• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY,BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 17, Number 5, 2014 ORIGINAL ARTICLES ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0477 The More Friends, the Less Political Talk? Predictors of Facebook Discussions Among College Students S. Mo Jang, BA,1 Hoon Lee, PhD,2 and Yong Jin Park, PhD3 Abstract Although previous research has indicated that Facebook users, especially young adults, can cultivate their civic values by talking about public matters with their Facebook friends, little research has examined the predictors of political discussion on Facebook. Using survey data from 442 college students in the United States, this study finds that individual characteristics and network size influence college students’ expressive behavior on Fa- cebook related to two controversial topics: gay rights issues and politics. In line with previous studies about offline political discussion, the results show that conflict avoidance and ambivalence about target issues are negatively associated with Facebook discussions. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that users who have a large number of Facebook friends are less likely to talk about politics and gay rights issues on Facebook despite having access to increasing human and information resources. Theoretical implications of these findings and future directions are addressed. Introduction Literature Review Facebook friends, group size, and political expression alking about public issues with friends and family Thas been identified as a key factor that simulates political People’s perception of others influences what they talk engagement.1,2 Interpersonal discussions of public affairs cre- about and how they present themselves.5 Even in social ate opportunities to reflect on social problems, obtain mobi- media, where conversation partners are physically invisible lizing information, and reach informed decisions.3 Facebook, or sometimes unidentifiable, users create their imagined one of the world’s most popular social networking sites (SNSs), audience group and behave in such a way to meet the group’s has received extensive scholarly attention in this regard be- norms.6 SNS users tend to establish the boundary of a virtual cause a primary function of the site is to facilitate casual con- audience based on the perceived reach of their posted mes- versation with acquaintances at minimal cost.2,4 Scholars have sages, which is often regulated through privacy control paid special attention to Facebook use among young adults, functions.7 For example, the majority of Facebook users who have shown a relatively low level of political engagement provide access to information on their accounts (e.g., Face- in the United States and other countries.4 book Wall) only to their Facebook friends, assuming that Although these scholars have assumed that expressing those ‘‘friends’’ constitute their discussion networks.8 views or sharing information about political or social issues The influence of network size on the degree of interaction on Facebook plays a critical role in developing civic values in a network has been the subject of study for a long time.9,10 among college students, empirical efforts to explore the Although previous research on this topic is seemingly di- predictors of such activities on Facebook have been sparse. vided, this discrepancy largely stems from the fact that net- To fill this gap in the literature, this study examines both work size is conceptualized in two different ways. In the network and individual characteristics as important ante- literature, network size is defined either as the total number cedents to political discussions on SNSs. Specifically, this of links an individual has or as the total number of members investigation focuses on the extent to which the size of the in the network as a whole.11 When prior studies measured audience on Facebook (i.e., Facebook friends) influences network size to capture an individual’s capacity as a network users’ expressive behavior related to two controversial top- hub, the findings indicate that greater network size stimulates ics: gay rights issues and politics. more animated discussion.2,12 This makes sense because 1Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2Nam Center for Korean Studies, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3Management Communications Graduate Program in Communication, Culture and Media Studies (CCMS), School of Communications, Howard University, Washington, District of Columbia. 271 272 JANG ET AL. individuals with a large network are more likely to obtain individuals confronted with a clash of perspectives hesitate new information and encounter active discussion part- to take sides largely out of their perceived obligation to avoid ners.12,13 In contrast, when network size refers to the size of a conflict and uphold social harmony (i.e., social account- specific group, the findings suggest that a small group dis- ability). From this notion, it can be inferred that those with a cussion enhances interaction and yields a productive out- strong desire to avoid conflict tend to suppress their moti- come.4,10 When the size of a group remains relatively small, vation to vocalize their viewpoints in order to maintain an members are able to respond aptly to one another and amicable community. Furthermore, Mutz3 demonstrated that competently maintain multiple dyadic interaction chan- conflict-avoidant people are more likely to register a neutral nels.14 In addition, this line of research indicates that mem- or vague stance in the case of political controversy. Hence, bers of a large group are less likely to participate in political the tendency to avoid conflict can significantly harness conversations, since a large group typically consists of in- people’s readiness to express opinions either directly or in- dividuals with diverse political orientations.3,12 People are directly by producing greater attitudinal ambivalence. Along reluctant to disclose their true views about social issues when this line of reasoning, we expect that they think they are in the minority or when they are unsure whether they are in the majority.15 H2: Ambivalence toward an issue is negatively associated Applied in the context of Facebook discussion, it is critical with the discussion about the issue on Facebook. to ask how we understand the number of Facebook friends in H3: Conflict avoidance is negatively associated with the terms of these two definitions of network size. One might argue discussion about public affairs on Facebook. that the number of Facebook friends can be seen as the size of an individual user’s networking ability, and that a greater To increase the external validity of this investigation, we number of Facebook friends facilitate discussion by supplying set out to examine college students’ Facebook discussion in increased human and information resources. On the other hand, two separate domains: politics and gay rights issues. Gay others might view that the number of Facebook friends rep- rights issues were chosen for this study because these issues resents the size of a user’s discussion group. The assumption are considered among the most popular and controversial 24 here is that when users update their status, they perceive that among college students. their activities on Facebook Wall are delivered to a substantial part of their friend circle. Although the boundary of this Method imagined audience group is not obvious, Facebook users care about the way in which their comments are ‘‘being seen’’ by Participants and procedure 16 their friends. According to this view, it is reasonable to ex- The sample consisted of 442 undergraduate students who pect that a greater number of Facebook friends hinder rather were enrolled at a large Midwestern university in the United than facilitate Facebook discussions about public affairs. For States. They participated in this study in exchange for extra example, users may hesitate to discuss sensitive matters on course credit. This study was conducted between November their own or friends’ Walls unless they perceive that most of 2012 and January 2013. The average age of the participants their imagined audience share similar views about the topics. was 18.73 years (SD = 0.92), and 77% of them were female. However, as the number of Facebook friends grows expo- The informed consent and following measures were com- nentially, it becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain that pleted through an online survey. hundreds of Facebook friends unanimously agree with a user’s opinions about controversial topics. Since users’ desires to be Measures seen in a favorable light have been identified as one of the most fundamental motivations of using Facebook,16 we predict that Facebook use. Respondents were first asked if they had Facebook accounts. Two students who answered in the nega- H1: The number of Facebook friends is negatively associ- tive were excluded from further analysis. Facebook use was ated with Facebook discussions. assessed using an item from previous research.25 Respondents were asked to report how many minutes they spent using Fa- Individual characteristics and political discussion cebook each day in the preceding week. The response cate- Aside from the size of a discussion network, individual gories consisted of 1 = ‘‘never,’’ 2 = ‘‘less than 10 minutes,’’ characteristics also foster or qualify people’s willingness to 3 = ‘‘11 to 30 minutes,’’ 4 = 31 to 60 minutes,’’ 5 = 1to2 express their opinions. In particular, research on political dis- hours,’’ and 6 = ‘‘more than 2 hours’’; M = 4.51, SD = 1.12. As cussion has revealed that ambivalence and conflict avoidance we wanted to examine the potential influence of specific net- are two important individual factors.3,17 First, ambivalence, work characteristics (i.e., Facebook friends), we adopted this which refers to the state in which an individual has both pos- minute-based measure of Facebook use as a control. Thus, we itive and negative attitudes toward an object, can translate into controlled for the fact that frequent users might have more a depressed propensity to voice opinions.18,19 Empirical in- opportunities to engage in public discussion on the site.

Load more

  6

Copy Link