Microblogging and the Value of Undirected Communication
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Microblogging and the Value of Undirected Communication Eva C. Buechel Jonah Berger University of South Carolina University of Pennsylvania Accepted by Amna Kirmani, Editor; Associate Editor, Aimee Drolet Online social networks have become extremely popular, but what drives sharing through these channels? We demonstrate that one of the most popular features of online social networks, microblogging (e.g., tweeting or sharing Facebook status updates), is driven in part by its undirected nature. Microblogging allows people to simultaneously express themselves to a large number of potential communication partners without having to address anyone in particular. As a result, this communication channel is particularly valued when people feel socially apprehensive; it allows them to reach out without having to impose communication and potentially bother anyone in particular. These findings shed light on one reason why people use online social networks and provide insight into the value of undirected communication. Keywords Online social networks; Social transmission; Microblogging; Social apprehension; Emotion Online social networks have become a pervasive Walasek, Bhatia, & Brown, 2018). Microblogging is part of everyday life. They are revolutionizing the immensely popular. Each day there are over way we spend our time, communicate with others, 500 million tweets (Internetlivestats, 2017) and more and maintain social relationships. But while these than 125 million Facebook status updates networks allow users to keep in touch with friends, (Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, & Purcell, 2011). increasing feelings of social capital (Ellison, Stein- The current research identifies one reason why field, & Lampe, 2007; Hoffman & Novak, 2012), people microblog. Specifically, we argue that researchers and cultural critics suggest that these microblogging is driven in part by its undirected sites have detrimental effects on users’ welfare and nature, making it a unique channel of communica- relationships (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; DiSalvo, tion. Most communication methods (e.g., face-to- 2010; Forest & Wood, 2012). Specifically, some have face and phone calls) require reaching out directly argued that online social networks reduce face-to- to a specific person who may feel obligated to face interaction, detracting from meaningful com- respond. Microblogs, on the other hand, allow peo- munication and leaving people depressed, anxious, ple to reach out without addressing anyone in par- and lonely (Kraut et al., 1998; Tonioni et al., 2012; ticular. Such undirected communication, we Turkle, 2015). suggest, allows people to reach out and elicit social Contributing to this debate, we suggest that a interactions without having to worry about impos- unique feature of these networks can actually offer ing unwanted communication on a particular per- a valuable outlet for expression and social sharing. son. Thus, while microblogs may be less personal One of the most popular features of Facebook, and than face-to-face interaction, their undirected nature the hallmark of Twitter, is the broadcasted sharing may make this communication channel particularly of short messages (i.e., status updates or tweets) desirable in some instances. about thoughts, feelings, or actions with other users If one value of microblogs lies in their undirected who can read them and respond. While Facebook nature, as we suggest, then microblogging should status updates and tweets vary in a number of be particularly valuable when people want to avoid ways (see General Discussion), academics and prac- more directed communication, such as when they titioners alike collectively call such short messages feel socially apprehensive. Social apprehension “microblogs” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011; Lee, 2011; involves anxiety about communicating with others and concerns about being rejected (e.g., being at a Received 8 July 2016; accepted 13 October 2017 party and not having anyone to talk to or feeling Available online 30 October 2017 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eva C. Buechel, Moore School of Business, University of South © 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology Carolina, 1014 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Elec- All rights reserved. 1057-7408/2018/1532-7663/28(1)/40–55 tronic mail may be sent to [email protected]. DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.1013 Social Apprehension and Microblogging 41 unwelcome; Horwitz, 2002; Schroeder, Wormworth, friends are said to provide increased social capital & Livesley, 1992; Wrench, Brogan, McCroskey, & (Ellison et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2012). On the Jowi, 2008). Importantly, the experience of social other, these sites have also been criticized for reduc- apprehension generates two contradictory impulses. ing meaningful face-to-face interaction (Forest & First, it makes people feel inadequate or nervous, Wood, 2012; Kraut et al., 1998; Tonioni et al., 2012; and these negative feelings heighten the need to Turkle, 2015) decreasing and subjective well-being reach out to others for comfort and social support (Kross et al., 2013; Verduyn et al., 2015). (Rime, 2009). Second, it makes people feel tentative Third, the relationship between online and offline about reaching out for fear of rejection. As a result, behavior is unclear. Some researchers have argued people who feel socially apprehensive may find that online behavior is merely an extension of behav- microblogging a particularly useful channel of com- ior offline (Back et al., 2010). Narcissists share more munication because it allows them to reach out self-indulgent content online (Buffardi & Campbell, broadly to elicit social interaction, while avoiding 2008), and extraverts have more friends on Facebook potentially bothering any given individual. and spend more time connecting with them (Gosling, Six studies investigate how microblogging’s Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011; Ross undirected nature drives its use. We examine if and et al., 2009). Other data, however, suggest that the when the experience of social apprehension online environment may encourage representations increases individuals’ likelihood of microblogging. that differ from offline ones by allowing people to We also examine whether this increase in sharing is present themselves overly positively (Berger & Iyen- specific to microblogging (i.e., does not extend to gar, 2012; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Wilcox & other communication channels). Finally, we exam- Stephen, 2013). ine whether, as predicted, these effects are driven One reason for these differing findings may be by the desire to reach out to others without impos- that most online social networks provide not just ing communication and potentially bothering any- one, but multiple methods of communication. Prior one in particular. work often treats social networks as homogeneous entities, looking at the effect of Facebook use or why people use Twitter. But in reality, each of these sites encompasses multiple features and multiple Online Social Networks communication methods (Wilson et al., 2012). Face- Online social networks allow people to quickly and book users, for example, can post status updates or easily connect with a broad set of social ties, even share on a friend’s wall. Twitter users can send when those ties are geographically distant. A large tweets or direct messages to particular social ties. body of research (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Ellison These different sub-channels vary in important et al., 2007; Kraut et al., 1998; Tonioni et al., 2012; ways. While direct messages on Twitter or sharing Wang et al., 2011; Verduyn et al., 2015) suggests that on a friend’s Facebook wall are targeted to a partic- online social networks cater to a variety of needs ular user, microblogging features (i.e., status such as affiliation, self-expression, signaling social updates or tweets) allow people to share broadly status, and information dissemination (Back et al., without directing their communication at any one 2010; Berger, 2014; Gosling, 2009; Hoffman & Novak, person in particular. 2012; Naylor, Lamberton, & West, 2012; Toubia & Consequently, to more deeply understand the Stephen, 2014; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012), for utility of these online channels, we focus on the an overview see Buechel and Berger (2015). popular, common, and unique feature of online That said, many more specific aspects of online social networks: microblogging. We investigate social networking are still relatively poorly under- how microblogs differ from other communication stood. First, most research in this area has been cor- channels and how this difference can explain when relational. Online social network use has been and why people microblog. linked to a variety of personality factors (e.g., Cor- rea, Hinsley, & De Zuniga, 2010), but relatively lit- tle experimental work has provided evidence for Interpersonal Sharing and Social Apprehension causal relationships between personality variables and behaviors. People have a high need for social interaction, and Second, there is little agreement on how and social relationships are critical for well-being why communication on online social networks (Bowlby, 1977; Burleson, 1998; Harlow, 1961). Social impacts users’ welfare. On the one hand, online interactions are especially important during 42 Buechel and Berger stressful and negative times (Taylor, 2011) because & Burger, 2005; Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). Hence, attention, affection, and comfort from others can feelings of social apprehension place people in a supply needed