Master's Thesis Anonymous and Pseudonymous
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication: Corporate Communication Science Master’s Thesis Anonymous and Pseudonymous Brand-Related Communications on Social Media: The Effects on Toxicity, Transparency and Self-Disclosure Zygimantas Valiulis (12268895) Supervisor: Dr. S.C. (Suzanne) de Bakker Date of Submission: 28/06/2019 1 Abstract Online Disinhibition theory suggest that computer-mediated communications (CMC) allow users to be more toxic and self-disclosing. However, a huge number of overall online communications are made by anonymous and pseudonymous users, which can have an even bigger effect on users’ online disinhibition. The current research applied grounded theory approach and qualitative content analysis to conduct an in-depth examination of how varying levels of user' identification (anonymous, pseudonymous & identified) might be influencing their CMC patterns in relation to toxicity and self-disclosure. The samples are drawn from Youtube.com, Facebook.com and 4Chan.org comments on the controversial advertisement video from Gillette called "The Best Man Can Be". During the analysis, we observed a pattern, where users became more toxic in their communications when the levels of their identification were lower. Moreover, former literature suggests that CMC and social anonymity should increase users' self-disclosure. However, the current research could only partially support such a notion. Instead, we observed that users with a low level of identification (e.g. anonymous) were more transparent in their controversial and toxic attitudes and opinions during brand-related communications, rather than being generally more self- disclosing. This led us to suggest an expanded and updated definition of CMC self-disclosure and user transparency. Whereas self-disclosure focuses on user revelation of private information, such as family status, age, occupation and etc., the user transparency describes revealing deep-seated attitudes, opinions, feelings, and beliefs, that can often be perceived as controversial, toxic or sensitive. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Research Question 6 Academic Relevance 7 Practical Relevance 8 Theoretical Framework 9 Toxicity of Anonymous CMC: Interpersonal Distance and Disinhibition Effect 10 Self-Disclosure of Anonymous CMC: Hyperpersonal Interactions 14 Methodology 16 Sample 16 Operationalization 20 Codebook 24 Results 26 Toxicity 26 Self-disclosure 30 Discussion 32 Redefining the Self-Disclosure and Transparency 33 Identified Users CMC 36 Anonymous Users CMC 37 Pseudonymous Users CMC 38 Conclusions 39 Study Limitation 41 Future Recommendations 43 Sources 44 Appendix A 49 Appendix B: Memos 70 3 Introduction The ongoing digital world has given many people a mouth without a face – the unique ability to anonymously or pseudonymously express their opinions and participate in various online discussions. To put the scale of online user identification in the broader context of social media: around ¼ of Twitters' 326 million monthly users are pseudonymous, meaning that their real identities are unknown. They represent that approximately 89 million people on Twitter are possibly exhibiting altered communications patterns, both positive and negative, that anonymity and pseudonymity might afford them. Moreover, 86% of internet users reported taking steps to hide their identities online (Rainie et al., 2013). This might have significant ramifications for the overall characteristics and climate of social media sites (SMS) environments, computer-mediated communication (CMC) and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) circulation (Reichelt, Sievert & Jacob, 2014). While the term anonymity stems from the Greek word anonymia, which literally means “without a name”, many Web 2.0 consumers adopt certain pseudonyms, called nicknames or usernames, to protect their real identity. Some social media platforms, such as Facebook.com, encourages people to profile their real names, most likely to increase user accountability for their communicative actions (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). However, people still choose to hide their real identities. Other SM platforms such as 4Chan.org encourage anonymous user contributions. Meanwhile, most of the Youtube.com users engage in CMC under pseudonymous identities. In the past, YouTube has unsuccessfully encouraged users to adopt real names to increase accountability for toxic comments (Tate, 2012). 4 But why do people want to be unidentified while engaging in CMC? Kang, Brown and Kiesler’s (2013) research shows that users adopt anonymous (or pseudonymous) identities for various reasons, including engaging in illegal activities and expressing hate speech or other unpopular opinions. Apart from legally/morally dubious reasons, anonymity affordances are valuable to users in some cases, as they allow them to be open in socially delicate or even shunned discussions, such as pornography, drugs, islamophobia, homosexuality, etc. (Leavitt, 2015; Peddinti, Ross & Cappos, 2017; Van der Nagel & Frith 2015). However, the normative and ethical aspects of online anonymity are still debated (Bodle, 2014; Turculet, 2014). Positive socio-psychological facets of anonymity and computer-mediated communication (CMC) have been a topic of interest for a number of decades now (Kiesler et al., 1984) (Walther, 1996). From a social psychology and communication science perspective, anonymity changes the way people form their identities online and express themselves on the web. Some studies do affirm that anonymous (or pseudonymous) online communication seems to be bringing both functional advantages and disadvantages to the people involved. Anonymous CMC can be either positive and socially acceptable or negative and socially undesirable effects on online communication when compared to real-life or identified interactions (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Walther, 1996). Anonymous CMC seems to allow the amplification of one's social behavior or levels of self-disclosure and engagement. Such positive elements of anonymous CMC usage allow, in some cases, higher levels of self- disclosure (Kiesler et al., 1984; Suler, 2004), lowered social anxiety and desirability (Joinson, 1999) and higher sense of privacy (Bodle, 2014) which leads to more engagement of users in online discussions (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Walther (1996) argued that CMC surpasses face-to-face communication in self-disclosure (Walther, 1996). Other researchers 5 support such conclusions, having observed that the participants reached higher levels of self- disclosure by using CMC, when compared to real-life conversations (Joinson, 1999, 2001; Kim & Dindia, 2011). Joinson (2001) found that visual anonymity, mediated by lowered public self-awareness, empowered CMC users to self-disclose about their lives even further. Meanwhile, the negative and undesirable effects of CMC elevate toxicity, griefing, aggressiveness (Joinson, 1999; Suler, 2004; Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015), lack of accountability, invoked digital incivility (Lefler & Barak, 2014), and accelerated rumoring and dissemination of disinformation, distortion of facts and topics (Cho & Kim, 2012). Such toxic effects hinder online communications, making it unproductive and inhospitable environment for beneficial discussions, which, logically, should also hinder CMC users’ ability to self-disclose. Research Question The aim of this study is to examine whether different levels of users’ identification (anonymous, pseudonymous, and identified) have an effect on users’ self-disclosure and toxicity patterns. The starting point of the research is to analyze negative brand-related communications of identified users, and to compare them with anonymous and pseudonymous users’ CMC. Current study aims to answer whether anonymous, pseudonymous or identified users display most toxic communications or how do they differ in communicating toxicity. Moreover, which of the groups display highest self-disclosures and if they differ in what type of self-disclosure they communicate? A grounded theory approach is used to examine such trends and come up with new theories regarding toxicity and self-disclosure in brand-related CMC. 6 RQ: 1. How do users with varying levels of identification (anonymous, pseudonymous & identified) communicate their brand-related CMC with regards to toxicity and self- disclosure? To better understand the ramifications of varying degrees of identification on user's self- disclosure and toxicity facets, this research will conduct an in-depth qualitative content analysis of users’ comments on Gillette’s new controversial advertisement video “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be" (Gillette, 2019) with grounded theory approach. More specifically, the samples are drawn from Facebook.com (identified), Youtube.com (pseudonymous) and 4Chan.org (anonymous). The comments are analyzed and compared based on varying levels of online identification. Moreover, the current research is not focusing on the specifics of different social media platforms, but rather concentrates on the anonymity and pseudonymity CMC affordances it offers the users based on the affordance theory (Gibson, 1974, 2014). Academic Relevance Lack of research makes the current study academically relevant. Anonymous and pseudonymous toxicity and self-disclosing communication characteristics have been overlooked in academic research and brand-related communication context. As a result, the current research aims to bring light to the topic and expand the academic knowledge on anonymous and pseudonymous online consumer