the Facebook Mood Experiment as well the public and political reaction to SMPs causality with poor mental health. Chapter Six concludes the thesis with a summation of the discourse, highlighting any limitations as well as proposing any avenues for future research.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 12 2. Chapter Two - Social Media Platforms and “Addiction”
When considering previous research concerning SMPs and mental health, Seabrook et al. provide the perfect starting point with their definitive review of findings from the medical and psychopathological fields. The researchers perfectly collage an exhaustive collection of results on the potential associations between SMPs and mental disorders; namely depression, anxiety and well-being. Seabrook et al. are keen to cite psychologist Corey Keyes in that defining “a complete model of mental health” involves including not only an absence of psychopathology, but also a focus on subjective well-being. Mental health is therefore a consuming term and thus, when considered alongside the usership of environments such as SMPs, is logical to predict that such states and environments could affect each other bidirectionally, with complexity and in a valence of ways.
There have been a wealth of studies on the relationship between SMPs and mental health, all concentrating on differing variables. “Addiction” to SMPs (and smartphones) is the prominent concern in related literature and as such are the most relevant to this thesis. Emotional attachment and dependency to smartphones has been established (Cheever et al.; Clayton, Leshner & Almond; Thorsteinsson & Page) leading to evidence of compulsive usage (Bian & Leung; Lee et al.) through the encouragement of “habits” (Osatuyi & Turel; Oulasvirta et al.). More specifically with relation to SMPs, users with low life satisfaction (Hawi & Samaha; Longstreet & Brooks) or who were extraverted, narcissistic or neurotic (Blackwell et al.; Turel, Poppa & Gil-Or; Wilson, Fornasier & White), particularly adolescents (Glover & Fritsch; Twenge et al.; Vanucci, Flannery & Ohannessian; Woods & Scott) were most likely to suffer from SMP addiction. Returning to the example of Snapstreaks for instance, the likelihood for such addiction is comprehensible if SMPs are used as a means for youth to maintain friendships.
It was also found that if an individual subscribed to multiple SMPs, the use of a numerous amount was more likely to result in reports of depression or anxiety rather than the frequent use of a single SMP (Primack et al.). Primack et al. point to the nuances of differing SMPs, and that navigating through and maintaining numerous differing digital worlds is strenuous and could be the potential cause of “negative mood and emotions” (5). Such maneuvering relates back to the aforementioned “attention economy” as numerous and differing SMPs compete for the mining of captivation, each vying for the devotion of users time.
There have been suggestions that use of SMPs for computer-mediated communication (eg. email, instant
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 13 messaging) could (in moderation) benefit those with social anxiety (Derks, Fischer & Bos; Glover & Fritsch; King et al.). This is due the platforms ability to connect users to peers in a more comfortable and digital setting in contrast to the angst felt by social anxiety sufferers for real life interaction. Similarly the same could be said when considering Grahams deductions of the World of Warcraft example. However the evidence is outweighed in comparison to the new forms of social anxiety that are forming with increased SMP engagement and problematic SMP use.
Chou & Edge found that the longer a user had used Facebook, the more they perceived that their peers enjoyed a better lifestyle than their own (119). Extended exposure to mostly positive content is their reasoning for the manifestation of such beliefs as it encourages a comparison with one’s own lifestyle. Such exposure is not relative of reality however as mostly users will post positive content over the negative, portraying an unrealistic version of their peer’s lives. Consequently such users begin to feel their life is unfair or not as good in comparison, subsequently inducing an additional anxiety in the form of a “Fear of Missing Out” (FOMO) (Obesrt et al.; Przybylski et al.). Not always akin to SMP’s, FOMO depicts individuals feeling left out of life events shared with their peers or a feeling that they are not experiencing their own key life occurrences, even when this may not be true (Obesrt et al.: 53). Obesrt et al. found that a presence of depression and anxiety can lead to FOMO and increase “maladaptive mobile phone use” (58). However witnessing positive misrepresentations of others lives through increased exposure to SMPs could logically induce the reasoning that said user is not involved in significant events, thus further inflaming any present state of FOMO. This could be contrasted alongside Davies example of the World of Warcraft player. Perhaps the user is not addicted to SMPs but to a type of inherent human interaction, and in the case of FOMO; a desire for shared experience with peers. Through Facebook a diluted version of said experience can be “shared” through accessing messaging, picture or video content from other peers. This worryingly hints at Stage 2 and 3 of the SMCE cycle (Figure 2). Through the SMP illusion that your peers are having a better life than your own or simply that a user has access to experiences that does not include them (Stage 2), users participate in further engagement not only to potentially confirm such suspicions, but to relieve the paranoia and feel included (Stage 3). FOMO as a condition seems “addictive” and cyclical in its nature, for to partake in increased in SMP use may not achieve relief but could logically exacerbate the symptoms.
Other terms have been coined to describe the more general effects of SMP usage in the form of “techno-stress” (Lee et al.) and “social media fatigue” (Bright, Kleiser & Grau). End users are overloaded with information from SMPs competing with each other for the market share of the “attention economy”.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 14 Understandably such frequent exposure to consistent, varying and emotionally-loaded content will deplete the users “scarce” amount of attention rationally resulting in a state of stress or fatigue through continued usage (Terranova: 2).
Such is the desire for the causality to be recognised that theorists have even proposed models for application of further research in the form of the Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users (Alkis, Kadirhan & Sat), and the Social Media Disorder scale (van den Eijnden, Lemmens & Valkenburg) amongst others. Longstreet & Brooks note however that this breadth of research should not necessarily imply direct causation, “but show support for the existence of a relationship between the factors” of mental health and SMPs (75).
Alongside this medical research it is fitting to apply a media theory angle to conceptualise addiction. Media Scholar Alex Gekker cites anthropologist Natasha Schüll’s work on the “Machine Zone” and gambling machines as an analogy to understanding addictive behaviour. For gamblers, the affordance of winning or losing is curtailed by the design of the machine interfaces namely its lights and sounds. Instead the act of succeeding at the game is replaced with an encouragement for basic repeat engagement, situating the action and subsequent satisfaction of pleasure within the “playing” of the game itself, over the monetary winning or losing. Consequently this drives the consistent stream of monetary input from the gambler and furthers the profits of the casinos. Indeed Schüll remarks that “through the collective, steady repetition of their play, low-rolling local machine gamblers displaced high-rolling tourist table gamblers as the heavyweights of the gambling scene in Las Vegas” (40). While Schüll concentrates on the intricate and careful design of the gambling machine interface, Gekker projects Schüll’s stance unto digital interfaces like the video game Diablo’ s use of numbering to encourage participation and “mediate[...] existence” (108). Similarly with SMP’s, users with FOMO for example seek increased participation in an SMP as a false pretence to achieving their goal. While for Schüll gamblers are encouraged to concentrate on the “play” over the monetary winnings, similarly users with FOMO are coerced into seeking digital interaction over actual attendance of an event or meeting with a peer they may feel FOMO towards. Gekker highlights how the user interface of games are able to foster “addictive behaviours” or “addictive loops”, which with this example can be also said of the interface designs for SMPs (116).
Within internet, SMP or any kind of addiction, all share similar traits of addictive “behaviours” or “loops” that are responsible for encouraging compulsive behaviour. Indeed as Davies denotes, neuroscience has shown that “the pleasures associated with internet use can be chemically identical to those associated with
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 15 cocaine use or other addictive pastimes” (346). But as mentioned in the introduction with relation to Graham’s example of World of Warcraft, a “broader cultural logic” must be reflected on here (Davies: 350). It is imperative to look beyond the material or functional addiction to SMPs as a platform, and instead concentrate on the apparent compulsion to communicate, albeit through a specific process. These “addictions” are compulsive due to their associations with emotional states and exploitation of human vulnerabilities. As social beings, naturally we have personal worth and want to be respected by our peers. The examples of World of Warcraft, Snapstreaks and the “like” button all share a similarity in that they are tied up in emotional interaction, so naturally users will repeatedly engage with these processes and are understandably upset when they are withdrawn or lacking. Just like Schülls depiction of gambling, SMPs encourage meaning to be found in the “play” of SMPs (ie. the gaining of “likes” or collection of numerous friends) over the actual content of interaction with peers. Davies wryly signals this situation when considering current advertising theory as he claims “emotions are back ‘in’ again” because “most importantly it is what leads us to get our credit cards out of our pockets” (127, 130). Thinking back to the SMEC diagram in the introduction (Figure 2), it is then feasible that SMPs manipulatively design their features to be emotionally “addictive” (Stage 2), in order to achieve their capitalist goals (Stage 1). But is this actually occurring? Are platforms taking advantage of our malleable and exploitative mental capacities for financial gain? From a medical standpoint the verdict is mixed.
While there is ample research in this area, any foundation for clarity and certainty is somewhat undermined by particular limitations of the studies. Seabrook et al. point out that different methodologies can contribute to different results with respect to temporal elements. They cite Steers et al. for example who received conflicting results when using a retrospective survey compared with that of a daily diary. Similarly “time distortion” is flagged as an issue where addiction-like symptoms are present, as the concept of time can be unreliable in affected users (Turel, Brevers & Bechara). It can also separately have an effect on “immediate and delayed effects of social sharing” (Brans et al.). In fact Seabrook et al. claim that only a few studies relevant to the review “utilized [SMP] derived data” compared with the majority that were based on self-report surveys relying “on participant estimates of their [SMP] behaviours”. This meant that sample size is generally small, with the demographic usually being isolated to an undiverse grouping such as a collection of university students relative to the origin of the research (Alkis, Kadirhan & Sat; Blackwell et al.).
Seabrook et al.’s general summation details that while there is a definite correlation between SMP use and mental health and wellbeing, whether the effect is positive, negative or negligible is dependent on the
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 16 mental state of the user in question. Users with predisposed personality disorders were most likely to be negatively affected by their use of SMPs (Lee Won, Herzog & Park; Moreau et al.; Obesrt et al.; Wegmann, Stodt & Brand) due to their state of mental health acting as a “moderator” (Kross et al.) that exacerbated compulsive behaviours and negative mental states. Such associations were generally non-significant for users who were not diagnosed with mental health issues, who - it was determined - would not be affected with symptoms of depression or anxiety through average use of SMPs (McCord, Rodebaugh & Levinson; Muench et al.). Seabrook et al. did highlight however prominent risk factors for depression and anxiety that could be found in the form of what they define as “f requent [SMP] social comparison, negative perceived interaction quality, addictive or problematic [SMP] use, and rumination (or brooding)”. While they singled out frequency of [SMP] use as another potential risk factor, on the whole this variable “suggested no clear association with depression and anxiety”. That said however, none of the studies included in the review supported a decrease in anxiety or depressive symptoms through frequent use (Seabrook et al.).
In conclusion, the medical arena has established that users with mental health issues are prone to negative associations with SMPs, with the youth being the most vulnerable demographic. Psycho-pathological symptoms can both encourage and exacerbate SMP use, which has instigated new anxieties in the form of FOMO and heightened social comparison for example. The implication of using multiple SMPs leaves us mentally depleted, as users manoeuvre through not necessarily their “addictions” but instead the exploitation of their emotions and desires to interact. This connection to emotion signifies what could be the basis for Stage 2 of the SMCE cycle, but without further analysis of specific case studies cannot be confirmed at this moment.
Considering the limitations of medical research, it is fitting that a new “more nuanced assessment of social media use” is employed (Vanucci, Flannery & Ohannessian: 165). Very little of the medical journals that Seabrook et al. and I have mentioned, consider the specific features of SMPs and their direct effect on the mental state of their usership. Hence through this thesis, I aim to build on the aforementioned research by honing in on particular traits and techniques of SMPs. Unlike the medical research, I approach the case studies from a theoretical and autoethnographical angle instead of an empirical method. To ensure the approach is “more nuanced” as per Vanucci et al.’s suggestion, the case studies and their ties to emotion are explored through the concept of affordances. But beforehand, the definition of affordance is explored to establish its use as methodological framework.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 17 3. Chapter Three - Affordance as Method
3.1 - History of Affordance
The concept of “affordance” was pioneered by psychologist James Gibson who encouraged the theorisation of the relationship between organism and environment. “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” and as such affordances are therefore relative to the organism in question (Gibson: 127). A typical analogy depicts a human interacting with a surface, one that can mediate sitting. The surface has adequate size, flatness and rigidity to support the human form thus affording the possibility of a seat or indeed the perception of one. If all technology “has some affordance for benefit or injury to someone” then consequently organism and environment are complementary or relative to one another, not divided dualistically as separate entities (Gibson: 140). Despite this Gibson is keen to stress that objects such as in the surface example are not always defined by interpretation from the organism, for it is in itself a “value-rich ecological object[...]” (140). Such a surface could provide many affordances to many organisms, not just the practice of sitting, so consequently a single object can have multiple meanings and provide a differing mediation for many. Essentially for Gibson the concept of perception for humans is not learned but innate as he hypothesizes “that there has to be an awareness of the world before it can be put into words” (258). If the perception of our environment is inherent therefore so is our comprehension of potential affordances. Indeed as Gibson writes; one “does not need to have ideas about the environment in order to perceive it” (304).
Gibson’s definition of affordances is somewhat antiquated and the term has evolved in recent times in line with technological and cultural change. A fitting example concerns the concept of design with respect to the work of designer and cognitive scientist Donald Norman. Norman’s 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things directly challenged Gibson’s theory of affordances as his discrepancies lay in his disagreement that perception was inherent. While Norman largely agreed that affordances refer to the “perceived and actual properties of [a] thing”, he conversely believed that this was learnt from a basis of past knowledge and experience and thus applied to perception, rather than perception being an inherent primary ability (1988: 9, 219). It is noteworthy to mention that in the 2013 revised edition of the book, Norman redefines affordance as “the relationship between a physical object and a person”, the importance here being the mention of the “physical” (2013: 11). This is particularly poignant if considering such a definition in a modern context with relation to Facebook or
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 18 Snapchat. To contemplate the affordances of digital platforms with respect to Norman’s definition certainly feels outdated for the virtual ecosystem they replicate can hardly be described as “physical”. While Norman’s angle is inclusive of design and would be fitting in respect to the contemplation of the case studies, a more modern definition of affordance that respects virtual and digital objects is needed for this thesis. Potential and more contemporary definitions are considered further on in the next section (3.2).
Before doing so it is important to note that Norman was also keen to stress that alongside affordance, the concept of constraint holds a dominant presence (2013: 123). Constraint here refers to the perceived limits of possibilities rather than the range of potential action or mediation that affordance describes. Thinking again of the surface example; while a surface may afford us the possibility of sitting, due to its size, it may not afford us the added potential to lie down, constraining our ability to sleep or rest. Norman states that a “thoughtful” combination of both affordances and constraints within design correctly informs the proper course of action for any user (2013: 125).
Taking Norman’s notion that within design sits affordances and constraints, design is therefore programmed with significant intentions which, in turn, produce a language for the receiver to learn, interpret, use and repeat with other similar designs. Such “language” is defined by Information Studies professor Philip Agre as grammars of action or more simply; grammars. Agre championed that if the activity of humans can be treated as a language, then consequently the techniques, traditions or rules applied to any such activity provide a grammar applicable to such actions (745-6). Indeed these grammars can be created, learned or even enforced and sit within Agre’s wider ideology dubbed the “Capture Model”: “the situation that results when grammars of action are imposed on human activity” (746). Agre uses the model not only as a language analogy but also as a metaphor within the context of computing, as the “human activity” of the capture model becomes “represented by computers in real time” (746). Computing mimics that of a system that captures human actions into a grammartisation and thus builds an institutional process. For example, the simple moving of a document from one folder to another within a computing interface becomes a “standardized” process that users adapt to, as they “orient their activities toward the capture machinery and its institutional consequences” (Agre: 746, 747). As Agre highlights, the issue here is that such adaptation can extend beyond simple “real-time capture” or replication of human activity. Institutions frequently impose grammars on activities for reasons other than capture such as “security, efficiency, protection from liability, [or] simpl[y] control” (Agre: 747).
As a concept, grammars compliment affordances significantly. Considering the example of the surface: if the surface affords us the possibility of sitting, in doing so it is affording us certain grammars of sitting that are
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 19 specific to the surface provided. For instance if the surface is soft in texture then it would provide a grammar of a comfortable sitting experience. Simply put, if an affordance is a possible action, then the grammars are the attributes of this action. If we then reconsider Norman’s definition of design and affordance, the designer becomes the author and subsequently the writer of any resulting grammars. Through the combination of affordance and constraint products are designed, generating grammars which become inherent attributes specific to that product. For example two furniture companies could exist which differ in the types of chairs they make. One company makes chairs for offices that are adequately comfortable but upright and applicable for sitting at a table. Alternatively another company makes armchairs for homes that are comfortable with the ability to lean, applicable for relaxing in a living room. Both companies provide products that offer the same affordance of ‘sitting’ but intentionally differ in their grammars as the sitting experiences require different attributes of design.
3.2 - Contemporary Affordance
While the origins of affordances provide an appropriate historical context, it is imperative to cite the more contemporary works of Mel Stanfill and HR Hartson at this juncture. Through their respective works The Interface as Discourse and Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design, Stanfill and Hartson fittingly situate affordances within modern new media settings. They provide a clear theoretical framework for applying affordance to human-computer interaction which Stanfills defines as Discursive Interface Analysis (DIA) (1061). When applying DIA to website interfaces Stanfill uses Hartsons division of affordance types to divide the differing possibilities available. This is split into “physical”, “functional”, “cognitive” and “sensory” affordances (Hartson: 319, Stanfill: 1063). Stanfill then takes Hartson’s work further by situating the concept within our internet era with respect to the website interface. As the method of DIA concerns virtual environments, Stanfill rightly states that the consideration of the “physical” affordances is inapplicable in this situation (Stanfill: 1063). The remaining affordances are described by Hartson as such: “functional” depicts what an object can do, “cognitive” defines how users comprehend what the object can do or is, and “sensory” facilitates sensing something such as seeing, hearing or feeling (323). Both Hartson and Stanfill’s work are vital examples for the digital development of the definition of affordance, as Hartson admittedly states his paper is an affirmative reaction to Normans definition (2013: 315). In applying these divisions to the Facebook and Snapchat case studies, the separations that are significant to this thesis are mostly “cognitive” and “sensory”. The “functional” affordances of Facebook and Snapchat, on a generic level are quite apparent and undebatable, as they simply afford the ability to communicate with others through a web platform and as such are not extensively considered.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 20
That being said, it is worth mentioning Stanfill’s ruminations on Michel Foucault’s notion of “power as productive” in regards to functional affordances (1060). Through functional affordances “n orms [sic]” are produced implying users “o ught [sic] to do this and not that” signifying a influence or indeed a streamlining of the users actions when interacting with the interface (1063). Therefore, functional affordances construct the notion of normalcy and what is to be expected across a usership and between userships. Apart from this notion however, it is “cognitive” and “sensory” that highlight the more complex notions of affordance which are fit for examination. These types of affordances provide a methodological lens to explore SMPs, by encouraging the exposure of the grammars (and constraints) that dictate our communication lexicon authored by the social media monopoly.
While Stanfill’s framework is an adequate starting point for methodological replication in this thesis, there are still significant musings on the term to be considered, particularly with regards to Nagy & Neff’s proposed reconstruction of the term: “imagined affordance” (1). Their development aims to be inclusive by referencing all actors in the digital communication process namely users, designers and the technologies themselves, ultimately awarding the term an inclusivity, a versatility and an overall less “static” state (1-2). Nagy & Neff state that, within communication discourse, the original term has been limited to the seemingly conscious and rational actions that are afforded or constrained by humans (2). Instead they propose that “imagined affordances emerge between users’ perceptions, attitudes, and expectations; between the materiality and functionality of technologies; and between the intentions and perceptions of designers” (5). Nagy & Neff here provide a multi-layered definition for affordance that favours conceptual possibilities over the physical, further evolving the term away from any Normanic origins. They conclude their theorisation with the sentiment that “affordances are not only related to the design features of devices but also to the psychological and social characteristics of human–technology interaction” (7). This particular aspect of their affordance redefinition is absolutely integral to any further contemplations in this thesis. Unlike the previous definitions, Nagy & Neff’s crucially includes emotion as a trait of communicative affordance. Subsequently it is vital that this particular aspect is given careful consideration when examining technologies such as SMPs. With a combined wealth of usership and consequential power of influence, technology giants like Facebook and Snapchat have significant potential to affect users’ conscious or unconscious emotion through the engineered and intended grammars of their choosing (the extent of which are discussed in the next chapter).
I lastly consider Taina Bucher and Anne Helmond’s exhaustive paper within which they finely delineate between the most notable definitions of affordance with relation to SMPs. For Bucher & Helmond “features
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 21 [of SMPs] are objects of intense feelings” and fittingly compare them to Ganaele Langlois’s notion of features as “communicational actors” that “produce meanings” (52). Indeed for them “a feature is not just a feature” much in the similar vein that Gibson believed that objects were rich in value and not arbitrary (Bucher & Helmond: 2, Gibson: 140). Over the course of their paper Bucher & Helmond cover the historic journey of affordance amicably, beginning with Gibson, evolving into Norman as well as giving their dues to Professor of Design William Gaver whose definition lies entrenched within the concept of interaction. Gaver defines affordances as not being confined to “individual action, but for social interaction as well”, for “these are not social affordances [...] but affordances for sociality” (Gaver: 114). Alongside Gaver, Bucher & Helmond are keen to include sociologist Ian Hutchby’s definition of “communicative affordance”. Similarly to Gaver, Hutchby hints at a techno-determinist slant with their concepts depicting a causality between technology defining the progress of society and culture. For Bucher & Helmond, Hutchby provides a “middle term” that situates technologies as being socially constructed whilst being materially enabling and constraining, but ultimately focusing on the “impact of technology [on] communication” (10, Schrock: 1233).
Bucher & Helmond are keen to stress throughout their paper that the term affordance is loaded and must be considered from a multi-layered approach. It is their suggestion that affordances can be split into “high” and “low-level” affordances, with “high-level” being associated with more abstract or conceptual affordances such as thoughts or emotions, and “low-level” providing concrete, functional and feature-oriented affordances (12). Furthering a high-level approach, Bucher & Helmond lastly cite McVeigh-Schultz & Baym and their definition of affordance as “vernacular” (Bucher & Helmond:15, McVeigh-Schultz & Baym:1). Crucially “vernacular” affordances acknowledge “how action possibilities cannot be determined once and for all” and are thus relative to the individual (Bucher & Helmond:15). Through McVeigh-Schultz & Baym’s “vernacular” the definition has also has come full circle, as it returns from a Normanic structure where feature-teaches-action, and back to the Gibsonian belief of perception being inherent. Bucher & Helmond write as such when they describe vernacular affordances as being “grounded in peoples own perceptions and experiences” instead of being initiated by a designer and regardless of their intentions (15). Indeed they continue to clarify that vernacular affordances are “as much [a] part of users’ experiences and perceptions of technologies as the technologies themselves” (16).
Bucher & Helmond conclude by stating that any form of social media affordance analysis must take a “platform-sensitive approach” and consequently should “consider the specificity of the digital environment more explicitly” (26-7). With this contemplation they champion how the affordance infrastructure of a platform (and its resulting grammars) can be exported from its own techno-ecosystem into other environments
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 22 but most crucially, that the affordances are not only unidirectional (30, 16). On top of what SMPs affords end-users, Bucher & Helmond propose future reflections of “what end-users afford or do to technology” as it is their belief that they sit dualistically (16). As SMP users we perpetuate through a feedback loop of interaction ever-contributing to a personalised set of data that depicts our online character (Figure 3 - Stage 4). This in turn drives customised advertising (Figure 3 - Stage 5), ultimately furthering the profits of the social media monopolies (Figure 3 - Stage 6) that provide the affordance of interaction.
2. Introduction of the Facebook “like”: a feature that easily endorses, agrees and supports content posted by peers.
3. A “like” is extremely easy and quick to use, allowing for increased interaction/engagement with content on platform. eg. more efficient than writing a comment
4. All “likes” are tracked and categorised by Facebook. The type of content that is liked are used to build a profile about the users personality, life choices and preferences.
5. The profile allows for more specific advertising. eg. if numerous content on the topic of football is liked, the advertising of football-related products can be pushed to user resulting in logical increased likelihood of a purchase.
Figure 3 - Revised SMCE cycle using example of a Facebook “like” and a user.
If the grammars of this economic cycle are to be accepted then it is logical to believe that users provide affordances for technology and its designers as well, which speaks to the inclusive and dualistic approach of Nagy & Neff’s notion of “imagined affordance”. For Bucher & Helmond, any definition of affordance applied to a similar situation must be twinned with a sensitivity of the platform in order to better define any affordance of technology unto the user, or vice versa.
3.3 - Methodology
Considering all the aforementioned definitions of affordances, while some provide a decent basis for application, others are either outdated or not applicable for the following case studies. I now reflect and
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 23 delineate over the chosen definitions that were used methodologically with respect to the affordances, constraints and grammars of Facebook and Snapchat.
Whilst being sensitive of Gibson’s definition as a grounding, this thesis makes use of the Normanic definition of affordance as a basis but only in respect to perception being learnt. While interface design is seemingly Gibsonian as it relies heavily on the practice of Skeuomorphism (the mimicking of visual cues indicating known physical attributes to resemble physical affordance), this would not be applicable to the chosen case studies. Within a virtual interface a fitting example of Skeuomorphism would be a graphic that depicted a button that once clicked, appeared as if it was “pushed-in” to indicate it being “on”. This would point to perception here being inherent as it resembles the functions of an everyday situation that can virtually be mimicked, which leans more to the Gibsonian definition. The nature of the chosen case studies however are conceptually more complex than the mimicking of turning “on” a button. In the context of this thesis the case studies are chosen not so much for their functional affordances but their subsequent emotive affordances resulting from said function. These resulting affordances indeed could be learnt but are secondary to the initial function meaning any learning may not be immediate for the user or indeed learnt at all; hence the choice to concentrate on the Normanic definition and one of the reasons for including the chosen case studies. As Norman’s affordance is only defined within a physical construct however, this was the only aspect of the Normanic definition used by this thesis.
While I am appreciative of McVeigh-Schultz & Baym’s “vernacular” definition being inclusive of user perception and experience, their lack of consideration for the intention of the designer however is naive if applied in this setting. Any disregard for the role of the designer would be ignorant particularly in this study, due to its basis being situated in a discussion between the potential causality of SMP design and mental health. Therefore this definition, while a progressive redefinition, was not included. Nagy & Neff’s “imagined affordance” however was a preferred definition due to their intention for the term to embody an inclusive selection of actors and traits. “Imagined affordances” is preferable as it adheres to the appropriate notions of McVeigh-Schultz & Baym’s “vernacular” with respect to user perception while simultaneously encompassing other actors such as the designers and the technologies themselves. Due to the focus of thesis concerning well-being, it is also fitting to lend from Nagy & Neff as for them “imagined affordances” are grounded in “the psychological and social characteristics of human–technology interaction” (7).
While Bucher & Helmond provided a definitive summation of potential frameworks for which to apply affordances to SMPs, this thesis instead proposes a synthesis of the previously discussed definitions, that
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 24 together provide a comprehensive methodological framework. The framework is applicable for the study of SMPs that are reliant on advertising as main source of revenue. Additionally the case studies can be situated critically within versions of the proposed SMCE cycle (eg. Figure 2). The proposed framework provides an encompassing and all-inclusive method to ensuring the case studies can be understood.
The “Imagined Affordance Infrastructure Framework” (IAIF) (Figure 4) depicts a selection of the pertinent affordances that correspond adequately to a study of the traits of SMPs. It is my belief that the differing types of affordance sit within the “high-level” and encapsulating world of “imagined affordance”. The terms are situated and mapped within an infrastructure relative to each other not only in hierarchy, but also in order of methodological application. The intended journey of analysis begins in the centre, with lower-level considerations of affordances and then follow a route out through the differing layers to an ultimate and conclusive “high-level” consideration (as indicated by the “analysis route” arrow). As per Bucher & Helmonds call for the concept of affordance to be considered with a “multi-layered” approach, I believe such a proposal heralds their cry (16).
Figure 4 - Imagined Affordance Infrastructure Framework (IAIF).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 25 A “communicative affordance” grouping (3) is grounded in the centre of the IAIF, housing Stanfill and Hutchby’s “functional” (1), “cognitive” (2.1) and “sensory” (2.2) affordance divisions and as such is the starting point for any affordance analysis. “Functional” affordances are mostly of an unambiguous nature and consequently once established, do not require much further analysis. Such examination can inform further concentrations however, especially where Stanfills “cognitive” and “sensory” affordances are concerned. I posit that Stanfill and Hutchby’s three delinations (1, 2.1 and 2.2) feed as “low-level” tributaries into the wider notions of “communicative” affordances (3) completing the centre grouping and provide an adequate beginning for affordance analysis.
The layer surrounding the centre comes in the shape of Normanic “constraints” (4.1). Once the communicative affordances are established it is then simple and logical to determine the constraints (if any) that may be applicable to the subject. The outer layer makes up Bucher & Helmond’s “platform-sensitivity” (4.2), which can be divided into three divisions of different actors, as per Nagy & Neff’s inclusive approach, materialising in the form of users, technology and designers (1-2). As per Bucher & Helmond’s plea described in the previous section, any further analysis was wary to reside within a dualistic definition of affordances and SMPs over a unidirectional relationship. By including the aforementioned concepts of affordance, it is then possible to arrive at the destined and “high-level” definition of Nagy & Neff’s “imagined affordance”. For each case study, I divided the analysis into five sections. Each subject is contextually introduced as well as the basic “functional” affordance explained (1). This is followed by a “sensory” (2.1), a “cognitive” (2.2) and a “communicative” section (3). The last division for each case study is dubbed the “imagined” affordance section which includes the “constraints” (4.1) and a consideration on “platform-sensitivity” (4.2). An example is provided below on how this might work (Figure 5).
Case Study Affordance Type Finding
Facebook “Like” 1. Functional Ability to acknowledge, agree or approve Facebook button content.
2.1. Cognitive Affords the receiver gratification that their opinion is shared/approved by friend network.
2.2 Sensory Approval of shared culture provides positive feeling of well-being/happiness for receiver.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 26 3. Communicative Approving/agreement made quick and simple. Inhibits discussion/discourse?
4.1. Constraint Encourages a “forced” positivity eg. “liking” negative content feels wrong.
4.2. Platform Sensitivity Low-effort engagement fuels personal profile of likes for better customised advertising.
Figure 5 - IAIF example for the Facebook “Like” button.
For example, if one was to apply the framework in basic terms to the subject of a Facebook “like”, one would start in centre at the beginning of the analysis route. Establishing the “functional” affordance (1) is the primary task and in this case would be determined as the ability to acknowledge, agree or approve Facebook content. Secondly the “cognitive” (2.1) and “sensory” affordances (2.2) would be established. Cognitively a “like” affords the receiver gratification that their opinion and nature of their content is valued by their network. Consequently this sensorily may impart a positive feeling of well-being and happiness for the receiver, and also perhaps an appreciation for their connection to a culture they share with their peers. Once these “lower-levels” of affordance are established, a deeper consideration can be given to the nature of the subject and its effect on communicative affordances (3) as a cultural practice. Questions can begin to be explored at this level for instance: users are able to comment in response to content but with an ease of a “like”, are users foregoing commenting and thus denying discussion? Wholly “communicative” affordances can begin to question how a subject is altering the very nature of human interaction. This feeds fittingly into the constraints section of the IAIF (4.1), as one begins to consider how the function of the “like” may restrict the usership. Before the global introduction of “reactions” in 2016 (the addition of “Love”, “Haha”, “Wow”, “Sad” & “Angry” emojis), the only option was to either like or comment on content, which could denote a “forced” positivity where the like was concerned (Facebook Newsroom). Notions of constraint again flow naturally into a “platform-sensitive” approach (4.2) where one can begin to consider the reasoning behind these design decisions. The final contemplation can consider each of the actors involved in the form of users (mustard), technology (yellow) and designers (light green). Here we ponder not only what the technology affords the usership but what the usership affords the technology, and how they sit in relation to each other within an affordance equilibrium. In this case, the creation of the “like” encourages low-effort engagement from the user to interact with the platform. Furthermore this forms one of the many techniques by which Facebook harvests personal data to further personalise its advertising model (see Figure 3). While the “like” affords the usership a new grammar for
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 27 communication, the usership afford the technology with personal data that fuels a customised advertising profile.
With the IAIF, I provide an inclusive framework for affordance analysis. One can apply and incorporate the differing terms of affordance to a subject, beginning in the “communicative” centre and conclude with the outer layer of “platform sensitivity”, thus establishing the “imagined affordances” of the subject. By giving attention to a “multi-layering” of definitions, this method provides an adequate framework to establish any definitive psychological and emotional effects resulting from interaction with SMPs. Through applying the IAIF, this novel method combats Varnum & Grossmann’s earlier concerns of current research methods being able to definitively identify cross-cultural change. The all-encompassing nature of the IAIF, provides a method that considers affordances from a variety of viewpoints, which ultimately encourages an alternative but definitive analysis to that of the aforementioned medical research in Chapter 2.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 28
4. Chapter Four - Case Studies
The following section applies the aforementioned theorisation of affordance and grammars in the form of the IAIF, to autoethnographic case studies of the Facebook and Snapchat platforms. The examination of Snapchat solely concentrates on its Snapstreaks feature (4.1). The analysis of Facebook is split into two parts concentrating on; “read-receipts” found in its own Messenger app and the Facebook-owned Whatsapp (4.2.1) as well as the “Safety Feature” instigated during natural disasters and terror attacks (4.2.2).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 29
4.1 - Snapstreaks (Figure 6)
Case Study Affordance Type Finding
Snapstreaks 1. Functional “Interaction Counter”.
2.1. Cognitive Competitive “d esire for more” to increase personal worth = Social acceptance.
2.2 Sensory Repetitive cycle: Short-term (satisfaction/accomplishment) vs Long-term (anxiety/never fully satisfied).
3. Communicative Quantifying friendship / app dependency to maintain relationships / Low quality communication content.
4.1. Constraint Limiting interaction to within a repeated 24hr time-limit to increase streak.
4.2. Platform Sensitivity Users afforded increased engagement, thus parting with more personal data.
Figure 6 - IAIF for Snapstreaks.
4.1.1 - Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 6 - 1)
After the version 2.0 update of Snapchat in March 2016, the inclusion of the new Snapstreaks feature fast became a cornerstone element of the Snapchat platform (Yasharoff). The feature essentially counts the consecutive number of days two users have sent each other an image; if the two users do not “snap” in twenty-four hours the streak is lost. As well as the counter marking the amount of days in the streak, longer Snapstreaks are represented through exclusive emojis representative of streak length. When the twenty-four hour time limit is nearing, an hourglass appears next to the streak which has been described as anxiety-inducing for some (Vega). The extent to which users commit to lengthy Snapstreaks is the concerning aspect here, with the work to maintain them being described by some users as “treat[ing] it like business” (Lorenz: Business Insider). Communication quality is generally poor in this regard with users
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 30 sending a blank or generic “snap” with the caption “streak” to their followers to keep their tallies up (Lorenz: Mic). When unable to access their phone, users even employ friends as “streaksitters” to login into their accounts and maintain their Snapstreaks (Thompson). Considering the lengths users go to sustain their streaks it is then comprehensible for distress to occur when it is lost. For those who refuse to accept the loss, online guides are available advising how to potentially restore any lost streaks with even a desperate few signing petitions asking for reinstatement (Godlewski, Thompson). For the many less proactive users however, a small window of grief is followed by a contemplation to cease use in Snapchat altogether. However this pondering mostly concludes with a return to the platform and a restart of the Snapstreak cycle (Thompson, Vega).
For the large amount of teen users, the anxiety surrounding Snapstreaks is largely due to its embodiment and subsequent quantification of friendship. By losing a Snapstreak a “friendship would fall back down to zero” as a consistent streak implies “proof of commitment” (Vega, Lorenz: Mic). For many of Snapchat’s youthful usership whom 86% of which are under 35 (see Statista: Snapchat Age Demographics), crucially “the longer your Snapstreak is, the better friends you are” (Lorenz: Mic). What on the surface may seem like an innocent and game-like feature of the app, is in fact becoming not only emotionally loaded, but consequently an integral part of defining friendships for younger generations. Bucher & Helmonds resounding statement rings true here of features not simply being features as indeed in this example, the symbols and connotations “carry matter” (2).
As a starting point for analysis I begin by considering the central affordances. Considering solely the Snapstreaks feature, I define its functional affordance simply serving as a form of “interaction counter” that tallies the number of consecutive days snaps have been sent between two friends. Beginning to think of the cognitive and sensory affordances of such functional design however, the nature of the affordances become much more complex.
4.1.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 6 - 2.1)
Immediately from the choice of the word “streak”, cognitively speaking, the feature is grounded as competitive. “Streak” denotes a run of good form or continuing to do well much like in a sporting sense. Users are directly informed by the diction that this feature requires repeated action to benefit from it. While the term is only a light hint to the gamification of friendship, this is made clear by the metrication of interaction in the counting of days. In software artist Benjamin Grosser’s article What Do Metrics Want?
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 31 How Quantification Prescribes Social Interaction on Facebook he ponders why more is better. For Grosser the answer lies in the “pervasiveness of capitalism within western society” that ultimately is infecting the essential human need for personal worth. As humans we want to be valued and connect with others, and personal worth acts as an integral motivator to satisfy this innate need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan: 64). If this need is confined within the realms of a capitalist society, then it is comprehensible that “we are subject to a deeply ingrained desire for more: a state of being where more exchange, more value or more trade equals more personal worth” (Grosser: 2).
Grosser’s desire for more here equates succinctly to Lorenz’s testimonials of Snapstreak users. Indeed for a large proportion of youth on the platform the form of Snapstreaks becomes a pedestal for “social acceptance” as “more [(and longer)] streaks makes you feel more popular” (Lorenz: Business Insider). This correlates with much of the previously discussed medical research in Chapter Two for not only are such anxieties predominantly affecting the youth, but several of Seabrook et al.’s potential risk factors for fuelling depression and anxiety are present in this example. The repetitive commitment to the sending of mediocre content (negative perceived interaction quality) could support addictive or problematic [SMP] use (Seabrook et al.). Users are encouraged to engage in ruminations about the personal worth of other users resulting in frequent [SMP] social comparison (Seabrook et al.) of what is ultimately a misrepresentation of their peers social status (see Chou & Edge). Initiating a comparison of Snapstreak tallies could instigate FOMO (Obesrt et al.; Przybylski et al.) and consequently cause the usership to commit to “habit[ual]” interaction with the app (Osatuyi & Turel; Oulasvirta et al.).
The quasi-religious commitment to continuing Snapstreaks ultimately implies that tallies are relative to their personal worth as humans and peers in western society. Furthermore, by designing a cognitive affordance that implies a grammatical desire for more, Snapstreaks signify that friendships can be quantified and are thus competitive. Snapstreaks becomes a measure for social success through an encouragement of gamification, but only behind the cunning guise of a functional communicative affordance.
4.1.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 6 - 2.2)
While there are patent sensory affordances in the form of seeing imagery and hearing audio from the content shared between Snapchat users, the emotions and feelings afforded by Snapstreaks are most worthy of discussion. Achieving and maintaining high Snapstreaks affords a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. For not only is one succeeding at the game of Snapchat, one is also unwittingly
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 32 contributing to one’s own personal worth. However any sense of achievement is short-lived and indeed has a twenty-four hour time limit. What may start as pride descends across the day into anxiety. As the countdown to the impending potential loss of friendship draws nearer, this dread is further inflamed by the introduction of the hourglass emoji, as well as perhaps FOMO for a higher popularity ranking (Obesrt et al.; Przybylski et al.). Any positive feeling is immediately returned upon further engagement with the app and as such, the emotive loop restarts, constantly chasing a desire for more that can never be satisfied by this cycle. This repetitive emotive loop is again undeniably reminiscent of what Seabrook et al. would define as initiating addictive or problematic [SMP] use. Users can only get their next “hit” of achievement by engaging further with the app; thereby reducing their anxiety fuelled from their “addiction” to personal worth.
On top of the streak-cycle and as the previously mentioned testimonials state, it can be even more despairing to have used the app but through a lack of engagement and disregard for the hourglass emoji, lose a Snapstreak altogether. The quantification of friendship being reset to zero affords a logical sense of loss as one grieves not only a potential sporting achievement but the loss or downfall of a friendship. Undoubtedly the friendship has not gone in reality, but a representation of it has. This affords a significant scar to the personal worth of our digital döppelgangers and can comprehensively be upsetting. Regardless of the level of engagement with the app, Snapchat provides a level of emotive affordance that is not only unrelated to the content of interaction but solely associated with the platform design. This emotionally-charged, competitive cycle provides a detrimental catalyst in the altering of the communicative grammars defining human society.
4.1.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 6 - 3)
Snapchat here are writing particular grammars for communication and friendship and as such are defining interactive culture for the younger generations. The complexity of friendship as a notion is somewhat lost when quantified and as a result its meaning and maintenance become a formal and transactory process. Concern for quantifying the relationship now replaces any substance or emotional value associated to the friendship. Furthermore repetitive, time-dependent features like Snapstreaks encourage a reliance on the platform to maintain relationships creating a dependency on the app. Intriguingly however, some testimonials from Lorenz in fact cite this very reason as an “excuse” to interact or connect with someone, particularly if there is a desire for a closer relationship. Some even claim to become “better friends” because of Snapstreaks (Lorenz: Mic) which ties to the aforementioned medical research that within moderation,
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 33 use of SMPs can benefit users who suffer from social anxiety (Derks, Fischer & Bos; Glover & Fritsch; King et al.). Whether this is viewed positively or negatively, the end result is still the same: the younger generations are maintaining friendships through quantifiable means, which is reminiscent of what Bucher describes as “programmed sociality” (490).
When thinking of Lorenz’s examples, many users were sending snaps with a disconnection to the content itself, the purpose of the imagery to purely continue a streak. While Snapchat generally affords a mode of interaction in the form of short video or images, troublingly the mandate of the Snapstreaks feature favours quantity over quality. This again links to one of Seabrook et al.’s risk factors in the form of negative perceived interaction quality, as diluted and mediocre messaging for the receiver could be interpreted unfavourably. Cardell et al. pondered upon Snapstreaks creation how “tweens” would ad apt elements of the feature to “evade the regulatory function that it imposes” and whether this would ultimately signify its future abandonment (167). While Cardell et al. credit Snapstreaks success to its “low-stakes or low-effort” attitude to messaging, I pertain however that as well as its lacklustre input, its success is also due to its ability to afford such a wealth of emotion through minimal effort. The discrepancy between level of input and the level of output in terms of sensory and cognitive affordance is significant, which provides all the more encouragement to return to the cyclical, emotive loop of maintaining Snapstreaks. With 187 million daily users (see Statista: Snapchat daily users), cultural and character defining years for a significant number of youth are being dictated by quantified societal grammars, worryingly authored by the capitalist targets of a technology company (Figure 7 - Stages 1 and 6). Left to dwell in this digital setting, what are defined as “friends” in a sense become “fans” as the increasing of one's personal worth comparatively and conjunctively becomes normalised, morphing existence into a gamified state (Stanfill: 1065, Turkle: 168).
2. Introduction of “Snapstreaks”: a tally that counts the consecutive days friends on Snapchat have “snapped” each other.
3. Provides an element of sporting competition within a 24-hr deadline time frame, encouraging repetitive daily engagement to continue and compar “streaks”
4. The more input into the platform the more information Snapchat gather on the user; content of snaps, times, places, friends etc.
5. This information can be used to insert more advertising specific
to the user. eg. if a user is in a certain place, advertisements relative
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 34 to that place can be pushed to the user
Figure 7 - Revised SMCE cycle using Snapstreaks case study.
When considering this repetitive low-level interaction, its game-like nature encourages a sense of play or playfulness; concepts that philosopher Miguel Sicart believes grounds us in our own existence. For Sicart, play gives us “the possibility of being” and while he delineates play as an “activity”, the notion of playfulness however he regards as more of an “attitude” (18, 22). A sense of playfulness is what Snapchat are channelling here through Snapstreaks. If for Sicart, “playfulness is projecting some of the characteristics of play into nonplay activities”; then through the quantification of friendship, Snapchat are projecting a playfulness onto what is in fact a more complex concept that should be wary of metrication (22). Indeed Agre signals this when he states that grammars “frequently oversimplify the activities they are intended to represent” (747). It is evident that due to this quantification, the content quality of communication has been altered and the concentration lies instead on further engagement with the app. It is no wonder that media theorist Joost Raessens suggests the encouragement of engagement through playful designs leads to the “ludification of culture” (53). While users are provided with an innocent mediation of our interactive culture through these social networks, the capitalist targets of the platforms (Stage 1) deceive the users into parting with their personal data (Stage 4) ultimately making a blatant mockery of the social culture it feigns to represent.
This is reminiscent of the Schüll analogy in Chapter 2 as it undeniably mimics the aforementioned deliberations of Snapstreaks. By applying a designed attitude of “playfulness” to the quantification of friendship, users are manipulated into an “addictive loop” of increasing their Snapstreaks (Gekker: 116). While the expense of excessive gambling translates simply to a loss of finances, a free social media app like Snapchat is instead exploiting emotion as a currency to further profits. Through interface design, companies such as Snapchat aim to commodify “social interaction into a manageable structure, while playing on the anxieties of the individual” (Gekker: 117).
As visible in the revised version of the SMCE cycle above (Figure 7), Snapstreaks here provide an example of an SMP manipulating innate human desires (Stage 2) and thus commodifying them to enhance engagement in the platform (Stage 3); thus resulting in a capitalist favouring of profit (Stage 6 and back to 1) over an emphasis for communication quality.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 35 4.1.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 6 - 4.1 & 4.2)
In a sense this evident commodification by Snapstreaks could be described as “constraint”. Comparing Snapstreaks to a historical example such as the landline telephone, telecommunication companies were similarly providing the affordance of communication but with the simultaneous constraint being a lack of visual imagery. The constraint was due to the available technology and not a design decision from the companies providing the technologies. Indeed as the internet developed and technology advanced, companies such as Skype emerged and offered free video-calling. The previous constraint in telecommunications had vanished and now video-calling is commonplace across a number of platforms. Snapchat however provides an interesting case study where constraint is concerned. This is due to their inherent selling point of short video or image messaging with a time limit being due, not to technological limitations, but in fact design choice. While companies like Skype, Facebook and Google all offer free unlimited video-calling, Snapchat has chosen to be unique by restricting their method of communication and thus structuring their platform moreso in the style of video-messaging. Within this constraint are further limitations such as the time-length of viewing a “snap” or adding content to your “story” that expires after twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the addition of Snapstreaks exemplifies Snapchats willingness to control technological possibilities and consequently achieve increased engagement. By limiting the possibility of increased communication (which could equate to a higher tally of Snapstreak) through the time-limit of twenty-four hours, users are left to wait anxiously within a temporal constraint to repeat their feedback loop.
It is important to also take a “platform-sensitive” approach when contemplating this cycle by considering what the usership are affording the technology as well actors other than end-users (Bucher and Helmond: 16). When Grosser refers to Facebook with respect to a business model that is reliant on quantification, he states their “primary criterion for making such decisions is whether a particular metric will increase or decrease participation” (4). The same applies for Snapstreaks through the use of metrication of the tally of days marking interaction: a feature that is purposefully designed with the intention of driving consistent and repetitive participation. Contemplating the three actors of users, technology and designers present within this situation, it is the intertwining and cyclical nature of engagement that is here pertinent for discussion. Through the intended functionality of the technology (devised by the wealth of roles within the platform including engineers, designers and business directors), users are disregarding any quality of interaction for quantified goals, thus driving further engagement in the app much to the achievement of the designers.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 36
The SMCE cycle can here provide a fitting summation of the Snapstreaks feature (Figure 7). While affording a competitive satisfaction of increased personal worth through a manipulative encouragement of a desire for more (Stage 2), Snapstreaks is able to fuel engagement in the Snapchat platform (Stage 3). Simultaneously, through an intentional restrictive design (Stage 2), Snapchat constrains the method to achieve higher competitive goals, exploiting the anxieties of social pressures and human nature, thus imploring users to return for further engagement (Stage 3). By encouraging an addictive participation or “reliance” on the gamification of friendship, Snapchat enhance the likelihood of users sharing a higher quantity and quality of personal data (Stage 4). Once this data is harvested to cater towards more personalised advertising (Stage 5), Snapchat put themselves in the most lucrative position to achieve their ultimate goal of furthering profit (Stage 6). The SMCE cycle is most certainly at work here, with manipulative features being the crucial axis fuelling its rotation. Much like Snapchat, Facebook falls foul to these calculated methods as can be seen from the case studies below.
4.2 Facebook
Similarly to Snapstreaks, the Facebook platform is awash with quantification mostly coming in the form of likes. The concept of giving a “like” (as described in the IAIF example in Chapter 3) demonstrates an agreement of shared culture while receiving a “like” equally suggests our content is worthy of recognition (Grosser: 6). Consequently metrics of “likes” quickly translate to popularity, with a desire for more being the constant force driving participation in the platform (Figure 3 - Stage 2). Like Snapstreaks, Facebook abuses this position encouraging users to further create (or interact with) more content, ultimately engaging in the platform (Figure 3 - Stage 3).
While both Snapchat and Facebook quantify sociality for profit, Facebook in particular employs other methods that are not wholly associated with metrication. It can be argued that these other techniques could have a detrimental effect on users well-being and as such are worthy of examination. Consequently this section highlights two other features of Facebook that influence user engagement of the platform: the read receipts of the Messenger and Whatsapp interfaces and the “safety check” feature used in times of disaster or terror. Like the previous case study, I apply the IAIF to these features (Figure 4). In doing so I determine the methods for manipulation of user engagement and establish a relationship for causality between SMPs and mental well-being.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 37 4.2.1. Facebook Case 1: Read Receipts (Figure 8)
Case Study Affordance Type Finding
Read Receipts 1. Functional Affords knowledge of knowing someone has “read” sent message
2.1. Cognitive Implies “read” when other possibilities are numerous - eg. scanned, glanced
2.2 Sensory Lack of reply when message has been “read” sparks anxiety/paranoia/worry/negative self-reflection
3. Communicative Focus on temporal, real-time communication, expectancy of immediate reply / return engagement regardless of notification / association of app with social communication
4.1. Constraint Unable to disable feature (FB Messenger)
4.2. Platform Sensitivity Attention is being exploited for increased user engagement, thus parting with more personal data
Figure 8 - IAIF for read-receipts.
4.2.1.1. Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 8 - 1)
There are two important years in the evolution of Facebook messaging. The first was in 2012 when “read receipts” were introduced to the messaging system (Constine: Facebook Messenger Apps). The second was in 2014 when Facebook not only acquired their largest rival messaging service by purchasing Whatsapp, but they also separated their own messaging facility from their original app. A spokesperson for Facebook stated at the time that through the Messenger app, users could take advantage of the “best experience” namely through faster message delivery (Gibbs). Users had avoided the app for several years by switching to the mobile version of the site accessible through their browsers. This was until Facebook decided to force an install of Messenger if you wanted to read and send messages on your phone. While on the surface, these may seem like small changes in design, both in fact are key moments of significance. Even in 2012 Facebook
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 38 had a usership of over 1 billion (see Statista: Facebook) which illustrates the significant impact even small design changes would have on the usership and the very essence of human interaction. With their imperial influence affecting a sixth of the human population in 2012, Facebook were redefining societal grammars, writing new rules for interaction and fundamentally altering the habitual norms of afforded communication.
The inclusion of a “read receipt” has been common practice for any workplace using emailing systems. It serves as a useful function allowing one to know if colleagues are aware of matters that perhaps do not dignify a reply. Tyler and Tang observed however that users subject to the “read-receipt” within a workplace setting were frustrated by the function. Often users would actively attempt to avoid “opening read-receipt marked messages until she ha[d] a reply prepared” and that overall their simple reading of a message (and indeed their not replying) could undermine their image (6, 8). If the “read receipt” in this formal situation is work-based and receives such a reaction, applying such a grammar to a social context sounds somewhat out of place and thus an interesting decision by Facebook. Director of Product for Facebook Peter Deng, stated that this design choice was an effort to make online messaging replicate the human experience as much as possible, with read receipts in a sense mimicking body language or social cues (see Constine: Facebook Messenger Apps). Allowing users to know if their messages have been “read” provides a simple functional affordance. However by applying the wider definitions that make up my proposed infrastructure of “imagined” affordance, it is possible to unearth hidden complexities to the feature that deem “read receipts” a much more loaded element than originally marketed.
4.2.1.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 8 - 2.1)
Within Facebook Messenger read receipts are represented by the caption “Seen” alongside the time the message was viewed. Group chats alternatively display this feature by displaying a mini thumbnail of the recipients profile picture (Figure 9). This embodies Deng’s design vision as it quite literally mimics the visual action of the recipient “seeing” or “having seen” your message by displaying a picture of them. Through this feature the sender is afforded the knowledge that the recipient has opened and seen the message but technically, may not have necessarily read it. There is an intricate difference here as the term used to denote the function of a read-receipt becomes influential and weighted. If it was “read” that would imply time was taken to mentally digest the full message for which Facebook cannot comprehensively confirm. Instead they opt for “seen” which is more believable as while the user may have read the message, they may have opened and scanned it but not taken it in fully. The user could have also opened the message
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 39 and not read it at all so they are a few variants to what “seen” could actually signify. However despite this choice of diction and after an extended amount of time, users who do not receive a response after seeing a read-receipt could be inclined to think that the recipient had read the message. This is especially logical if regular usage of the platform by the recipient is assumed. The conclusion by the sender is then either that the recipient has read and forgotten the message or has decided not to respond.
Figure 9 - Guide to Facebook Messenger Read-Receipts (Mashable).
Whatsapp works similarly but with a three-tiered system (Figure 10). One grey tick signifies the message has been received by Whatsapp servers, two grey ticks means the recipient has received the message to their device, and two blue ticks means the user has “read” the message (Whatsapp FAQ). Unlike Facebook, Whatsapp offers the ability to disable this feature meaning that the final stage of the two blue ticks will not be shown for the messages you send, implying that you will not know if someone has “seen” the messages. After a certain amount of time however, like Messenger, no response still implies a reading of the message from the recipient and a decision not to (or perhaps to delay) reply.
Figure 10 - Whatsapp Read-Receipts (TechGainer)
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 40
As Cardell et al. mention with regards to users adapting Snapstreaks to “evade regulatory function”, Facebook and Whatsapp users can similarly employ a bespoke workaround to further decipher the level of “read” or “seen” messages (167). Through the “last online” feature both platforms can inform friends of the user in question what time they last engaged with the app. This means that a sender can correspond this time with when they sent the message, conjuring more futile evidence towards being potentially ignored. Like read-receipts this “last online” feature can be turned off for Whatsapp but not Facebook Messenger.
4.2.1.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 8 - 2.2)
There are a few stages with regards to sensory affordance. While the initial affordance is a minute sense of accomplishment in achieving the task of sending the message, this will be quickly followed by the affordance of hope for a reply; the scale of which will vary depending on the content and the recipient. Without this feature users would be left mostly ignorant to the decisions of the recipient and any speculations as to a lack of reply are mere ruminations of one’s own paranoia. With the addition of the read-receipt however, Facebook and Whatsapp are affording a feeling of doubt and providing users with fuel for speculation. Albeit small evidence, it is enough to spark unfounded reasoning for the lack of reply affording users a sense of worry and in turn an excuse for negative self-reflection. Read-receipts echo Seabrook et al.’s risk factors for depression or anxiety coming in the form of rumination and Chou & Edge’s “misrepresentation of peers”. Doubt surrounds the level of interaction with the sent message, leaving the sender to ruminate about potentially being ignored. Then the potential for the misrepresentation of peers is escalated as the sender ponders to what extent the receiver has “seen” or “read” the message. Further thoughts entail whether the receiver is purposefully ignoring the message and if so, what that means for the worth and status of the relationship.
To quash the anxiety of no-reply for the sender as well as the pressure to reply for the recipient, the sole remedy for both is the same: to engage with the platform by writing another message. In doing so, both users return to a preferred limbo state of ignorance before the other user has indeed “seen” the message and the programmed societal cycle begins again. Through triggering negative emotions of self-doubt, angst and anxiety (Figure 11 - Stage 2), Facebook drives engagement (Figure 11 - Stage 3) by encouraging users not only to check if they have new messages, but to simply confirm if their sent messages have been read or not (Sampson in Palfrey).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 41 2. Read-receipt: allows user to know if their message has been read by receiver. No response creates doubt.
3. Continued lack of response encourages further messaging to ensure first message was received or that person is ok ie. why would they not reply if they have read it?
4. Continued input encourages more participation in platform and parting of personal information/interests, further adding to a personal profile collected by Facebook.
5. Further extensive and specific information about user can form more targeted advertising
Figure 11 - Revised SMCE cycle using read-receipts case study.
Blabst and Diefenbach of the University of Munich in 2017 confirmed previous similar research showing that for active users of Whatsapp, lack of response induced a state of stress and consequently resulted in negative self-reflection with regards to the act of messaging (5). Blabst & Diefenbach describe that while the benefit of read receipts have “practical advantages in particular situations”, mostly they encourage negative emotions that add to social pressures (5).
4.2.1.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 8 - 3)
Through the enforcement of read-receipts Facebook has begun to author some troubling grammars regarding digital communication. In real-time one interacts with someone online, see if they have “read” the message and through witnessing symbols to indicate if they are typing back, SMPs impose instantaneous temporal trappings to our interaction. When Grosser considers this temporal structure of Facebook he states that “a focus on the present is built into everything” (8). Grosser cites Douglas Rushkoff’s ideology of presentism here with regards to Facebook situating itself in the moment. Rushkoff states that the result of such design choices encourages us to “react[...] to the ever-present assault of simultaneous impulses and commands” (4). Within this real-time interaction cycle, getting a reaction quickly becomes normality. Consequently when the dialogue is broken by the lack of reply but instead a “read-receipt” is present; it is then logical to be concerned as to why the process has broken down if it seems the person has read the message. In this situation our reaction to inaction is to respond with further engagement (Figure 11 - Stage 3) of said messaging apps.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 42
Under the guise of improved interaction and regardless of the quality of communication, Facebook has succeeded in creating a “habit” for users to return to their app regardless of notification, similar to that of the previous research by Osatuyi & Turel and Oulasvirta et al. With read-receipts, Facebook goes against the standard grain of most digital technology design where the computer, platform or service does your “thinking for you”. Instead users are programmed to “think of the computer” or in this case the platform. This speaks to David Berry’s notion of the “pre-thought” as a space for corporations to manipulate into “a site for commercialisation” (22). The split-second before establishing a decision has been “coloniz[ed]” into an association with the platform (Berry: 22). Our doubt from lack of response immediately takes us back to engaging again with Whatsapp or Messenger without a second thought. Our cognitive functions are not offloaded to the platform; instead the thinking of the platform and the possibility of a response are added to the cognitive load for further rumination (Seabrook et al.). As Berry denotes, “corporations are increasingly attempting to influence the function of cognition” and through read-receipts and the exploitation of “pre-thought”, here Facebook has formed a new and culturally-defining communicative grammar (22). If someone has read our message and not replied, users stress and catastrophize presuming there is an issue at hand. Our first thought is of the platform in question and our solution becomes a return to the app to further engage with it (Figure 11 - Stage 3). Further and repeated rumination of doubt could fuel a further “addictive” or problematic reliance to the platform (Seabrook et al.). Through the subtle tactic of read-receipts, Facebook achieves a cognitive association of social communication to be twinned with their apps.
4.2.1.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 8 - 4.1 & 4.2)
Constraints for this trait are debatable as the feature affords quite a novel and specific bit of knowledge where digital interaction is concerned. However intriguingly it could be argued that by including the “read-receipt”, Facebook are in fact constraining their usership at the same time. Unlike Whatsapp where it is possible to turn off read receipts and the “last online” feature, Facebook Messenger exerts its power by forcing communicative grammars unto its users in constraining their ability to not disable them. Stanfills ponderings on Foucault are relevant here as the lack of malleability within a feature signifies that it “o ught” to be complied with (1063).
When employing a platform-sensitive approach, Davenport & Beck’s ideology of the “attention economy” is applicable as user attention becomes a form of capital and subsequently a means for manipulation (Figure
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 43 11 - Stage 2). The concept mostly refers to discourse concerning the internet and the design of digital interfaces. Due to the overwhelming presence of information available on the internet, the human ability to perceive and absorb such a wealth of possibility is limited, deeming our attention a “scarce resource” (Terranova, 2). Within an SMP is an ecosystem that centres around the trading of human interaction, with a consequent endgame of platforms engineering subtle designs that manipulate and vie for our attention. Through what Terranova describes as “attentional assemblages”, which takes the form of “likes”, “views” and similar measurements, these design traits open up “attention” to marketisation and financialization (2-3). For example this can directly be seen through a celebrity’s followers on Instagram relating to their capital worth. A company can then take advantage of their influence on the celebrity’s followers by paying them to endorse their products through their Instagram posts. Applying Terranova’s “attentional assemblages” to read-receipts on Facebook and Whatsapp links more indirectly to the “attention economy” than the Instagram example however it is still pertinent. By affording the knowledge of having “read” a message, Facebook provides an “attentional assemblage” that drives engagement (Figure 11 - Stage 3) through increased production of content. Value and behavioural data is extracted from such content (Figure 11 - Stage 4), even private messages, that are then algorithmically logged and categorised to sell to advertisers (Figure 11 - Stage 5) (Sampson in Palfrey).
Much like the Snapstreaks example, the enforcement of the read-receipt by Messenger is clearly used as a catalyst to encourage increased participation. While Deng promotes an agenda that Facebook’s designs are “modelled after how people have been wired to behave for thousands of years”, media professor Tony Sampson rightly addresses this when he counteracts that we are “told that the aim is to bring people together but this is how they make their money” (Constine: Facebook Messenger Apps; Palfrey). While Whatsapp allows this particular trait of design to be altered for the user, Messenger intentionally constrains this possibility, channelling a particular communicative grammar over another in order to benefit the capitalist objectives of Facebook (Figure 11 - Stage 1). But what are the resulting psychological effects of a communication cycle entrenched in the monetisation of engagement, where an increase in participation equals greater financial gain?
The economic effects of these design choices are concerning for mental well-being as Terranova claims they commonly stimulate a “degradation of attention” for users (4). The hyper-sociality of the brain is exploited through an abusing of attention for economic gain, resulting in the “depletion of its cognitive capacities” (Terranova: 7). Attention is again metaphorically akin to oil, as attention’s status as a resource is now depleting in quality and quantity due to the unsavoury siphoning tactics employed by SMPs. With these
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 44 previous delineations it is clear that through certain economic design choices, there is not only a signifying change in the grammars of interaction but also an increase of negative emotions surrounding digital communication. When the scope for doubt and anxiety is being afforded over the quality of the supposedly “human-esque” interaction promoted by Facebook, not only are the companies making these decisions worthy of serious critique, but the current state of users mental health is evidently being put in jeopardy.
4.2.2. Facebook Case 2: Safety Check Feature (Figure 12)
Case Study Affordance Type Finding (“Safety Finding (Friend of Checker”) “Safety Checker”)
Safety Check 1. Functional Inform your FB network Informs of safety / lack of of your safety / lack of danger for friends and danger in a crisis. family in FB network.
2.1. Cognitive Not interacting with the feature implies you/they are “n ot safe” from danger.
2.2 Sensory Sense of well-being, care Relief/gratitude if marked and love from FB network “safe”, through responses (likes angst/worry/anxiety if etc) to the post marking marked “not safe yet”. self safe.
3. Communicative You are not “safe” until you/they inform Facebook you are. App dependency in crisis. Severity of incident is diminished by appearing as normal content to be interacted with in forms of “likes”, comments etc.
4.1. Constraint If geo-affected by the Constrained to two defined location of crisis, options of friend being users are unwillingly “safe” or “not”, rather than involved in said crisis. “not affected” for example. Constrained to two
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 45 options of “safe” or “not”.
4.2. Platform Sensitivity Drives increased engagement, thus parting with more personal data.
Figure 12 - IAIF for Facebook Safety Check.
4.2.2.1. Subject Context and Functional Affordance (Figure 12 - 1)
2014 saw the first use of the Safety Check feature in Facebook, which was originally designed to alert your Facebook network of your well-being during a natural disaster. A year later after the Paris shootings however, Facebook decided to include terror attacks within the feature as well (Burrows). Originally the feature was manually activated by Facebook engineers for which they were criticised. Commentators felt there was a western-bias that defined the crises concerned, and non-western events were not being represented (Dewey). In response to this criticism, Facebook partnered with a third-party global crisis reporting agency (NC4) that officially informs Facebook of a documented “crisis” anywhere in the world, upon which Facebook automatically makes a “Crisis Response” page (Facebook Crisis Response). These pages will then administer a “Safety Check” to any users that are applicable to the affected location (either their home or where they have “checked in”). This check sends a prompt to all geo-affected users asking them to “mark themselves safe” as well as encouraging friends of the affected users to ask their peers if they are indeed “safe” (Figure 13). The Crisis Response pages have now evolved considerably since their conception as they now include news updates, additional messaging about requests for help, and fundraising (Dupere). While the Crisis Response pages are interesting ecosystems in themselves, this section is solely concentrating on the Safety Check feature due to its links to emotion and engagement.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 46
Figure 13 - Example peers affected by Safety Check.
Like the previous examples, the functional affordances in this case study are unambiguous. For the affected user, Safety Check affords the ability to inform your social circles of your safety. For userships connected to the “safety checker”, they are afforded the knowledge of this safety status. Within the Crisis Response page users are also able to see all friends relative to the crisis and their safety statuses. Facebook’s promoted aim is to “connect friends and loved ones in a crisis” and through employing Safety Check they aim to combat any concerns or anxieties about users well-being (Facebook Crisis Response).
4.2.2.2. Cognitive Affordance (Figure 12 - 2.1)
When considering the cognitive affordances it is important to note the fundamental differences when Safety Check has and has not been interacted with. If it has been initiated by an affected user, Safety Check becomes an acceptable mediator to inform other users of your safety and thus, in reality, you have a status of being “safe” from harm. If this mediation is to be accepted then it is logical to believe that to not engage with the feature would be to insinuate danger was still present and that in fact you are not “safe”. Indeed if a geo-affected user does not engage in the platform, said user is defined by Facebook as “not marked as safe yet”, until they do so. Despite being within what Facebook may define as an affected area, the prospect of actually being in danger is relatively small. To brand users as such would be an exaggeration of the truth (Balick) or as defined in similar previous research, a misrepresentation of peers (Chou & Edge).
This is pertinent to consider when the Safety Check was triggered by Facebook during the attack in the
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 47 British parliamentary buildings of March 2017 (Burrows). As the buildings are in London the affected area was defined as such by Facebook. On reflection this is excessive considering they are private buildings with no public access. This means that the small amount actually affected is monumentally dwarfed by the affected area as determined by Facebook; which took to include London’s entire population. In doing so, a massively unnecessary amount of users were encouraged to mark themselves “safe”, almost all of whom would have been in no danger whatsoever. A situation here arises that can only be avoided by engaging with the platform and declaring yourself “safe”.
It is apparent that a set of affordances is provided through Safety Check which is dependent on the level of interaction, namely the possibility of none at all. This questions the crucial definition of affordance. Can an affordance be defined as such if its production is not instigated through interaction from the subject? More simply, can a perception be afforded to a person even if they did not initiate it? In the case of Facebook Safety Check it certainly seems so.
4.2.2.3. Sensory Affordance (Figure 12 - 2.2)
Sensory affordances play a defining role in the use of Safety Check due to its grounding and influence being strongly embedded in emotion. Facebook are toying with the status of their userships’ well-being here and while the aim may be marketed at diminishing uneasiness during a time of concern, they are in fact inciting what they aim to prevent. Once marked safe, any concerned affiliations will see such statuses only to be afforded a sense of relief and gratitude that the concerned are indeed “safe”. Presuming a significant lack of interaction with the feature due to the minute likelihood of being involved in such crises, an unnecessary amount of users will undoubtedly and routinely be deemed “n ot safe”. Indeed when considering the London example, the “mis-inclusion” of the affected area undoubtedly would have afforded unjustified rumination and distress for any users linked to others in that area (Seabrook et al.).
It is evident then that whether intentional or not, Safety Check is producing an unnecessary byproduct of fear despite the likelihood that mostly users are in fact safe. Considering sociologist Sherry Turkle’s stance on technology with respect to these unwarranted sensory affordances, the magnitude of this issue can be due to technology wiring us into existence itself (16). For Turkle, “to feel safe is to be connected” and this is no different when considering this alongside the process of the Safety Check feature (247). By connecting to Facebook users mark themselves safe, see others have done so and thus a sense of safety is maintained. When this “constant connection” is curtailed however, a sense of negative emotion is afforded as users are
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 48 subsequently disconnected from our digital existence and therefore no longer “safe” in reality (Turkle: 16). The only solution to become “safe” again then is to further engage and mark yourself so.
4.2.2.4. Communicative Affordance (Figure 12 - 3)
Like the other case studies, while Safety Check does have its merits as an emergency response system, this feature is worth highlighting due to its technological impact on human communication. By administering this feature to include any user in a Facebook-defined area, Facebook are imposing strong and concerning grammars of action on its usership. By having an account, a user is unwillingly involved in a human inventory for crises that most likely do not affect them. Subsequently Facebook are then imposing the grammatical implication that you are not “safe” until you inform Facebook that you are. When considering earlier the cognitive affordances and the validity of defining them as such, the grammars of Safety Check can similarly be called into question. If there is no active participation from a person to interact with an object, can the object definitively promote grammars of action? Subsequently I propose that in the case of Safety Check, Facebook are instead enforcing grammars of inaction through their feature.
The causality is troubling here. If a user is unaware of the issue of being branded “not marked as safe yet”, is that a fair branding if they have not instigated this chain of effects? If a crisis happens in the area of an affected user, just by being on Facebook they have the potential to cause a significant amount of unnecessary angst for their well-being from their social circle. In turn, the solution to this problem becomes a return to the Foucauldian notion of requirement over choice, or perhaps even a reliance. The implication here signals further engagement, as to mark yourself “safe” becomes an action that “ought [sic]” to be administered (Stanfill 1063).
A noteworthy feature of the Safety Check is that when marking yourself “safe”, this is represented as a moment on your profiles timeline. Friends are encouraged to engage by affording the ability to like, comment and share just as if it was any other posting of content (Figure 14).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 49
Figure 14 - Event on my timeline marking myself "Safe" for Las Vegas attack.
The recognisable similarity in the visual form of Safety Check to that of any other posted content not only numbs the severity of its meaning but also commodifies its occurence. Similar to Snapstreaks, a complex concept has been quantified and its meaning subsequently demoted, all for the purpose of fuelling engagement (Figure 15 - Stage 2/3). Substance is lost from what are tragic events as users are encouraged to involve themselves in a tragedy that does not affect them, with the hopeful benefit of a slight increase in their digital and metricated personal worth. In the Westminster example, the entire London population were afforded this communicative misdemeanor, where many were able to take advantage of misplaced emotionally loaded concern, in exchange for quantified popular social status.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 50 2. Safety Check: Encourage people to mark themselves “safe” during a crisis. If not “marked safe” encourages big feelings of angst for peers of user related to crisis.
3. Prompts both user affected by crisis and user’s peers to further engage with platform, to determine the safety of user.
4. Additional reason to log on to platform and interact with other features, more chance to reveal more personal information.
5. More personal information leads to better informed advertising,
and better chance of click-through to products.
Figure 15 - Revised SMCE cycle applied to the Facebook Safety Check case study.
The communicative norm for crises becomes warped as the predictable and immediate concern for loved ones, is now morphed into a primary engagement with Facebook to channel and mould those concerns. In this regard as Bucher rightly states, Facebook are “forming the ways in which users are made to relate to self and others” (481). Through the lexicon of Safety Check and regardless of user input, Facebook has managed to redefine not only the mediation of “crises” but the very theoretical essence of communicative affordance and its subsequent grammars.
4.2.2.5. Imagined Affordance (Figure 12 - 4.1 & 4.2)
Considering the platforms vast social infrastructure Safety Check is a commendable concept. Due to its scope it can easily connect a quarter of the world population together in a time of emergency. Unfortunately, the praiseworthy elements of this concept are undermined by Facebook taking advantage of the emotional investment in what is an immensely serious situation. “This false sense of urgency has high utility for the system” as Facebook’s value is entirely dependent on interaction and participation to its platform (Grosser: 8). As a result of increased engagement (Figure 15 - Stage 3), Facebook are able to expose their usership to more advertising (Figure 15 - Stage 5) as well as harvesting more user data to finetune and personalise those promotions (Figure 15 - Stage 4). In other words, the designed communicative affordances of the feature have altered the grammars of a “crisis” to encourage profit for the designers (Figure 15 - Stage 6). In this instance Facebook are “oversimplify[ing] the activities they [...] intend[...] to represent” and are subsequently molding “media interaction to benefit industry” (Agre: 747; Stanfill: 1071).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 51
What is troubling in this case study is that by imposing their platform as the mediator of safety, Facebook are embedding their status as the “regulatory power” (Foucault in Stanfill: 1060). In this respect constraints are difficult to define with respect to the Safety Check feature as a whole. In a sense, as a user of Facebook, one is constrained to be involved in a crisis if our location is applicable to a geo-affected area, whether one is actually affected by its occurence or not. Amidst a digital representation of crises, we are restricted to two options of “safe” or the implied notion of “not safe”; which lacks the much more likely and obvious option: “not affected”. As depicted in the communicative affordance section, a lack of interaction with the platform imparts an unwilling status on a user which could comprehensively be seen as constraining the affected into a branding of “not safe”. Even its mere existence entails that to engage in such a practice, means the only possibility of doing so is relying on the only constrained option of Facebook. This is due to their wealth of usership and the distinct lack of another method that could enact it. Thus the absence of a government-affiliated alternative to Safety Check designates Facebook as the preferred and only method to efficiently declare yourself safe during a crisis. This is certainly concerning mostly due to the fact that the subject represents an immensely wealthy corporation with capitalist intentions, rather than a state-sponsored product with its primary objective being the citizens well-being. Through Safety Check, Facebook are proving their ever-evolving power as a social media monopoly, consequently “program[ming] socality” but only at the expense of its userships well-being (Bucher: 490) (Figure 15 - Stage 2/3). The extent of which is very much evident in the following Chapter discussing the Facebook Mood Experiment.
4.3 Case Studies Summation
By showcasing the imagined affordances of Snapstreaks, Messenger’s read-receipts and Facebook Safety Check, the previous section has highlighted an important selection of subtle techniques that exploit users emotion to enhance engagement in SMPs. Users are manipulated into contributing to an “economy of social production” where the value of the network is dependent on the users’ contribution and interaction with their databases (Terranova: 7, Grosser: 8). For Davies the role of the ‘social’ has not changed in capitalism but rather the difference is found in the “capacity to subject [‘the social’] to a quantitative, economic analysis [through] the digitization of social relationships” (321). This in turn feeds the “attention economy” creating a captive sociality, leaving the usership with a competitive and emotionally-charged desire for more that spans all areas of social network interaction.
The cyclical format of maintaining a digital representation of ourselves is altering our communicative
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 52 mediations for the worse. Not only does this practice begin to mould “what users write and submit” undermining the very quality of our interaction, but it is replaced instead with a need for response, gratification or acknowledgement (Grosser 10). Troublingly the anxiety in not receiving said gratification is only escaped through further engagement. Accepting that through the capitalist-driven desire for more, “the accumulation of social and symbolic capital becomes the primary objective of the metricated social self”, then the very essence of human communication is evolving and certainly not in a positive direction (Grosser: 6).
Grosser calls upon Nathan Jurgenson’s development of Foucault’s “panopticon” as “omniopticon” to depict this situation (7). For Jurgenson instead of the one watching the many, through the “omniopticon”, there is the many watching the many. Grosser further develops this concept by stating with the addition of quantification culture there is “graphopticon”; where a “threat of constant visibility is changed into a threat of constant invisibility” (7, Bucher: 1165). Therefore to engage and maintain a presence on SMPs becomes somewhat equivalent to existence. Subsequently an angst concerning the success of such existence through ones digital döppelganger is then undoubtedly a detrimental strain to our mental health.
If these anxieties to exist are translating into what previous research and theory call “addictions”, it calls to question: can one be “addicted” to interaction with other human-beings, something that is simply a part of human nature? Perhaps the term should be reassessed and a new term championed. I propose that these exploitations grounded in the encouragement of negative emotions, should be defined as creating an SMP reliance. As can be seen from all the previous examples; Snapstreaks encourages a reliance to maintain friendships; read-receipts implores a return to the app regardless of engagement instigating a reliance to the platform; and Safety Check becomes the relied upon method for a human inventory in times of crises. The usership of such platforms rely on SMPs to complete the inherent humanistic task of communication. Consequently if that reliance is toyed with, altered and exploited for capitalist gains (SMCE cycle), naturally the state and nature of such a reliance to a type of mediation (as is evident from the findings of this thesis) can become disfigured.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 53
5. Chapter Five - Facebook Mood Experiment
Due to the nature of the Facebook Mood Experiment, this chapter discusses its occurence not as a completely separate case study, but moreso a space for all the previous case studies to be discussed in relation to it. Many of the same systemic issues are present here especially as the SMCE cycle is clearly at work, exploiting emotion and siphoning attention to retain the usership abiding within Facebook. Also, unlike the other case studies, the Mood Experiment presents an interesting oversight of my proposed analytical framework with respect to the IAIF and as such is worthy of its own defining chapter.
Essentially the experiment exposed users to positive and negative content to determine how it would affect the mood of the exposed user and their consequent content contribution. As documented in the previous research, such actions could easily have contributed to FOMO (Oberst et al.; Przybylski et al.) or misrepresentation of peers (Chou & Edge) especially if exposed to overtly positive material for instance. Subsequently such exposure could exacerbate and lead to two potential risk factors for a decrease in mental well-being in the form of r umination and frequent [SMP] social comparison (Seabrook et al.).
The research was heavily criticised due to the apparent lack of consent obtained by Facebook to carry out the 650,000 user-strong experiment (Booth, Arthur & Swaine). Due to the outcry, the article now includes an “editorial expression of concern and correction” at the beginning of the article highlighting the discrepancies of the methodology (Kramer et al.: 10779). The paper claims that all research was coordinated within the boundaries of Facebook’s data use policy which users are required to agree to upon creating an account. This principle was challenged however as it was found that the terms and conditions were altered to reflect this possibility, as well as the inclusion of the term “research”, four months after the research was carried out (Hern). Additionally it was noted that an age filter was not applied to the study meaning that the user age-bracket that includes 13-18 year olds could have been affected by the study as well (Hill; Albergotti & Dwoskin). The editor for the journal stated that “as a private company Facebook was under no obligation to conform to the provisions of the Common Rule”; the “Common Rule” here referring to the consent of human research subjects (Kramer et al.:10779). Given the monumental scope of social networks (particularly Facebook), it is evident that “even small effects can have large aggregated consequences” so the importance of considering these consequences is paramount (Kramer et al.: 8790).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 54
As with the other case studies examined in Chapter 4, the application of the IAIF for the Mood Experiment is necessary at this juncture (Figure 16). Like the other functional affordances (Figure 16 - 1), its essence is clear: the Facebook platform has the ability to alter their userships mood. While troubling, the sensory affordances are also unambiguous as they quite literally facilitate particular emotion at the discretion of the Facebook engineers (Figure 16 - 2.2).
Case Study Affordance Type Finding
Mood 1. Functional Alter the mood positively and negatively of Facebook Experiment users
2.1. Cognitive N/A - as Facebook do not inform users of said function
2.2 Sensory Alter the mood positively and negatively of Facebook users
3. Communicative SMPs can instigate emotional contagion / online messages influence our emotion, which can affect offline behaviours
4.1. Constraint Potential for Facebook to restrict moods of usership to their bidding / restricting access to certain content based on mood
4.2. Platform Sensitivity Certain moods can increase engagement / exploited for political purposes
Figure 16 - IAIF for Facebook Mood Experiment.
Where the cognitive affordances are concerned however, the case study provides a compelling point for discussion (Figure 16 - 2.1). Hartson describes “cognitive” affordances as a “design feature that helps users in knowing something” (323). However the Mood Experiment provides the first example in this thesis where the trait of the SMP does not inform the user of its function and as such cannot be described to have any cognitive affordances attributed to it. Perhaps now the experiment has been reported upon, a small
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 55 minority of users will be aware of this possibility but many most likely will still be unaware. Cognitively speaking, the Mood Experiment is the exception that proves the rule. In denying cognitive access to its platform function, Facebook quite literally have the ability to influence the emotions of its usership without their knowledge. Unknowingly the usership of Facebook are exploited into continued engagement in the platform, unaware of their increased manipulated interactions contributing to a version of the SMCE cycle (Figure 17).
2. Mood Experiment: ability to inflict emotional contagion by promoting emotional content (of either valence). Resulted in a similar mood of content subsequently posted by affected user.
3. Facebook has ability to influence and initiate positive or negative engagement in its own platform.
4. Facebook can theoretically push particular types of post to encourage further engagement and parting of personal information.
5. More personal information can increased to better targeted adverts with better chances of exposing the consumers to the right products.
Figure 17 - Revised SMCE cycle applied to the Facebook Mood Experiment.
Considering the wider notion of communicative affordances (Figure 16 - 3), the imperial ability of the platform serves as a concerning yet poignant moment in the evolution of technology and consequently its impact on human interaction. As such, the experiment sits fittingly within Hardt & Negri’s concept of “Empire” as the sheer occurence reminds us of Facebook’s ability to “not only regulate[...] human interactions but also seek[...] directly to rule over human nature (xv). As the researchers of the experiment plainly state: “online messages influence our experience of emotions, which may affect a variety of offline behaviours” and as such are important findings with regards to public health (Kramer et al.:8790). This study exposes the extent of influence present in SMPs unlike any of the other previous research, as the entire techno-social engine of Facebook emphasises its controlling power as “moderator” over emotion (Kross et al.). This all-encompassing authority over emotion dictates an imperial control over communication. Thus if this potential is perverted for capitalist or political intentions, then the resulting well-being of the users as individuals, communities or nations could be catastrophic.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 56
Expanding this examination to encompass the notion of “imagined affordances” (Figure 16 - 4.1 & 4.2), the Mood Experiment provides a complex web of grammars. After media backlash, Adam Kramer, the lead data scientist of the experiment, stated his reasoning for the experiment was due to Facebook’s concern “that exposure to friends’ negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook” (Hill). While on the surface this can be deemed an acceptable concern for the designers of a product, the quote insinuates much about the intentions of the platform. It is understandable Facebook do not want users to avoid its platform, however the statement implies that by removing negativity, and in a sense denying reality from its usership, they can ensure engagement. Fortunately for Facebook, this premonition was not founded and in fact negative content did not discourage content completely, but rather encouraged further negative content (Kramer et al.: 8788). What was learnt however was that exposure to “fewer emotional posts (of either valence) in their Newsfeed” resulted in users being “less expressive overall” (Kramer et al.: 8790). This proves that in order for Facebook to be participatory and engaging, it has to be emotionally-loaded as can be seen from the previous case studies. For Facebook, emotion is evidently the key to the engagement puzzle and the pivotal affordance for promoting a reliance to their platform, irrespective of valence. As proven through the defining of grammars in the previous case studies however, negativity is seemingly the preferred, promoted and dominant emotion channelling increased platform engagement. If this is the accepted prognosis, there can be no logical doubt of the detrimental effect SMPs can have on the human psyche.
The Mood Experiment provides evidence for what Kramer et al. define as “emotional contagion” on a mass scale and as such, could be seen as an example of mass constraint. Here Facebook exercise their ability to control and restrict emotion to suit their requirements. Perhaps such an ability is only applicable to the Facebook platform due to its wealth of users and endless accompanying features, rather than to a smaller reaching usership of Snapchat for example. Nonetheless by limiting the functionality of the platform (by withholding or promoting negative or positive content) and therefore constraining emotion, Facebook have intentionally designed a platform that has the potential to afford positive and negative emotion; all without their usership being cognitively aware of such affordances. The potential for monumental manipulation here is exhaustive, as was predicted when knowledge of the experiment surfaced. Indeed Booth cited that commentators feared its potential use “for political purposes” or to “boost advertising revenues” (Figure 17 - Stage 5/6). The lack of consent encourages a concern for further awareness of a similar event occuring in the future. While the terms and conditions have been updated (albeit after the research), will users be prompted when their personal data is being manipulated for future research? Will this also include the more vulnerable subset of adolescents? And what effect will any future experiments have on users well-being?
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 57
Through the application of “Empire” Hardt & Negri posit that within the “postmodernization of the global economy”, the formation of wealth will be embedded within “the production of social life itself” (xiii). Considering this notion of the Empire economy alongside the SMCE cycle (Figure 17) and the Mood Experiment, it is evident that Facebook are conforming to Hardt & Negri’s premonition. By exploiting emotion, Facebook are encouraging further engagement in their platform allowing their usership to be exposed to increased and further customised advertising, thus following the SMCE cycle and ultimately nurturing the wealth of the Facebook “Empire”. A user abiding, producing and contributing to the emotionally-exposed Facebook platform and subsequently “social life itself” (albeit not cognitively aware of doing so), becomes second nature and thus normalised behaviour. Logically “production” of any kind is to be carried out by “labour” and this is crucial to the Hardt & Negri’s concept. In Empire, no longer is the power of labour industrial and occupied by a mass of factory workers but is instead replaced by the emotive and “communicative labor [sic] power” (Hardt & Negri: 29). Indeed for Hardt & Negri “Empire takes form when language and communication, or really when immaterial labor [sic] and cooperation, become the dominant productive force” (385). This is exactly what is occurring with Facebook (and in some respects Snapchat) as through their platform design, communicative grammars are encouraged to become repetitive, formal and work-like functions at the expense of their userships mental state. Including the potential for unseen influence to further engage, promote and accelerate the labour cycle as is evident from the Mood Experiment; such “immaterial labour” could be a logical cause for catastrophic consequence to the mental health of the labourers. In this metaphor, the affordances depicted by the previous case studies fittingly resemble examples of “immaterial labor [sic]”, as the work-like functions carried out by the usership (labourers) fuel the “productive force” of social media profits (Hardt & Negri: 385).
Contemplating a deeper consideration of Empire, the concept links fittingly to Grossers notion of the desire for more. This is evident where Hardt & Negri describe the construction of value by immaterial labour taking place “beyond measure” (356). For Hardt & Negri “‘Beyond Measure’ refers to the vitality of the productive context [through] the expression of labor [sic] as desire” (357). This thesis previously established that to maintain or increase personal worth, SMPs encourages a ‘desire’ for more through the emotional manipulation and quantification of human interaction. It is apparent that Hardt & Negri similarly believe that the emotion of “d esire” is at the economic core of this cyclical imperial power. By manipulating design to inflame desire, labourers (usership) are blind to the further encouragement to work (engage, input data) (Figure 17 - Stage 3), as the very practice of “labouring” is hidden beneath the ease of the interactive, societal veil of human nature. But how can the “production of social life” be efficient if the
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 58 result of such labouring is detrimental to society itself? While on the one hand the inherent nature of the labour ensures its ease to function, conversely the labour itself is being dictated and therefore negatively altered by Empire. Can the capitalist cycle of engagement continue profiting if the labourers are being driven by negative emotive affordances of anxiety and fear? And in that respect what does the future hold for SMPs and the human condition if this exploitation is set to continue?
This relationship between SMPs and mental health has not gone unnoticed. Users, health-workers and governments are waking up to the detrimental effect of SMPs as can be seen from the organisations beginning to form and respond to the dilemma. For example, strains of addicted users are receiving help in the form of technology rehabilitation centres such as reSTART in Washington state (Walters). The retreat in the wilderness aims to bring together minds troubled by the compulsions inflicted from technology; varying from video gaming, social network use to online pornography. Currently they have treated 150 men but only 6 women indicating that such problems are specific to gender. Seabrook et al. highlight the lack of research in this area stating that “few studies have considered individual differences such as gender”. However they also mention that the small selection of research that does consider such variables does find more problematic SMP usage amongst men (Casale & Fioravanti). Visitors receive therapy both together and privately, with the chance to rebuild their lives concentrating on exercise, appreciation of nature and the remastering of social skills. Such centres come with a hefty price tag however, well in excess of $20,000 leaving the less financially affluent and troubled users to their own devices, so to speak.
Indeed there are cheaper options to combat such reliance. Paradoxically there are an array of apps that aim to diminish smartphone or particular app usage through creative and restrictive designs. For example, Moment tracks how much you use your device everyday providing a time amount in hours and minutes. It then allows the user to block themselves from using their phone for a predetermined time limit. Others such as QualityTime and BreakFree monitor specific app interaction; visualising and analysing usage through data and graphs with innovative options to curb unwanted or frequent digital habits. A creative alternative can be found with Forest: Stay Focused which uses the visualisation of planting and growing of trees to represent the time you wish to stay focused. Repeated sessions of tree growing add to your “forest” but leaving the app results in the tree dying. While these apps provide quaint solutions for the individual, they do not tackle the bigger picture that this thesis has portrayed however. As cultural scholar Pepita Hesselberth states, the methods to combat the problems still lie within a digital setting meaning there is “no disconnectivity without connectivity” (1995). Social media giants will still rule with an exploitative digital fist over our sphere of communication regardless of our menial attempts to reduce our reliance through
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 59 such novel apps.
But there are organisations who are aiming to change the way users interact with technology as a cultural practice, coming in the form of the Time Well Spent movement headed by ex-Google Ethicist Tristan Harris and his organisation Centre for Humane Technology. They champion “humane design” as the solution to the “hijacking of our minds” and attention that is “eroding the pillars of our society” (see Centre for Humane Technology - The Way Forward). As this thesis and previous research has shown, platform technology can be detrimental to our health but they also point to other problem areas such as child development, social relationships and democracy.
Indeed while the Mood Experiment signalled a warning of the major influence Facebook could have on its usership, some four years later the election of the world’s major political power in the US was called into controversy. At the very heart of the scandal was platform technology itself with Facebook user data being illegitimately mined by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to aid the 2016 Trump election campaign (Rosenberg, Confessore & Cadwalladr). While not directly manipulating emotions, the consultancy illegally took advantage of over fifty million users data to create psychological profiles of differing users. Personal traits attributed to the profiles were then exploited to be exposed to personalised content aiming to influence voting behaviour. The extent of such manipulation is hard to measure but in the wake of a victory that surprised the world, such illicit digital exploitation will have certainly contributed to the success of a political movement.
Harris’s organisation calls on a four-pronged approach to tackle the issues that technology face, one avenue of which includes “political pressure” (see Centre for Humane Technology - The Way Forward) . For Harris, government is the only power large enough to curtail and regulate the impending “Empire” of SMP giants like Facebook, whose influence over our mental and political freedoms have evidently reached a crucial tipping point. In April 2018 and after much delay, the CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg finally agreed to be questioned by US congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. While the politicians questioning Zuckerberg were lambasted for their soft approach (Teachout), the Facebook CEO said his platform was not adverse to regulation but only if it was “right” (Wong). The US government were pandering to the notion of Facebook as Empire in this example, by meandering and not enforcing their power as a national governing body. Instead the US government succumbed to the exploitative powers of capitalist big business. Indeed it has been suggested some of the congress politicians were happy to let Zuckerberg off lightly due to their receipt of donations from Facebook (Jeong & Liao).
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 60
Harris will not have been satisfied with this outcome but shortly after the Zuckerberg hearing, legislation from the EU commission will have been to his approval. The EU motioned a ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ which will force companies like Facebook to protect the privacy of their usership in the way of more ethical consent and collection of data (Solon: Europe’s Breakthrough Privacy Law). With examples like the Mood Experiment and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, national and continental governing bodies are beginning to accept the monumental influence SMPs can have on society and the impending technological challenge facing human civilisation.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 61 6. Chapter Six - Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion Using an alternative research method of applying affordance to traits of SMPs, this thesis has highlighted some of the key design features that are definitely and defiantly contributing to the previously established relationship between SMP usage and negative mental health. Through the methodological application of the IAIF (Figure 4) this thesis has exposed the common theme embedded into the design of SMPs in the form of exploiting emotion. I was not only able to identify how features of SMPs initiated negative emotional manipulation, but also how such exploitative techniques benefited the capitalist business models of SMPs (Figure 2). Indeed all the case studies provide examples of what Seabrook et al. define in previous research as the encouragement of “rumination”; a prominent risk factor for depression or anxiety. Reconsidering Turkle’s stance of being disconnected from “constant connection”, this is understandably akin to an angst to digitally and therefore socially exist (16).
In this respect, SMPs have designed their technologies to be ephemeral, repetitive games where the input is low-level but the emotional output is significant. The magnitude of the output however is superficially shrouded due to SMPs emotional exploitation and quantification of complex social phenomena. The real concern is an input level that on the surface may appear functionally low, but in fact hides an emotionally-massive, society-altering underbelly which undeniably is leading to the “ludification of culture” (Raessens: 53).
Wary of human nature, SMPs exploit tendencies of social pressures (the desire for more; personal worth; rumination; ) to encourage engagement and form what I am defining as a reliance to the platform, which ultimately equates to our inherent goal to “exist”. While previous scientific research doesn’t emphatically prove a direct correlation between increased SMP usage and decreased well-being, usage can inhibit individuals already prone to mental health issues (loneliness, depression, FOMO) exacerbating their negative mental psyche. While the severity of such issues may differ from user to user, documented rises in mental health issues (Bedell; Twenge, Martin & Campbell) imply that many could be prone to vulnerable states of mental health at some point in their life. While SMPs cannot be defined as the direct cause of ill mental health, they can instead be defined as a “moderator” (Kross et al.); a force that can and will prey on the vulnerable anxieties of the modern techno-social individual, particularly the easy-influenced and digitally-native youth.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 62
Accepting this capitalist model of the harvesting of emotion for financial gain, then it is conceivable that the consequential societal grammars that are being authored are not designed with consideration for consumer welfare. Therefore the disregard for communicative practice, the human psyche and the potential harm to mental health is unmistakably apparent. Ultimately SMPs evident and uncompassionate disregard for their usership signals a neglecting of duty. As such, user welfare should be an ethical obligation to be instilled and held paramount within operations of SMPs. It is imperative going forward as per Harris’s suggestion, that SMPs maintain a mental morality for their usership in all traits of their platforms by employing humane design. However if stringent regulation is not enforced by government or other able-bodies, the detrimental decline in mental health, amongst other issues of humanity (particularly political manipulation), is resigned to continue.
6.2 Limitations & Future Research
It should be noted that unlike the previous research denoted in the “Social Media Platforms and ‘Addiction’” (Chapter 2), any limitations mentioned in those studies including reliability of self-surveys (Steers et al.), ‘time distortion’ (Turel, Brevers & Bechara) and sample size or demographic (Alkis, Kadirhan & Sat; Blackwell et al.) were not relevant to this study due to the aforementioned theoretical method (see Methodology). By bypassing the inclusion of participants and instead applying media theory and logic, this research determined, contributed and reinforced the findings of the previous research by approaching the subject from an original and reliable angle, ultimately establishing a “more nuanced assessment of social media use” (Vanucci, Flannery & Ohannessian: 165). That said, despite the application of a logical and theoretical method, the findings of the research could still be described as subjective and understandably spark disagreement from any reader.
Subjectivity aside however, this thesis has proposed and applied a functioning affordance framework in the form of the IAIF (Figure 4) that I hope future researchers will employ where relevant research involving technologies and SMPs is concerned. Taking inspiration from the case studies for this thesis, I propose similar research to be carried out in the medical and psychopathological fields but with a direct concentration on the specific features of SMPs. Snapstreaks, read-receipts, Safety Check all highlight adequate examples fit for further empirical research. I suggest other further attributes for study such as the “infinite scroll” featured on most websites and apps, “always-on” screen displays of smartphones and “deleted messages” on Whatsapp; all of
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 63 which afford troubling societal grammars if considered in the same context of the previous deliberations in this thesis.
Bibliography
Agre, Philip E. ‘Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy’. The NewMediaReader, vol. 1, 2003 1994.
Albergotti, Reed, and Elizabeth Dwoskin. ‘Facebook Study Sparks Soul-Searching and Ethical Questions’. W all Street Journal, 1
July 2014. w ww.wsj.com, http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-study-sparks-ethical-questions-1404172292. Accessed 28
June 2018.
Alkis, Yunus, et al. ‘Development and Validation of Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users’. C omputers in Human Behavior,
vol. 72, July 2017, pp. 296–303. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2017.03.011.
APA. D iagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-V. American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington, VA, 2013.
Apple. T he Power to Be Your Best (Advertisement). YouTube, h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5S9VvMMxhU. Accessed 23
May 2018.
Arthur, Charles, and Jon Swaine. ‘Facebook Faces Criticism amid Claims It Breached Ethical Guidelines with Study’. T he
Guardian, 30 June 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-internet. Accessed 28 June
2018.
Balick, Aaron. Why I Won’t Be Marking Myself as ‘Safe’ on Facebook Today | The Independent. 2017,
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/facebook-safety-check-london-bridge-terror-attack-a7772211.html. Accessed 28
June 2018.
Bedell, Geraldine. ‘Rates of Depression Have Soared in Teenagers. What Are We Doing Wrong?’ The Independent, 25 Feb. 2016,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/teenage-mental-health-crisis-rates-of-depression-hav
e-soared-in-the-past-25-years-a6894676.html. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Berry, David M. C ritical Theory and the Digital. Bloomsbury, 2014.
Bian, Mengwei, and Louis Leung. ‘Linking Loneliness, Shyness, Smartphone Addiction Symptoms, and Patterns of Smartphone
Use to Social Capital’. Social Science Computer Review, vol. 33, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 61–79. Crossref,
doi:1 0.1177/0894439314528779.
Blabst, Nicole, and Sarah Diefenbach. WhatsApp and Wellbeing: A Study on WhatsApp Usage, Communication Quality and
Stress. 2017, pp. 1–6. C rossref, doi:1 0.14236/ewic/HCI2017.85.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 64 Blackwell, David, et al. ‘Extraversion, Neuroticism, Attachment Style and Fear of Missing out as Predictors of Social Media Use
and Addiction’. P ersonality and Individual Differences, vol. 116, Oct. 2017, pp. 69–72. C rossref,
doi:1 0.1016/j.paid.2017.04.039.
Booth, Robert. ‘Facebook Reveals News Feed Experiment to Control Emotions’. T he Guardian, 29 June 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Brans, Karen, et al. ‘To Share, or Not to Share? Examining the Emotional Consequences of Social Sharing in the Case of Anger
and Sadness.’ E motion, vol. 14, no. 6, 2014, pp. 1062–71. Crossref, doi:10.1037/a0037604.
Bright, Laura F., et al. ‘Too Much Facebook? An Exploratory Examination of Social Media Fatigue’. Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 44, Mar. 2015, pp. 148–55. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.048.
Bucher, Taina. ‘The Friendship Assemblage: Investigating Programmed Sociality on Facebook’. T elevision & New Media, vol. 14,
no. 6, Nov. 2013, pp. 479–93. Crossref, doi:10.1177/1527476412452800.
Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. ‘The Affordances of Social Media Platforms’. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, SAGE
Publications Ltd, 2018, pp. 233–53. Crossref, doi:10.4135/9781473984066.n14.
Burrows, Tim. ‘Yes, Facebook, I Am Safe – No Thanks for Asking | Tim Burrows’. T he Guardian, 23 Mar. 2017,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/23/facebook-safety-check-westminster-attack. Accessed 28 June
2018.
Cardell, Kylie, et al. ‘Social Media and Ephemeral Narratives as Memoir’. M ediating Memory: Tracing the Limits of Memoir,
2017.
Casale, Silvia, and Giulia Fioravanti. ‘Satisfying Needs through Social Networking Sites: A Pathway towards Problematic Internet
Use for Socially Anxious People?’ Addictive Behaviors Reports, vol. 1, June 2015, pp. 34–39. C rossref,
doi:1 0.1016/j.abrep.2015.03.008.
Center for Humane Technology. Center for Humane Technology. http://humanetech.com/. Accessed 23 May 2018.
---. ‘The Way Forward’. C enter for Humane Technology, http://humanetech.com/problem/. Accessed 23 May 2018.
Cheever, Nancy A., et al. ‘Out of Sight Is Not out of Mind: The Impact of Restricting Wireless Mobile Device Use on Anxiety
Levels among Low, Moderate and High Users’. C omputers in Human Behavior, vol. 37, Aug. 2014, pp. 290–97. C rossref,
doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002.
Chou, Hui-Tzu Grace, and Nicholas Edge. ‘“They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am”: The Impact of Using
Facebook on Perceptions of Others’ Lives’. C yberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, vol. 15, no. 2, Feb. 2012, pp.
117–21. C rossref, doi:1 0.1089/cyber.2011.0324.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 65 Clayton, Russell B., et al. ‘The Extended ISelf: The Impact of IPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology’.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 20, no. 2, Mar. 2015, pp. 119–35. Crossref, doi:10.1111/jcc4.12109.
Constine, Josh. ‘Facebook Changes Mission Statement to “Bring the World Closer Together”’. TechCrunch, 22 June 2017,
http://social.techcrunch.com/2017/06/22/bring-the-world-closer-together/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
---. ‘Facebook Messenger Apps Get More Life-Like, Now Show If Someone’s Read Your Message’. TechCrunch, 4 May 2012,
http://social.techcrunch.com/2012/05/04/facebook-messenger-read-receipts/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Davenport, Thomas H., and John C. Beck. T he Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Harvard
Business Press, 2001.
Davies, William. T he Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being. Verso Books, 2015.
Deci, Edward, and Richard M. Ryan. I ntrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. 1985.
Derks, Daantje, et al. ‘The Role of Emotion in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Review’. Computers in Human Behavior,
vol. 24, no. 3, May 2008, pp. 766–85. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004.
Dewey, Caitlin. W hy Facebook’s ‘Safety Check’ Deployed in Paris — but Not in Beirut, Garissa or Ankara - The Washington Post.
2015,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/16/why-facebooks-safety-check-deployed-in-paris-but
-not-in-beirut-garissa-or-ankara/?utm_term=.64dbe0dbfe4e. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Dupere, Katie. ‘Facebook Updates Safety Check to Make the Tool More Personal and Informative’. M ashable, 2017,
https://mashable.com/2017/06/14/facebook-safety-check-fundraisers/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Facebook. ‘Crisis Response’. F acebook, h ttps://www.facebook.com/about/crisisresponse/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2018.
Facebook Newsroom. Reactions Now Available Globally. 2016,
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/02/reactions-now-available-globally/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Gaver, WW. ‘Situating Action II: Affordances for Interaction: The Social Is Material for Design.’ Ecological Psychology, vol. 8(2),
1996, p. 111–129.
Gekker, Alex. ‘Casual Power’. D igital Culture & Society, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2016. Crossref, doi:10.14361/dcs-2016-0108.
Gibbs, Samuel. ‘Why Is Facebook Trying to Force You to Use Its Messenger App?’ The Guardian, 6 June 2016,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/06/facebook-forcing-messenger-app-explainer. Accessed 28 June
2018.
Gibson, James J. ‘The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception’. Psychology Press, 1979.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 66 Glover, Jenna, and Sandra L. Fritsch. ‘#KidsAnxiety and Social Media’. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America,
vol. 27, no. 2, Apr. 2018, pp. 171–82. Crossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chc.2017.11.005.
Godlewski, Nina. ‘There’s a Way for Snapchat Users Who Worked Hard for Their Snapchat Streaks to Get Them Back’.
Newsweek, 27 Feb. 2018, http://www.newsweek.com/snapchat-connectivity-issues-streak-fix-back-done-822855. Accessed
28 June 2018.
Grosser, Ben. ‘What Do Metrics Want? How Quantification Prescribes Social Interaction on Facebook’. C omputational Culture,
2014, p. 19.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Harvard University Press, 2001.
Hartson, Rex. ‘Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction Design’. B ehaviour & Information
Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, Sept. 2003, pp. 315–38. Crossref, doi:1 0.1080/01449290310001592587.
Hawi, Nazir S., and Maya Samaha. ‘The Relations Among Social Media Addiction, Self-Esteem, and Life Satisfaction in
University Students’. Social Science Computer Review, vol. 35, no. 5, Oct. 2017, pp. 576–86. Crossref,
doi:1 0.1177/0894439316660340.
Hern, Alex. ‘Facebook T&Cs Introduced “research” Policy Months after Emotion Study’. T he Guardian, 1 July 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/facebook-data-policy-research-emotion-study. Accessed 28 June
2018.
Hesselberth, Pepita. ‘Discourses on Disconnectivity and the Right to Disconnect’. New Media & Society, vol. 20, no. 5, May 2018,
pp. 1994–2010. Crossref, doi:1 0.1177/1461444817711449.
Hill, Kashmir. ‘Facebook Added “Research” To User Agreement 4 Months After Emotion Manipulation Study’. F orbes, 2014,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/30/facebook-only-got-permission-to-do-research-on-users-after-emoti
on-manipulation-study/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Jeong, Sarah, and Shannon Liao. ‘Here’s How Much Facebook Donated to Every Lawmaker Questioning Mark Zuckerberg’. T he
Verge, 11 Apr. 2018,
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17219930/facebook-campaign-contributions-mark-zuckerberg-congress-donations
.
Keyes, Corey L. M. ‘Mental Illness and/or Mental Health? Investigating Axioms of the Complete State Model of Health.’ Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 73, no. 3, 2005, pp. 539–48. Crossref, doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539.
King, A. L. S., et al. ‘Nomophobia: Dependency on Virtual Environments or Social Phobia?’ Computers in Human Behavior, vol.
29, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 140–44. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2012.07.025.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 67 Kramer, Adam D. I., et al. ‘Experimental Evidence of Massivescale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks’. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 29, July 2014. C rossref, doi:1 0.1073/pnas.1412469111.
Kross, Ethan, et al. ‘Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults’. P LoS ONE, edited by Cédric
Sueur, vol. 8, no. 8, Aug. 2013, p. e69841. C rossref, doi:1 0.1371/journal.pone.0069841.
Langlois, Ganaele. M eaning in the Age of Social Media. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2014.
Lee, Yu-Kang, et al. ‘The Dark Side of Smartphone Usage: Psychological Traits, Compulsive Behavior and Technostress’.
Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 31, Feb. 2014, pp. 373–83. C rossref, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047.
Lee-Won, Roselyn J., et al. ‘Hooked on Facebook: The Role of Social Anxiety and Need for Social Assurance in Problematic Use
of Facebook’. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, vol. 18, no. 10, Oct. 2015, pp. 567–74. Crossref,
doi:1 0.1089/cyber.2015.0002.
Longstreet, Phil, and Stoney Brooks. ‘Life Satisfaction: A Key to Managing Internet & Social Media Addiction’. Technology in
Society, vol. 50, Aug. 2017, pp. 73–77. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.techsoc.2017.05.003.
Lorenz, Taylor. ‘17 Teens Take Us inside the World of Snapchat Streaks, Where Friendships Live or Die’. Mic, 14 Apr. 2017,
https://mic.com/articles/173998/17-teens-take-us-inside-the-world-of-snapchat-streaks-where-friendships-live-or-die.
Accessed 28 June 2018.
---. ‘Teens Explain the World of Snapchat’s Addictive Streaks, Where Friendships Live or Die’. Business Insider, 2017,
http://www.businessinsider.com/teens-explain-snapchat-streaks-why-theyre-so-addictive-and-important-to-friendships-20
17-4. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Mashable. F acebook Read-Receipts Explained.
https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/UgOdahfUPY2b2OYQEUf-FNIokls=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-prod
uction.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F415418%2Fa69fb7ba-591a-42df-b1cf-20d3329318f3.png.
Accessed 25 June 2018.
McCord, Bethany, et al. ‘Facebook: Social Uses and Anxiety’. C omputers in Human Behavior, vol. 34, May 2014, pp. 23–27.
Crossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2014.01.020.
McVeigh-Schultz, Joshua, and Nancy K. Baym. ‘Thinking of You: Vernacular Affordance in the Context of the Microsocial
Relationship App, Couple’. Social Media + Society, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2015, p. 205630511560464. Crossref,
doi:1 0.1177/2056305115604649.
Microsoft. Y our Potential, Our Passion (Advertisement). YouTube, h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it-Vt2M_-ZU. Accessed
23 May 2018.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 68 Moreau, Axelle, et al. ‘Psychopathological Profiles of Adolescent and Young Adult Problematic Facebook Users’. Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 44, Mar. 2015, pp. 64–69. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.045.
Muench, Fredrick, et al. ‘The Independent Relationship between Trouble Controlling Facebook Use, Time Spent on the Site and
Distress’. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, vol. 4, no. 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 163–69. C rossref, doi:1 0.1556/2006.4.2015.013.
Nagy, Peter, and Gina Neff. ‘Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory’. Social Media +
Society, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2015, p. 205630511560338. C rossref, doi:10.1177/2056305115603385.
Norman, Donald A. T he Design of Everyday Things. Revised and expanded edition, Basic Books, 1988.
---. T he Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded Edition). Revised and expanded edition, Basic Books, 2013.
Oberst, Ursula, et al. ‘Negative Consequences from Heavy Social Networking in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Fear of
Missing Out’. J ournal of Adolescence, vol. 55, Feb. 2017, pp. 51–60. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.008.
Osatuyi, Babajide, and Ofir Turel. ‘Tug of War between Social Self-Regulation and Habit: Explaining the Experience of
Momentary Social Media Addiction Symptoms’. C omputers in Human Behavior, vol. 85, Aug. 2018, pp. 95–105. C rossref,
doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2018.03.037.
Oulasvirta, Antti, et al. ‘Habits Make Smartphone Use More Pervasive’. P ersonal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan.
2012, pp. 105–14. Crossref, doi:1 0.1007/s00779-011-0412-2.
Palfrey, Jack. ‘How “Seen” Messages on Facebook Mess with Your Mental Health’. D azed, 9 Nov. 2017,
http://www.dazeddigital.com/science-tech/article/38010/1/how-seen-messages-on-facebook-mess-with-your-mental-healt
h. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Parkin, Simon. ‘Has Dopamine Got Us Hooked on Tech?’ The Observer, 4 Mar. 2018. w ww.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction.
Accessed 28 June 2018.
PayPal. M aking Life Easier, One Click at a Time (Advertisement). 2015. Y ouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzz02KoKCn4. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Primack, Brian A., et al. ‘Use of Multiple Social Media Platforms and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: A
Nationally-Representative Study among U.S. Young Adults’. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 69, Apr. 2017, pp. 1–9.
Crossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2016.11.013.
Przybylski, Andrew K., et al. ‘Motivational, Emotional, and Behavioral Correlates of Fear of Missing Out’. Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 29, no. 4, July 2013, pp. 1841–48. Crossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.
Raessens, Joost. ‘Playful Identities, or the Ludification of Culture’. Games and Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006, pp. 52–57.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 69 Rosenberg, Matthew, et al. ‘How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions’. T he New York Times, 2 Apr.
2018. N YTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html.
Accessed 28 June 2018.
Rosenberger, Robert. ‘An Experiential Account of Phantom Vibration Syndrome’. C omputers in Human Behavior, vol. 52, Nov.
2015, pp. 124–31. Crossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2015.04.065.
Rushkoff, Douglas. P resent Shock: When Everything Happens Now. Penguin, 2013.
Schrock, Andrew Richard. C ommunicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and
Multimediality. 2015, p. 18.
Schüll, Natasha Dow. A ddiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press, 2012.
Seabrook, Elizabeth M., et al. ‘Social Networking Sites, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review’. JMIR Mental Health,
vol. 3, no. 4, Nov. 2016, p. e50. Crossref, doi:1 0.2196/mental.5842.
Sicart, Miguel. P lay Matters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press., 2014.
Snapchat. S napstreaks. h ttps://support.snapchat.com/en-GB/a/snapstreaks. Accessed 23 May 2018.
Solon, Olivia. ‘Ex-Facebook President Sean Parker: Site Made to Exploit Human “Vulnerability”’. The Guardian, 9 Nov. 2017.
www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-sean-parker-vulnerability-brain-psychology. Accessed
28 June 2018.
---. ‘How Europe’s “breakthrough” Privacy Law Takes on Facebook and Google’. The Guardian, 19 Apr. 2018.
www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/gdpr-facebook-google-amazon-data-privacy-regulation. Accessed
28 June 2018.
Stanfill, Mel. ‘The Interface as Discourse: The Production of Norms through Web Design’. New Media & Society, vol. 17, no. 7,
Aug. 2015, pp. 1059–74. Crossref, doi:10.1177/1461444814520873.
Statista. ‘Facebook Users Worldwide 2017’. S tatista,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/. Accessed 22 Apr.
2018.
---. ‘Smartphone Users Worldwide 2014-2020 | Statistic’. S tatista,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/. Accessed 23 May 2018.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 70 ---. ‘Snapchat Daily Active Users 2017 | Statistic’. S tatista, h ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/545967/snapchat-app-dau/.
Accessed 22 Apr. 2018.
---. ‘U.S. Snapchat Users Demographics 2016’. S tatista, h ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/326452/snapchat-age-group-usa/.
Accessed 22 Apr. 2018.
Steers, Mai-Ly N., et al. ‘Seeing Everyone Else’s Highlight Reels: How Facebook Usage Is Linked to Depressive Symptoms’.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 33, no. 8, Oct. 2014, pp. 701–31. Crossref, doi:10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701.
Strauss, Mark. ‘Four-in-Ten Americans Credit Technology with Improving Life Most in the Past 50 Years’. P ew Research Center,
12 Oct. 2017,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/12/four-in-ten-americans-credit-technology-with-improving-life-most-in-
the-past-50-years/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Teachout, Zephyr. ‘Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Hearing Was an Utter Sham | Zephyr Teachout’. The Guardian, 11 Apr. 2018.
www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-facebook-hearing-sham. Accessed 28 June
2018.
TechGainer. W hatsapp-Tick-Marks-Meaning. https://cdn.techgainer.com/2015/03/whatsapp-tick-marks-meaning.jpg. Accessed
25 June 2018.
Terranova, Tiziana. Attention, Economy and the Brain. 2012, p. 19.
Thompson, Rachel. ‘Devastated Snapchatters Talk about the Heartbreak of Losing a Snapstreak after Hundreds of Days’.
Mashable, 2017, h ttps://mashable.com/2017/03/20/breaking-snapstreak-snapchat-streak/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Thorsteinsson, Gísli, and Tom Page. ‘User Attachment to Smartphones and Design Guidelines’. International Journal of Mobile
Learning and Organisation, vol. 8, no. 3/4, 2014, p. 201. C rossref, doi:1 0.1504/IJMLO.2014.067020.
Turel, Ofir, Natalie “Tasha” Poppa, et al. ‘Neuroticism Magnifies the Detrimental Association between Social Media Addiction
Symptoms and Wellbeing in Women, but Not in Men: A Three-Way Moderation Model’. Psychiatric Quarterly, Feb.
2018. C rossref, doi:1 0.1007/s11126-018-9563-x.
Turel, Ofir, Damien Brevers, et al. ‘Time Distortion When Users At-Risk for Social Media Addiction Engage in Non-Social Media
Tasks’. Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 97, Feb. 2018, pp. 84–88. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.11.014.
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, 2011.
Twenge, Jean M., et al. ‘Decreases in Psychological Well-Being Among American Adolescents After 2012 and Links to Screen
Time During the Rise of Smartphone Technology.’ E motion, Jan. 2018. C rossref, doi:1 0.1037/emo0000403.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 71 Tyler, Joshua R., and John C. Tang. ‘When Can I Expect an Email Response? A Study of Rhythms in Email Usage’. ECSCW
2003, edited by Kari Kuutti et al., Springer Netherlands, 2003, pp. 239–58. C rossref, doi:1 0.1007/978-94-010-0068-0_13. van den Eijnden, Regina J. J. M., et al. ‘The Social Media Disorder Scale’. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 61, Aug. 2016, pp.
478–87. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.chb.2016.03.038.
Vannucci, Anna, et al. ‘Social Media Use and Anxiety in Emerging Adults’. J ournal of Affective Disorders, vol. 207, Jan. 2017, pp.
163–66. C rossref, doi:1 0.1016/j.jad.2016.08.040.
Vega, Nick. ‘I Just Lost a 159-Day Snapchat Streak and I Couldn’t Be Happier’. Business Insider, 2017,
http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-streak-lost-couldnt-be-happier-2017-8. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Walters, Joanna. ‘Inside the Rehab Saving Young Men from Their Internet Addiction’. The Guardian, 16 June 2017.
www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/16/internet-addiction-gaming-restart-therapy-washington. Accessed
28 June 2018.
Watson, Chloe. ‘Snapchat Update: More than 800,000 Angry Users Sign Petition to Change Redesign’. T he Guardian, 13 Feb.
2018. w ww.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/13/snapchat-update-redesign-users-sign-petition-undo-new-change-b
ack. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Wegmann, Elisa, et al. ‘Addictive Use of Social Networking Sites Can Be Explained by the Interaction of Internet Use
Expectancies, Internet Literacy, and Psychopathological Symptoms’. J ournal of Behavioral Addictions, vol. 4, no. 3, Sept.
2015, pp. 155–62. Crossref, doi:1 0.1556/2006.4.2015.021.
Whatsapp FAQ. ‘WhatsApp FAQ - Checking Read Receipts’. WhatsApp.Com,
https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28000015/?category=5245250. Accessed 23 Apr. 2018.
Wilson, Kathryn, et al. ‘Psychological Predictors of Young Adults’ Use of Social Networking Sites’. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, vol. 13, no. 2, 2010, pp. 173–77.
Wong, Julia Carrie. ‘Congress Grills Facebook CEO over Data Misuse – as It Happened’. The Guardian, 10 Apr. 2018.
www.theguardian.com,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2018/apr/10/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-live-congress-facebook-cambridg
e-analytica. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 72 Woods, Heather Cleland, and Holly Scott. ‘#Sleepyteens: Social Media Use in Adolescence Is Associated with Poor Sleep Quality,
Anxiety, Depression and Low Self-Esteem’. Journal of Adolescence, vol. 51, Aug. 2016, pp. 41–49. C rossref,
doi:1 0.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008.
Wright, Stephen. Toward a Lexicon of Usership. Van Abbemuseum, 2013.
Yasharoff, Hannah. ‘Snapchat Streaks Have Become a Real Way to Gauge Relationships’. T he Diamondback, 2017,
http://www.dbknews.com/2017/02/02/snapchat-streak-popularity/. Accessed 28 June 2018.
Louie Oestreicher / Exploiting Emotion = Engagement / 73