Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook

Katz Sharing altruistic behavior… 1

Sharing
altruistic
behavior
on
Facebook

Jonathan
Katz1

University
of
California
at
Berkeley

May,
2012

1
jon_katz [at] mba.berkeley.edu, http://www.linkedin.com/in/katzjon


1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.
The
importance
of
sharing ...................................................................................................... 3

3.
Limitations
of
the
study .......................................................................................................... 4

4.
Motivations
for
using
FB ......................................................................................................... 5

5.
Sharing
types
and
motivations ............................................................................................... 7

5.1.
WOM ................................................................................................................................. 7

5.2.
Disclosure .......................................................................................................................... 9

5.3.
Damage
control................................................................................................................. 9

6.
Factors
mitigating
sharing
success ......................................................................................... 9

6.1.
Identity
creation
and
maintenance ................................................................................ 10

6.2.
Relationship
management .............................................................................................. 19

6.3.
Information
and
entertainment ..................................................................................... 20

6.4.
Differences
among
users ................................................................................................ 23

7.
Study ...................................................................................................................................... 24

7.1.
Method ........................................................................................................................... 24

7.2.
Results ............................................................................................................................. 26

7.3.
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 28

8.
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 29

8.
References ................................................................................................................................ 31


1. Introduction

It
is
now
widely
accepted
that
peer
influence
is
a
powerful
tool
in
determining
consumer

behavior.
New
forms
of
peer
influence
are
developing
online
with
novel
formats,
unmatched

speed,
and
new
breadth
of
topics.
Links
to
interesting
content
or
products
are
sent
through

email,
reviews
are
given
through
services
like
Yelp
and
Netflix,
and
on
social
networks,
primarily

Facebook
(FB),
links
are
shared,
statuses
are
updated,
and
any
verb
or
noun
can
be
liked.
What

is
shared
or
liked
has
impact
on
the
behavior
of
the
recipients:
a
shared
item
is
more
likely
to

be
consumed,
adopted,
or
reshared
by
a
recipient,
whether
it
be
a
style
an
opinion,
media

content,
or
a
physical
product.
Sharing
online,
in
other
words,
is
a
powerful
tool
for

disseminating
cultural
norms
and
behaviors.

A
quick
glance
at
FB
shows
that
much
of
what
is
shared
is
only
personally
relevant,
inane,
or

indirectly
boastful.
A
study
in
2004,
found
that
48%
of
all
email
forwards
were
jokes.
At
the

bottom
of
the
list
at
0.1%:
good
deeds
(Phelps
et
al.,
2004).
Not
a
lot
has
changed.
Much
of
the

sharing
today
involves
conspicuous
consumption,
such
as
photos
of
somebody’s
new
gadget
or

vacation.
There
is
a
dearth,
however,
of
sharing
altruistic
behaviors
and
intention:
whether
they

are
donations,
volunteer
work,
civic
engagement,
or
reduced
consumption.
Given
the

importance
of
sharing
on
transmitting
culture,
this
creates
an
obstacle
to
any
organization

attempting
to
encourage
and
spread
altruistic
behavior.
This
paper
attempts
to
understand
the

mechanism
behind
the
reluctance
to
share
altruistic
behavior
online
and
identify
means
by

which
this
reluctance
can
be
overcome.
The
solutions
focus
on
how
organizations
seeking
to

promote
altruistic
behaviors
or
ideas
can
improve
the
rate
at
which
it
is
shared
on
FB.
The

primary
research
method
was
a
review
of
the
existing
literature
and
a
quantitative
study
of

altruistic
sharing
behavior
and
motivations.
Despite
evidence
that
online
disclosure
does
not

differ
from
offline
disclosure,
the
majority
of
the
review
is
of
online
behavior
(Nguyen
et
al.,

2012).

2. The
importance
of
sharing

Sharing
our
actions
or
opinions
online
(henceforth
generalized
as
sharing)
is
important
primarily

because
it
is
a
direct
or
indirect
statement
of
the
sharer’s
beliefs
or
actions.
The
acts
and

thoughts
of
our
peers
have
tremendous
influence
on
our
own
opinions
and
behavior.
It
is

helpful
to
think
of
it
in
the
two
ways
offered
by
Thaler
and
Sunstein
in
Nudge
(2008).

The
first
is
informational:
we
have
evolved
to
learn
from
others,
because
what
others
do
might

contain
clues
for
how
we
should
live
our
lives.
This
corresponds
to
both
modeling
optimal

behavior
and
the
curation
of
content.

The
second
is
what
is
traditionally
thought
of
as
peer
pressure:
we
behave
as
others
do
to
gain

or
protect
our
social
status.
Thaler
and
Sunstein,
present
a
slew
of
academic
studies
showing


the
powerful
effects
of
peer
influence.
Holding
everything
else
constant,
it
has
been
shown
that

peer
groups
have
an
impact
on
such
varied
attributes
as
a
person’s
weight,
the
grades
they

earn,
or
the
music
they
listen
to.
The
impact
of
peers
is
not
just
wide,
but
deep.
In
the
infamous

Asch
conformity
study
and
its
multiple
replications,
20-‐40%
of
people
go
along
with

confederates
who
have
the
wrong
answer
to
a
simple
question
with
an
obvious
answer
(“Match

the
lines
of
identical
length”).
When
this
was
anonymous,
the
number
dropped
significantly,

showing
that
pressure
created
a
powerful
impact
(Thaler
&
Sunstein,
2008).

Importantly
for
this
paper,
the
power
of
peer
influence
can
also
impact
political
choices
and

altruistic
behavior.
Nudge
cites
studies
showing
that
federal
judges
from
either
the
right
or
left

would
vote
closer
to
the
political
lean
of
their
bench
mates,
and
in
politics
it
is
well
known
that

the
perception
that
a
candidate
is
the
most
favored
has
a
strong
impact
on
subsequent
votes.
A

study
found
that
volunteers
were
likely
to
stop
volunteering
immediately
after
just
one
person

had
stopped
(Linardi
&
McConnell,
2011).
Presumably
they
all
wanted
to
stop
earlier,
but
didn’t

want
to
be
the
first,
proving
that
social
pressure
can
be
used
to
reinforce
altruistic
behavior.
In

addition,
environmental,
antismoking,
and
anti
drinking
campaigns
that
shifted
from
decrying

the
prevalence
of
bad
behavior
to
normalizing
positive
behavior
do
far
better
(Thaler
&

Sunstein,
2008).
To
read
more
about
this,
Malcolm
Gladwell’s
bestseller,
The
Tipping
Point
is

digestible
and
provides
a
compelling
overview
of
how
ideas
spread
socially
(Gladwell,
2000).

In
addition
to
the
role
of
peer
influence,
sharing
has
an
impact
on
the
sharer.
Cialdini
and

others
have
shown
that
people
strive
for
consistency
in
their
identity
and
their
commitments.
A

simple
act
of
affirming
a
belief
publicly
can
reinforce
someone’s
sense
of
identity
around
a

subject
and
create
an
internal
need
to
continue
along
that
path
(Rogers,
2011;
Cialdini,
2009;

Bator
&
Cialdini,
2006).
This
is
particularly
true
of
prosocial
requests
(Beaman
et
al.,
1983).
This

means
that
sharing
reinforces
a
belief
or
habit
held
by
a
sharer
and
powerfully
influences
the

recipients.

Promoting
sharing,
then,
is
an
important
skill
for
entity
hoping
to
create
behavior
change.
This

paper
attempts
to
answer
the
following
questions:

RQ
1:
What
are
the
motivations
for
using
FB?

RQ
2:
What
are
the
motivations
for
sharing
on
FB?

RQ
3:
Given
these
motivations,
what
factors
mitigate
sharing
success?

RQ
4:
What
factors
prevent
the
sharing
of
altruistic
behavior
from
meeting
user
needs?

RQ
5:
How
can
sharing
of
altruistic
behavior
be
modified
to
increase
sharing
rates?

In
the
next
section,
we
examine
why
people
go
online
in
an
attempt
to
understand
why
they
do

or
do
not
share.

3. Limitations
of
the
study

It
is
first
worth
noting
that
online
social
networks
are
new.
FB
has
only
been
around
since
2004

(Wikipedia,
2012)
and
while
it
has
already
saturated
the
US
population,
the
time
spent
on
FB
in


the
US
continues
to
grow
(Comscore,
2012).
In
addition,
the
site
itself
is
in
a
near-‐constant
state

of
evolution.
New
features
appear
and
developing
new
uses
for
the
site
or
changing
existing

use-‐patterns.
Between
increased
ubiquity
and
acceptance
and
the
continued
evolution
of
the

site,
the
meaning
of
a
FB
identity
and
the
meaning
of
FB
activity
has
yet
to
settle
into
a
steady

state.
It
seems
that
online
norms
around
personal
disclosures,
in
particular,
have
been
changing

rapidly.
In
a
2010
interview,
Mark
Zuckerberg,
the
founder
and
CEO
of
FB
said:

And
then
in
the
last
5
or
6
years,
…
all
these
different
services
that
have
people
sharing

all
this
information.
People
have
really
gotten
comfortable
not
only
sharing
more

information
and
different
kinds,
but
more
openly
and
with
more
people.
That
social

norm
is
just
something
that
has
evolved
over
time.

(Kirkpatrick,
2010)

The
following
research,
then,
should
be
understood
within
the
context
of
an
evolving
dynamic.

While
some
of
the
differences
have
evolved
slowly
and
smoothly,
feature
changes
have
led

sudden
categorical
additions
to
FB’s
repertoire.
For
instance,
the
FB
developer
platform
was

launched
in
November
of
2007
(https://www.FB.com/platform,
accessed
5/1/12),
turning
FB

into
a
platform
upon
which
developers
could
create
their
own
social
applications.
Any
research

conducted
before
2008,
will
not
include
the
use
of
FB
for
games
and
other
applications
that

were
developed
on
FB
after
this
time.
Given
this
limitation,
results
from
earlier
papers
should

be
weighed
against
changes
to
the
environment.
Additionally,
certain
motivations
and
factors

of
sharing
success
(the
results
of
this
paper)
may
not
be
relevant
moving
forward.

Furthermore,
a
great
deal
of
research
cited
in
this
paper
used
self-‐reported
data
to
generate

results.
Only
recently
have
scholars
begun
analyzing
actual
FB
activity
or
measuring
responses

to
such
activity.
Results
from
actual
activity
were
found
to
deviate
from
earlier,
self-‐reported

results
in
at
least
one
FB
study
(Moore
&
McElroy,
2012).
In
light
of
this,
for
the
author’s
own

study,
an
attempt
was
made
to
measure
online
actions
in
addition
to
self-‐reported
data.
As

data
proliferates
and
the
academy
becomes
more
comfortable
with
online
data
mining
and

natural
language
processing,
the
accuracy
and
validity
of
studies
should
improve.

4. Motivations
for
using
FB

Motivations
for
joining
and
engaging
with
online
social
networks
have
been
studied
extensively

(Nadkarni
&
Hofmann,
2012;
Sheldon
et
al.,
2011;
Buffardi
&
Campbell,
2010;
Zhao
et
al.,
2008).

Though
different
researchers
categorize
motivations
at
different
levels
of
abstraction,
the

underlying
motivations
can
be
summarized
as:

1. Social
needs

2. Information
gathering/sharing

3. Entertainment


Any
sharing
behavior,
therefore,
should
be
motivated
by
a
subset
or
manifestation
of
these

objectives.
However,
the
first
motivation,
social
needs,
requires
some
unpacking.
A
literature

review
by
Nadkarni
and
Hofmann
(2012),
led
to
the
conclusion
that
FB
use
is
motivated
by
two

primary
social
needs:

1. Need
to
belong
(formation
and
maintenance
of
social
relationships)

2. Need
to
for
self-‐presentation
(held
in
high
regard)

The
origin
and
intensity
of
these
needs
are
well
documented,
and
outside
the
scope
of
this

paper,
but
both
needs
are
well
met
online.
Social
connections
online,
while
limited
in
nature,

can
reach
people
who
are
otherwise
isolated.
Indeed
FB
use
is
correlated
to
feelings
of

disconnectedness
and
this
disconnectedness
was
mediated
by
FB
use
(Sheldon,
Abad,
&
Hirsch,

2011).

Identity
needs
are
enhanced
online,
as
well.
According
to
a
study
by
Zhao,
Grasmuch
and

Martin
(2008),
in
the
offline,
nonymous
(not
anonymous)
world
we
are
forced
to
hide
our
true

selves,
but
the
filters
permitted
in
an
online,
nonymous
platform
allow
us
to
portray
a
unique

version
of
ourselves.
To
be
sure,
this
isn’t
the
“idealized
self”,
but
rather
a
“hoped
for
self”
a

realistic
hybrid
between
our
idealized
self
and
our
actual
self.
Zhao
and
colleagues
make
the

point
that
the
“hoped
for
self”
is
a
socially
desirable
identity
that
the
user
believes
can
be

established,
given
the
right
conditions.
A
link
between
narcissism
and
FB
has
been
established

by
several
studies
now
(Carpenter,
2012;
as
cited
by
Nadkarni
and
Hofmann,
Buffardi
&

Campbell,
2010;
Mehdizadeh,
2010).
And
the
effort
is
well
founded,
personal
attractiveness

and
likeability
have
been
tied
to
profile
attributes
in
a
number
of
studies
(Walther
et
al.,
2008,

Wang
et
al,
2010;
Weisbuch
et
al.,
2009;
Tong
et
al.,
2008).
But
the
desire
to
craft
an
identity
is

not
just
limited
to
social
concerns,
Gonzalez
and
Hancock
found
that
examining
one’s
own
FB

profile
enhances
self
esteem,
particularly
when
the
information
has
been
edited
for
aspirational

purposes
(2010).

It
should
be
noted
that
individuals
are
trying
to
project
an
identity
that
will
be
well
received
by

others
and
project
it
in
a
way
that
will
be
well
received.
It
goes
without
saying
that
this
also

includes
avoiding
negative
attention.
Even
postings
that
seem
likely
to
damage
identity
are

designed
to
craft
a
desired
perception.
Peluchette
and
Karl
(in
a
study
whose
secondary
title
is

“What
were
they
thinking?!”)
found
that
even
the
posting
of
inappropriate
content
correlated

to
the
user’s
intended
presentation
of
appearing
a
certain
way:
sexually
appealing,
wild,
or

offensive.
(Peluchette
and
Karl,
20120)

However,
there
is
a
great
deal
of
evidence
that
identities
on
FB
do
not
stray
far
from
offline

reality.
In
one
study,
visitors
to
profiles
were
able
to
accurately
assess
people’s
personality

characteristics
from
their
FB
profiles.
The
only
exception
was
emotional
stability,
where
“self-‐
enhancement”
came
into
play
(Gosling,
S.,
Gaddis,
S.,
&
Vazire,
S.
(2007).
Additionally,
people

who
were
liked
in
person
by
study
participants
also
had
FB
pages
that
were
more
likeable

(Weisbuch
et
al.,
2009).


Lastly,
there
are
some
individuals
who
only
go
online
to
consume
information.
They
have
in
the

past
been
referred
to
as
“lurkers”
(Heinonen,
2011),
and
indeed
it
should
be
remembered
that

there
is
a
significant
portion
of
the
population
that
does
not
go
online
to
create
and
maintain

their
identity.
This
is
reinforced
by
the
author’s
own
study,
the
results
of
which
are
below.

5. Sharing
types
and
motivations

In
studying
sharing
behavior
it
is
important
to
note
that
most
research
focuses
on
one
of
two

categories
of
sharing:

1. Disclosure:
sharing
personal
information,
either
through
statements
imagery
or

behavior.

2. Word
of
mouth
(WOM):
sharing
external
content,
such
as
writing
product
reviews,

sharing
links
or
“liking”
actions
or
entities.
Indirectly,
all
WOM
includes
some
personal

disclosure.
For
instance,
the
mere
act
of
recommending
a
Canon
camera
implies
that
I

have
used
one
and
that
I
care
if
others
use
them.
The
content
of
my
review
might
reveal

other
personal
attributes.

Throughout
this
paper,
the
use
of
the
word
“sharing”
includes
both
of
the
above
categories,

and
means
any
broadcast
intended
to
convey
information.
Importantly,
the
most
predictive

motivations
were
utilitarian
(purpose
driven)
rather
than
hedonic
(entertainment
driven):

people
share
in
order
to
accomplish
something,
rather
than
for
the
enjoyment
of
it.

5.1. WOM

All
studies
reviewed
found
a
number
of
motivations
predictive
of
WOM,
but
it
is
clear
that

certain
motivations
are
more
powerful
than
others.
Specifically,
information
sharing
is
more

predictive
of
sharing
volume
than
the
desire
to
connect.
This
is
an
apparently
altruistic
motive

and
explicitly
stated
altruistic
motivations
were
also
found
to
be
powerful
predictors.
Identity

creation
and
associated
status
was
another
strong
predictor
of
WOM.

Baek,
Holton,
Harp,
and
Yaschur
conducted
a
broad
multi-‐tiered
study
to
uncover
the

motivations
for
linking
on
FB.
They
conducted
factor
analysis
to
uncover
6
different
motivation

categories
for
sharing
links
on
FB
and
looked
to
see
which
motivations
were
tied
to
number
of

links
shared.

1. Information
sharing

2. Convenience
and
entertainment

3. Pass
the
time

4. Interpersonal
utility
(i.e.
meet
people,
stay
connected)

5. Control
(to
get
others
to
do
something)

6. Promoting
work


They
found
that
the
positive
correlation
between
each
motivation
and
the
number
of
links

decreased
as
you
moved
from
#1
to
#6.
Information
sharing
was
~3x
more
of
a
factor
than

interpersonal
utility.
This
shows
that
the
reasons
people
link
are
not
necessarily
the
same

reasons
for
using
FB
in
general.
In
particular,
information
sharing
seems
to
be
somewhat

altruistically
motivated.

Ho
and
Dempsey
looked
for
the
motivations
behind
forwarding
online
content
by
examining

motivations
behind
email
forwarding.
They
looked
at
how
five
potential
communication

motivations
predicted
email-‐forwarding
behavior:

i. Need
to
belong

ii. Individuation

iii. Altruism

iv. Personal
growth

v. Consumption

vi. Curiosity

They
found
that
of
the
potential
motivations,
only
individuation
(the
need
to
establish
a
unique

identity)
and
altruism
predicted
forwarding
behavior
(Ho
&
Dempsey,
2010).
Here
one
could

interpret
altruism
as
a
parent
category
of
the
top
two
motivations
found
by
Baek
and

colleagues:
information
sharing
and
entertainment.
Echoing
the
Baek
study
above,
Ho
and

Dempsey
found
that
the
“need
to
belong”
did
not
significantly
impact
forwarding,
and

postulate
that
this
is
an
artifact
of
email
or
the
nature
of
forwarding
(rather
than
other

elements
of
social
networking).
The
study
also
identified
altruism
as
a
predictor
of
forwarding

and
suggests,
cynically,
that
altruism
is
being
used
as
a
signal
to
the
recipient
about
the

sender’s
generous
identity
(Ho
&
Dempsey,
2010).
Lee,
Kim
and
Kim
cite
several
studies

showing
that
electronic
WOM
is
motivated
by
altruism
(Lee
et
al.,
2012).

A
study
of
fanning
(precursor
to
like)
behavior
on
FB
found
college
students
view
the
act
of

fanning
as
a
means
to
connect
with
organizations
but
also
to
make
announcements
about
their

identity.
Specifically,
people
who
engaged
in
fanning
were
more
likely
to
be
expressing
an

identity
for
others,
not
to
create
a
new
identity
with
the
brand
community.
They
also
perceived

fanning
as
a
means
of
gaining
and
sharing
information
and
engaging
in
entertaining,
creative,
or

social
activities.
As
with
other
studies,
the
utilitarian
motives
were
stronger
predictors
than
the

last
three,
hedonic
motives
(Hyllegard
et
al.,
2012).

Lee
and
Ma
(2012)
also
found
that
news
sharing
on
a
social
media
platform
was
driven
by
the

following
motivations:
socializing,
information
seeking,
and
status
seeking.
In
addition
they
cite

several
other
studies
that
show
that
other
contributions
online
are
related
to
maintaining
a

reputation.
Entertainment
was
not
found
to
be
a
significant
determinant
in
this
study.
Status

seeking
also
tied
to
social
media
experience…probably
because
people
seeking
status
will

develop
social
media
experience
(Lee
&
Ma,
2012).


5.2. Disclosure

People
disclose
personal
information
to
form
connections
and
establish
identity.

Relationship
formation
motivates
disclosure,
because
it
conveys
important
data
and
also,
the

rule
of
reciprocity
leads
to
disclosure
from
the
other
party
(Park
et
al.,
2011).
In
the
Nadkarni

and
Hofmann
literature
review,
they
cite
a
study
that
showed
a
person’s
“tendency
to
disclose”

and
their
“need
for
popularity”
were
the
only
predictors
(among
the
factors
they
examined)
of

information
disclosure
on
FB
(Nadkarni
&
Hofmann,
2012).
Another
study
indicated
that

contingencies
of
self
worth,
such
as
appearance,
approval
of
generalized
others,
and
outdoing

others
explained
online
photo
sharing
volume.
Appearance
(i.e.
identity)
had
the
strongest

relationship
with
the
volume
of
disclosures
(Stefanone
et
al.,
2011).

5.3. Damage
control

It
almost
goes
without
saying,
but
one
of
the
inherent
considerations
(if
not
motivations)
when

sharing
content
online
is
ensuring
that
any
share
does
not
damage
one’s
online
identity
or

otherwise
negatively
impact
their
online
relationships.
Damage
control
tactics
(vaguely
defined)

were
found
to
be
positively
related
to
an
individual’s
motivation
of
self-‐presentation
on
FB

(Rosenberg
2011).
A
2011
qualitative
study
of
regrets
on
FB,
found
no
dearth
of
regretted

postings.
Respondents
reported
many
angry
spouses,
angry
family
members,
angry
friends,
lost

friends,
and
actions
taken
against
their
business.
The
study
also
highlighted
the
way
that
users

police
their
accounts
to
avoid
making
errors.
Self-‐censoring
and
“not
posting
at
all”
were

among
the
methods
(Wang
et
al.,
2011).

We
have
established
that
FB
users
share
to
shape
their
online
identity,
distribute
information,

for
entertainment,
and
to
form
and
maintain
relationships.
Whether
or
not
shaping
an
online

identity
is
a
primary
motivation
for
a
sharing
activity,
the
impact
on
identity
seems
to
be
an

overarching
concern
when
sharing.

We
will
look
next
to
the
factors
that
might
lead
to
either
desirable
or
undesirable
outcomes

given
each
motivation
(RQ
3):

RQ
3:
Given
these
motivations,
what
factors
mitigate
sharing
success?

We
will
evaluate
inline
how
altruistic
behavior
sharing
interacts
with
these
factors
in
order
to

answer
research
questions:

RQ
4:
What
factors
prevent
the
sharing
of
altruistic
behavior
from
meeting
user
needs?

RQ
5:
How
can
sharing
of
altruistic
behavior
be
modified
to
increase
sharing
rates?

6. Factors
mitigating
sharing
success


The
above
sections
outline
the
motivations
or
purpose
for
sharing.
It
has
been
postulated
by

many
that
sharing
has
both
a
utilitarian
(purpose
driven)
and
hedonic
(entertainment
driven)

component.
The
studies
above
found
the
utilitarian
motivations
were
more
predictive
of

sharing
behavior
than
hedonic
motivations.
It
is
therefore
helpful
to
consider
the
likelihood
of

sharing
as
the
result
of
an
expected
outcome
analysis
on
the
part
of
the
user.
While
this
may

seem
overly
mechanical,
it
is
legitimized
by
research
that
found
that
people
are
less
likely
to

share
good
news
with
friends
who
have
low
self-‐esteem,
not
out
of
concern
for
their
friend’s

feelings
but
because
they
knew
they
were
unlikely
to
receive
the
positive
reaction
they
desired

(MacGregor
&
Holmes,
2011).

Given
the
motivations
outlined
above,
the
value
of
sharing
is
a
factor
of
both
entertainment

value
and
the
likelihood
that
the
action
will
lead
to
the
desired
outcome
(positive
identity

creation,
information
sharing,
helping
others).
One
can
visualize
the
analysis
as
such:

S
=
VEntert
+
(X
Ÿ
VUtility)
–
(Y
Ÿ
VDamage)
–
CAction

Where:

S
=
value
to
sharer
of
sharing

VEntert
=
value
of
entertainment

X
=
likelihood
of
goal
being
met

VUtility
=
value
of
goal
being
met

Y
=
likelihood
of
damage
being
done

CAction
=
cost
of
the
action
in
time/effort

While
tweaking
the
act
of
sharing
to
make
it
more
entertaining
for
the
sharer
is
an
interesting

challenge
and
reducing
the
cost
is
a
universal
goal,
this
section
will
focus
on
the
factors
that

determine
success
for
a
sharer
in
terms
of
achieving
goals
and
controlling
damage.
Each
factor

will
be
followed
by
suggestions
for
how
this
information
might
be
used
to
increase
the
rates
of

prosocial
behavior
sharing.

6.1. Identity
creation
and
maintenance

This
is
the
most
important
motivation
for
sharing,
because
it
is
a
primary
motivation
for
using

an
online
social
network
and
guides
sharing
even
when
the
primary
purpose
is
to
enlighten
or

provide
entertainment.

Anything
that
will
impact
online
identity
is
likely
evaluated
in
terms
of
how
effective
it
is
and

how
others
will
receive
it.
Here
are
the
factors
that
lead
to
effective,
positive,
and
safe
identity

claims:

1. Normative

2. Innocuous

3. Indirect

4. Targeted


5. Community
oriented

6.1.1.
Users
are
more
likely
to
share
items
that
reflect
normative
qualities

Zhao
and
colleagues
demonstrated
that
there
is
a
great
deal
of
congruence
among
online

identities
and
they
seem
to
follow
the
rule
of
staying
within
socially
agreed
up
on
norms.
First

and
foremost,
this
identity
is
social.
For
instance,
most
pictures
are
taken
with
a
group
(though

this
author
believes
it
is
an
artifact
of
how
pictures
are
taken,
rather
than
curation
by
the

profile
owner).
“Well-‐roundedness”
was
another
big
claim.
Lastly,
there
were
many
claims
of

thoughtfulness—usually
through
the
words
of
others,
by
posting
quotes.

There
was
also
some
expression
of
identity
traits
that
fell
outside
dominant
social
norms.
Some

users
posited
a
strongly
hedonistic
or
superficial
image
of
themselves.
Less
approved
qualities

were
mitigated
by
using
a
joking
manner
or
expressed
via
someone
else,
by
posting
a
quote.

In
addition
to
what
was
claimed,
it
is
important
to
note
what
was
not
claimed.
Here
are
some
of

the
characteristics
that
were
not
projected
on
profile
pages:

1. Pessimism

2. Apprehension

3. Un-‐Spontaneity

4. Narrow
focus

5. Academics

6. Religious

(Zhao
et
al.,
2008).

It
is
worth
reminding
the
reader
that
there
is
a
motivation
to
create
a
unique
personal
identity

within
established
social
norms.
While
normative
behavior
makes
the
bulk
of
a
user’s
identity

claims,
the
unique
combination
or
some
small
percentage
of
mildly
deviant
behaviors
(within
a

group
norm
or
pushing
the
boundary)
are
likely
to
exist
in
any
identity
claims.
Indeed,
Chan
and

colleagues
found
that
within
brand
affiliations,
consumers
found
a
need
to
pick
unique
colors

or
odd
variations
as
a
way
to
stand
out
(Chan
et
al.,
2012)

6.1.2.
Users
are
wary
of
sharing
controversial
or
obviously
altruistic
content

It
should
be
noted
that
moral/altruistic
statements
and
behaviors
often
lead
to
a
negative

reception.
There
is
a
“holier
than
though”
identity
imparted
on
someone
who
behaves
in
an

overtly
altruistic
way
that
extends
beyond
the
community’s
status
quo.
See
sections
5.1.3
and

5.1.4
for
more
on
the
effect
of
differing
community
values.
In
a
2011
survey,
an
Ogilvy
&

Mather
report
showed
that
consumers
who
make
an
effort
to
consume
sustainably
feel

ostracized
for
their
behavior.
The
disapproval
is
not
imagined.
Half
of
all
Americans
being

surveyed
said
they
though
green
products
were
marketed
to
“Crunchy
Granola
Hippies”
or

“Rich/Elitist
Snobs”.
This
came
with
negative
qualitative
remarks,
such
as:


I
really
do
think
‘being
green’
these
days
is
more
of
a
lifestyle
statement
for
people...I
see

many
‘granola
hippies’
and
‘elitist
snobs’
shoving
their
green
lifestyles
in
people’s
faces

and
it
makes
them
seem
on
the
fringes
of
society.

In
the
negative
response,
there
is
often
a
reaction
to
an
implied
threat
or
judgment
against
the

original
receiver.
One
respondent
gave
the
answer:

One
woman
never
colors
her
hair.
She
is
very
like
‘natural,’
she
wears
Birkenstocks

(laughs)...I
look
at
her
in
annoyance,
cause
I
think
she’s
looking
at
me...

(Ogilvy
&
Mather,
2011)

This
negative,
defensive
reaction
is
particularly
true
of
moral
stances
that
threaten
the
status

quo.
In
the
1960’s
in
the
US,
nonsmokers
and
feminists
were
derided
and
ostracized
in
the

same
way
that
environmentalists
are
now.
The
research
into
this
phenomenon
goes
beyond
the

scope
of
this
paper.

Political
statements
are
dangerous
for
the
same
reasons.
If
Person
A
claims
a
political
identity

that
is
at
odds
with
the
political
views
of
Person
B,
Person
B
is
likely
to
attribute
negative

qualities
towards
them
(Reeder
et
al.,
2005).
The
more
deeply
someone
feels
about
the
issue,

the
more
negatively
they
will
perceive
someone
who
disagrees
(Reeder
et
al.,
2005).
This
might

have
to
do
with
the
‘similarity
effect’,
whereby
people
like
others
similar
to
them
(Cialdini,

2009).
However
it
likely
goes
deeper
and
reflects
some
perceived
threat
or
judgment
(Person
B

thinks
Person
A
would
not
approve
of
Person
B).
This
is
implied
by
the
Ogilvy
quote
above
and

by
the
results
of
a
study
showing
that
people
think
they
agree
more
with
their
FB
friends
on

political
issues
than
they
actually
do.
Stronger
ties
and
political
discussions
among
friends

increase
agreement,
but
don’t
impact
the
perceptual
gap
do
(Goel
et
al.,
2010).
This
indicates

that
when
discussing
politics
with
friends,
people
avoid
controversial
issues
or
discussing
issues

in
a
way
that
reveals
their
true
opinion.

The
logical
conclusion
is
that
people
are
aware
of
the
potential
negative
reaction
to
politically

discordant
views
and
avoid
socially
risky
statements.
This
is
reinforced
by
statements
made
by

subjects
in
the
study
by
Wang
and
colleagues,

I
got
in
a
religious
debate
on
Facebook.
I
did
delete
my
comments
but
several
people

dropped
me
as
their
friend.

…Even
though
I
agreed
with
it,
I
partly
regretted
it
because
making
statements
about

religious
or
political
things
are
affine
line.
I
have
my
beliefs
but
would
never
want
my

friends
or
family
to
think
I
was
trying
to
force
my
beliefs
on
them
[emphasis
added].
I

was
afraid
some
of
them
might
think
that.

(Wang
et
al.,
2011)


Conforming
identities:
Challenge
and
solution

Unfortunately,
in
order
to
create
social
change,
it
is
not
enough
that
normative
behaviors
are

shared.
For
altruism
and
other
prosocial
behaviors
like
civic
engagement
to
increase,
they
need

to
be
buoyed
above
the
currently
accepted
level.
This
goes
directly
against
a
user's
motivations

in
creating
a
socially
approved
online
identity.

Round
the
edges

Altruistic
behaviors
or
qualities
should
be
framed
in
a
normative
fashion
and
emphasize
the

sender
as
well
rounded
and
social,
rather
than
as
extreme,
one-‐sided
or
negative.
If
a
non-‐
normative
value
is
being
claimed
it
seems
people
feel
more
comfortable
if
it
is
delivered
with
a

softening
joke
or
“wink”
at
recipients.
Similarly,
all
debatable
moral
or
political
content
should

be
declawed.
For
example,
if
the
Occupy
movement
would
like
its
community
to
promote
civic

engagement,
rather
than
telling
members
to
cite
statistics,
talk
about
the
noble
cause,
or
call

for
an
overthrow
of
capitalism,
they
should
ask
members
to:

• Take
a
picture
of
them
and
their
friends
smiling
at
a
protest
(well
rounded,
fun
not

altruistic)

• Circulate
messaging
about
how
occupy
is
for
everyone:
99%!
(not
extreme,
not
political)

Temporarily
change
the
norms

While
permanently
changing
societal
norms
is
very
difficult,
the
recent
Kony2012
phenomenon

showed
the
power
of
creating
trends.
An
analysis
of
the
viral
spread
of
Kony2012,
showed
that

by
asking
all
of
their
followers
to
tweet
at
the
same
time,
they
were
able
to
create
a
“twitter

bomb”
and
create
the
illusion
that
a
large
segment
of
the
population
shared
their
belief
.
This

created
a
false
norm
around
caring
about
Joseph
Kony.
Using
this
bomb,
they
were
able
to

convert
influential
celebrities
into
advocates,
perpetuating
their
“normative”
message
(Lotan,

2012).
Organizations
can
try
similar
large
scale
efforts,
or
at
a
small
scale,
organizations
either

run
outreach
campaigns
at
times
when
there
is
a
lull
in
social
activity
or
create
“minibombs”
by

postponing
FB
API
calls
from
their
website
so
that
all
shares
for
a
given
hour
are
sent
at
once.

Re-‐anonymize

Alternatively,
though
it
may
be
difficult
on
FB
as
it
is
currently
configured,
removing
identity

from
the
situation
would
likely
remove
this
concern
altogether.
In
anonymous
situations,
as

Zhao
and
colleagues
discuss,
people
throw
off
their
carefully
constructed
identities
and
let
their

“true
selves”
emerge
and
people
say
whatever
they
like.
While
this
does
remove
an
important

motivation
for
sharing
(identity
maintenance),
the
amount
of
anonymous,
user-‐generated

online
content
shows
that
entertainment,
persuasive,
and
altruistic
motives
are
together
strong

enough
to
drive
the
creation
of
massive
content
stores.
To
test
this
theory,
a
FB
application

with
a
large
existing
userbase,
like
Causes,
could
post
messages
with
anonymous
protagonists
:

“A
friend
of
this
user
donated
XXX
amount
to
YY”.


6.1.3. Users
make
identity
claims
indirectly

Zhao
and
colleagues’
study
on
identity
formation
examined
the
kinds
of
disclosures
made
on

FB,
differentiating
between
implicit
and
explicit
identity
statements.
The
study
analyzed
FB

profiles
and
categorized
the
kinds
of
content
being
published.
They
found
that
the
vast
majority

of
identity
statements
were
implicit.
Users
chose
to
identify
themselves
through
a
social
group

or
organization,
rather
than
communicate
directly
with
the
audience
and
to
show
through

affiliations,
rather
than
tell.

Figure 1 The continuum of implicit and explicit identity claims on Facebook (from Zhao et al., 2008)

6.1.4. Indirect
is
more
convincing

Zhao
and
colleagues
speculate
that
indirect
messaging
allows
users
to
establish
their
identity
in

a
more
convincing
way:
testimonials
and
affiliations
are
trusted
more.

Walther,
Van
Der
Heide,
Kim,
Westerman,
&
Tong
postulate
that
secondary
information
has
a

much
higher
integrity
than
if
the
profile
bearer
had
posted
it
themselves:

Results
showed
that
complimentary,
pro-‐social
statements
by
friends
about
profile

owners
improved
the
profile
owner’s
social
and
task
attractiveness,
as
well
as
the

target’s
credibility.

Subjects
also
found
friends’
pictures
to
be
meaningful,
finding
people
with
better
looking

friends
more
attractive
(Walther
et
al,
2008).
This
author
was
unable
to
find
data
on
what

posting
positive
things
about
others
did
for
a
user’s
reputation.

6.1.5. Indirect
messaging
allows
for
damage
control

Additionally,
indirect
helps
shield
individuals
in
important
ways.

1. Replacing
strong,
single
statements
against
multiple
subtler
statements
hedge
against

changes
of
heart.
It
likely
would
be
easier
for
a
bureaucrat
to
look
back
at
an
old
picture

of
himself
at
a
Ramones
concert
than
a
status
update
that
says,
“I’ll
never
work
for
the

machine”.

2. Crafting
an
identity
through
many
brushstrokes
allow
the
individual
to
make
subtle

alterations
in
the
image
seen
by
different
audiences.

Indeed,
a
paper
on
hipsters’
eating

habit
in
the
UK
proposes
that
eating
alternative
food
(vegetarian,
non-‐commoditized)
is


ostensibly
about
dislike
of
corporate
food
systems,
but
is
operationalized
as
an

inconspicuous
in-‐group
signal
of
identity
(Cronin
et
al.,
2012).

3. Though
Zhao
doesn’t
mention
this,
showing,
rather
than
telling
also
avoids
the

unmeasured
social
backlash
against
direct
social
communication.
For
example,
imagine

you
saw
these
statements
on
a
FB
page
and
check
your
gut
to
see
how
they
make
you

feel
towards
the
writer:

• Self-‐promotion:
“I
am
a
great
athlete.”

• Personal
awareness:
“I
am
a
very
anxious
person.
I
talk
too
much
because
I
get

excited
and
find
it
hard
to
calm
myself.”

• Sincerity:
“I
am
so
proud
of
my
best
friend!”

• Confidence:
“I
am
going
to
ace
that
test!”

• Morality:
“I
think
we
should
all
look
at
ourselves
before
we
judge
others.”

The
annoyance,
anger,
or
even
hatred
that
is
evoked
by
such
direct
statements
is
powerful.
It
is

the
author’s
opinion
that
naked
agendas,
or
merely
visible
analysis,
make
people
very

uncomfortable
in
a
social
setting.
In
the
same
way
that
there
are
purity
taboos
around

behaviors
that
remind
us
of
our
physical
nature,
there
are
taboos
against
reminding
people
that

we
are
aware
of
or
actively
managing
external
identities.

In
fact,
direct
statements
are
so
disliked
that
people
will
make
adventurous,
often
awkward
or

transparent
attempts
to
avoid
them.
This
has
led
to
the
phenomenon
known
as
the

“humblebrag”.
A
humblebrag
is
a
statement
intended
to
make
a
very
strong,
positive
identity

claim,
presented
as
an
accessory
to
a
self-‐deprecating
or
misleading
remark.
It
is
the
reverse
of

the
backhanded
compliment
(and
reflective
of
a
similar
social
norm),
yet
directed
at
oneself.

Like
the
backhanded
compliment,
if
the
true
nature
is
detected,
the
issuer
loses
credibility.

There
is
a
twitter
account
called
Humblebrag
and
blog
posts
dedicated
to
exposing
and

humiliating
people
whose
humblebrags
are
too
obvious.
Here
is
a
humblebrag
and
response

from
Grantland.com’s
humblebrag
hall
of
fame:

"I
was
mentioned
in
the
NY
times
but
the
piece
was
so
fucking
dumb
I
didn't
post
it.
All

though
he
said
nice
things
about
me.
#burningbridges"

Yeah,
but
you
just
mentioned
the
piece,
so
clearly
you
wanted
us
to
know
about
it.
The

only
bridge
burned
here
is
the
one
between
you
and
humility.

(Harris,
2010)

In
fact,
the
humblebrag
has
turned
into
an
awareness
arms
race.
Many
twitter
users
now
apply

the
humblebrag
hash
to
their
own
statements
to
acknowledge
that
they
are
bragging,
and

avoid
criticism
(Twitter,
2012).
The
author
suspects
the
cynics
will
catch
up
soon.


Indirect
Messaging:
Challenge
and
solution

Unlike
conspicuous
consumption,
an
altruistic
act
itself
is
itself
positive
and
requires
an
extra

layer
of
camouflage
to
avoid
backlash.
“I
just
bought
an
iPod”
indirectly
connotes
that
you
have

expendable
wealth.
Sharing
“I
just
donated
$300
to
the
Planned
Parenthood”
directly
states

that
you
have
done
something
noble
and
that
you
support
Planned
Parenthood.

Vague

To
increase
rates
of
altruistic
sharing:
Altruistic
behaviors
or
qualities
should
be
reflected

indirectly.
For
example,
if
PETA
wants
vegans
to
“share”
their
behavior,
rather
than
having

them
post
a
status
update
or
add
to
their
info
page:
“I
am
a
vegan”,
they
could
ask
members
to

make
intentionally
subtle
posts:

• Share
a
vegan
recipe
without
explicitly
saying
it
is
vegan

• Share
an
article
about
vegan
bikers
with
the
comment,
“Inspiring”.

• Like
PETA
(affiliation)

• Take
a
picture
at
a
vegan
restaurant

Of
these,
affiliations
through
the
“like”
button
are
the
most
uniformly
instituted
and
utilized.

Past
examples
of
successful,
mass,
indirect
messaging
using
visual
cues
include:

• Livestrong
bracelets
(I
support
fighting
cancer,
maybe
I’m
sporty,
or
maybe
I
just
like

Nike)

• Pink
cancer
ribbons

• Changing
a
profile
picture

o Obamizer
app:
applies
the
classic
Shepard
Fairey
Obama
poster
pattern
to
a

user’s
profile
pic
(2008)

o Wearing
a
hoodie
for
Travyon
Martin
(2012)

o Blackout
profile
to
protest
SOPA
(2012)

These
are
all
typified
by
requiring
an
additional
level
of
decoding
to
receive
the
message:

Even
the
Obamizer
app
is
ambiguous:
maybe
they
support
the
president,
maybe
this
it
is
just

funny,
maybe
they
are
making
a
comment
about
hype.

Divert
Attention

In
addition
to
creating
subtle
messages,
users
can
promote
altruistic
behavior
indirectly,
by

crediting
others
for
their
altruism.
One
can
applaud
the
efforts
of
friends
who
have
done
good

deeds,
publicly
ask
friends
to
do
favors
for
them,
or
publicly
invite
friends
to
share,
giving

friends
a
“free
pass”
to
promote
their
behavior.

A
great
example
is
the
Wish
feature
on
Causes.com.
This
lets
users
ask
their
friends
to
publicly

donate
on
their
behalf
as
a
Birthday
wish,
wedding
wish,
etc.
Made
famous
in
2010
by
Bill

Clinton’s
birthday
wish
(Huffington
Post,
2010)
this
feature
of
the
site
has
raised
more
than
$15


million
dollars,
to
date
(http://wishes.causes.com/,
accessed
5-‐6-‐12)
out
of
$40
million
total

(http://www.causes.com/about,
accessed
5-‐6-‐12).
Even
wishes,
however,
carry
the
“taint”
of

morality—as
it
suggests
the
requester
would
rather
help
others
than
get
presents.

Removing
any
obvious
altruism
from
the
sharer’s
action
might
make
this
even
more
effective.

For
example,
the
statement
“If
I
get
5
friends
to
donate
to
the
Red
Cross
by
Sunday
(use
this

code:
XXX),
they
will
give
me
a
free
t-‐shirt!
Help
a
brother
out!”
A
variation
on
this
hypothesis
is

tested
in
the
study
at
the
end
of
this
paper.

6.1.6.
Users
look
to
share
different
things
to
different
groups.

While
people
are
most
interested
in
sharing
normative
or
socially
acceptable
material,
norms

differ
widely
across
groups.
One
of
the
motivations
of
using
online
social
networks
(among

young
people)
is
to
represent
a
slightly
different
self
to
different
groups,
and
FB
now
provides

ample
tools
to
control
who
sees
which
messages.
Communications
that
are
suboptimal
for
a

group
of
conservative
“friends”
may
be
perfectly
fine
for
another,
more
liberal
group.
This
is

particularly
true
with
regard
to
controversial
subjects
like
religion
and
politics.
A
study
in
2011

created
an
environmental
application
on
FB
in
an
attempt
to
remove
barriers,
including

“unsupportive
social
expectations”.
Users
of
the
application
(self-‐selected)
reported
feeling

safer
making
comments
and
asking
questions
within
a
group
of
people
who
shared
similar

beliefs.
They
also
enjoyed
peer
approval
and
a
gamification
element
that
gave
them
points
for

their
actions
(Robelia
et
al.,
2011).
Lee
and
colleagues
cite
several
studies
showing
that
trust,

strength
of
ties
and
similarity
among
members
helps
improve
sharing
within
a
group.

Conversely,
another
study
found
that
privacy
concerns
lead
to
lower
sharing
on
FB
and
lower

bonding
(Stutzman
et
al.,
2012).
Many
FB
regrets
in
Wang
and
colleagues’
study
were
caused
by

sending
a
message
to
the
wrong
audience
(Wang
et
al.,
2011).
It
should
be
noted
that
targeting

different
messages
to
different
people
is
not
always
the
same
as
belonging
to
a
community.
For

instance,
my
friend
just
invited
12
of
his
friends
to
see
Paul
Krugman
at
the
Commonwealth

Club
in
SF.
This
was
a
targeted
list,
but
nobody
else
on
the
list
knows
each
other
and
we
will

likely
not
meet
again
as
a
group.

6.1.7. Users
share
more
within
trusted
communities2

Similar
to
matching
audience
to
sharing
message,
is
the
practice
of
developing
communities.

While
this
is
an
established
best
practice
for
those
seeking
social
interaction,
it
is
also
valuable

for
building
identity
through
indirect
means,
as
mentioned
above.

Lee
and
colleagues,
cite
several
studies
showing
that
the
strength
of
community
is
very

important
to
increasing
WOM
sharing.
Their
study
showed
that
priming
an
individual
to
adopt

an
interdependent
(rather
than
independent)
sense
of
self,
led
to
higher
rates
of
word
of

mouth:
suggesting
that
people
are
contributing
out
of
a
sense
of
altruism
towards
their

2
Also
relevant
to
Section
6.2,
Relationship
management


community.
The
study
also
showed
that
in
many
cases,
people
join
branded
communities

because
they
represent
a
ready-‐made
social
group
and
provides
an
opportunity
for
social

interaction.
Brand
communities
also
have
established
identities
that
one
can
borrow
through

affiliation
and
apply
towards
ones
own
self-‐representation.
Lastly,
they
showed
that
WOM
is

higher
in
consumer
created
brand
communities
rather
than
marketer
created
communities.

This
reinforces
the
evidence
that
altruism
is
an
important
component
of
WOM.

Targeting
and
community
building:
Challenge
and
solution:

In
addition
to
creating
applications,
using
FB’s
groups
can
improve
the
rate
of
sharing,
as
can

the
use
of
privacy
controls
to
create
custom
lists
in
FB.
This
will
create
an
environment
where

prosocial
norms
can
flourish.
If
an
organization
like
Change.org
wants
people
to
share
that
they

have
signed
a
petition
to
limit
executive
pay,
rather
than
asking
users
to
share
the
petition
with

all
of
their
friends,
or
having
the
user
select
friends
on
their
own,
Change.org
could
create

smart
lists
of
“suggested”
friends
who
might
be
sympathetic.
This
requires
a
great
deal
of

information,
but
data
is
increasingly
available.

Selectively
targeting
messages
to
sympathetic
recipients
may
be
safer,
but
it
somewhat
defeats

the
purpose
of
generating
mainstream
awareness
and
support.
Similarly,
joining
a
group
or

community
around
altruistic
or
prosocial
behavior
might
seem
excessive
to
the
mainstream

target
user
who
wants
to
incorporate
good
behavior
into
their
lives
without
making
it
a
life

mission.

In
this
case,
simply
sharing
with
close
ties
might
be
a
way
to
target
messages
and
use
existing,

tight
knit
communities
(such
as
family
or
college
friends).
After
all,
close
ties
are
likely
to
have

more
similar
views.
Shares
to
close
ties
are
also
more
likely
to
be
influential—FB’s
analytics

team
ran
a
large
study
showing
this
(Backshy,
2012).
Van
Noort,
Antheunis,
and
Van

Reijmersdal
ran
a
study
showing
that
viral
campaigns
were
more
persuasive
when
they
came

from
close
ties
and
the
recipient
created
a
gentle
interpretation
of
the
sharer’s
motives
(Van

Noort
et
al.,
2012).

Lastly,
community
highlights
an
important,
but
overlooked
motivation
for
sharing:
altruism.

People
share
to
help
their
community
find
information
and
be
entertained.
Creating
framing

around
community
and
interdependence
led
to
higher
WOM
levels
in
Lee
and
colleagues'
study

(Lee
et
al.,
2012)
and
might
also
be
effective
in
a
prosocial
setting
if
the
desired
share
were

framed
as
a
favor
to
the
community.
For
instance,
if
Greenpeace
wants
its
members
to
share

their
opposition
to
a
bill
appearing
before
congress,
it
shouldn’t
tell
its
members:

“Be
proud
of
your
position,
let
your
friends
know
what
you
think.
“

Instead,
it
should
could
ask
its
members,


“As
a
valued
member
of
our
community
and
an
ambassador
to
Greenpeace,
please
help

us
spread
the
word
about
this
dangerous
bill.”

Or
it
could
invoke
members’
commitments
to
their
own
communities
and
ask:

“Protect
your
family
community!
Let
them
know
about
this
dangerous
bill.”

6.2. Relationship
management

When
strengthening
relationships
is
a
goal,
sharing
helps
achieve
this.
Interestingly,
volume

matters
more
than
content:
Honesty
and
intent
(consciously
disclosing)
do
not
lead
to
more

intimacy.

Rather,
a
larger
amount
and
more
positive
self-‐disclosure
play
an
important
role
in

enhancing
feeling
connected
and
intimate
in
Facebook.

(Park
et
al.,
2011)

Park,
Jin,
and
Jin
found
that
the
desire
to
form
a
new
relationship
is
associated
with
less
honest,

and
more
negatively
toned
disclosures
and
postulate
that
negatively
toned
messages
are
more

likely
to
be
perceived
as
“cool”
than
positive
ones.
This
is
backed
by
a
study
showing
that
males

whose
FB
pages
depicted
normatively
undesirable
behavior
(such
as
excessive
drinking
or

sexual
innuendo)
were
perceived
to
be
more
attractive.
Females
who
made
such
comments

were
perceived
to
be
less
attractive
(Walthers
et
al.,
2008).

Relationship
management:
Challenge
and
solution

It
seems
that
self-‐disclosure
volume
is
good
for
the
building
and
maintenance
of
relationships

on
FB.
Great!
The
challenge
in
increasing
altruistic
behavior
sharing
is
to
create
meaningful,

(usually
positive),
altruistic
disclosures
that
align
with
the
goal
of
generating
intimacy.

As

briefly
mentioned
above,
creating
community
overlaps
with
relationship
building,
so
many
of

the
challenges
and
solutions
listed
in
that
box
(Section
6.1.7)
apply
here
as
well.

As
with
creating
normative
and
indirect
messaging,
the
challenge
is
to
transform
a
message
to

be
shared
(e.g.
“I
donate
to
charity”)
into
something
more
indirect
and
social.

For
instance:

“Stop
buying
so
much
crap!”
à
”Hey
I’m
making
my
own
table
today,
want
to
come
help?”

“It’s
time
to
march
for
justice”à
”Hey,
thought
of
you
today.
Want
to
hang
out
at
the
March
on

Tues?


“I
donate
to
charity.”
à
“I
want
to
hang
out
and
trust
your
judgment:
can
you
help
me

figure
out
what
charities
to
give
to?
Maybe
over
beer?”

6.3. Information
and
entertainment

When
the
motivation
is
to
provide
oneself
or
another
with
information
or
entertainment,
the

primary
feature
of
importance
is
the
external
value
of
the
content
being
shared.
From
an

identity
perspective,
the
quality/credibility
of
the
content
is
seen
to
be
a
reflection
of
the
user

(Lee
&
Ma,
2012).
Beyond
that,
users
want
to
ensure
that
they
are
sharing
something
that
the

recipient
will
appreciate.
Due
to
the
importance
of
link-‐sharing,
there
have
been
many
studies

as
to
what
makes
something
“viral”
or
spreadable.
Below
is
just
a
sampling
from
that
research.

A
recent
study
looked
at
coded
New
York
Times
items
and
how
likely
they
were
to
reach
the

“most
emailed
list”.
It
found
that
of
the
many
items
coded,
the
items
in
Figure
2
were
most

predictive
of
whether
or
not
an
article
made
the
list:

Figure 2 Factors impacting virality (from Berger & Milkman, 2012)


Another
study
found
that
positive
messages
were
shared
more
often,
but
how
aroused
a
user
is

when
considering
the
message
has
a
much
bigger,
positive
impact.
Sadness
is
considered
to

create
a
low
arousal
state,
while
awe
and
anger
created
higher
arousal
and
higher
effects
than

mere
positivity.
In
this
study,
the
effect
of
arousal
was
captured
with
actual
respondents

reading
articles
while
jogging
on
a
treadmill
(aroused)
or
not
(Berger,
2011).
Above,
we
showed

how
controversial
items
were
potentially
damaging
to
identity,
but
it
is
likely
that
controversial

items
are
also
more
arousing—so
the
two
effects
when
present
together
should

counterbalance
each
other.
Alternatively,
one
might
avoid
provocative
or
controversial
content

when
making
identity
claims,
but
be
more
willing
to
share
such
content
as
a
third
party.

Berger
and
Schwartz
found
that
products
that
are
publicly
visible
or
cued
more
frequently
by

the
environment
led
to
higher
immediate
and
long
term
levels
of
WOM
sharing
in
another

study.
Interesting
products
have
higher
immediate
WOM,
but
this
effect
does
not
last
long.
The

conclusion
is
that
interesting
products
that
stay
accessible
in
consumer’s
minds
are
more
likely

to
be
shared
(Berger
&
Schwartz,
2011).
The
application
for
applying
this
to
issues
in
the
news
is

discussed
below.

Baek
and
colleagues
examined
if
the
motivation
for
sharing
had
any
connection
to
the
kinds
of

links
shared:
news,
entertainment,
job
related
or
organization.
They
found
only
the
obvious

connections
that
those
looking
to
motivated
to
information
were
more
likely
to
share
news

stories
and
the
motivation
to
control
others
(not
a
popular
one)
was
negatively
correlated
to

the
propensity
to
share
entertaining
content
(Baek
et
al.,
2011).

Entertainment
value:
Challenge
and
solution

Altruistic
behavior
isn’t
always
exciting
or
entertaining.
That
they
just
found
a
new
organic

toothpaste
brand
or
that
bill
X
is
entering
congress
is
not
the
kind
of
news
people
share
with

friends.
As
noted
above,
arousal
is
a
very
important
feature
of
virality.

Provoking/Humorous/Accessible

It
would
behoove
organizations
to
describe
actions
or
news
in
a
way
that
makes
it

“shareworthy”.
In
fact,
a
new
enterprise
called
“Upworthy”,
founded
by
Eli
Pariser,
a
board

member
of
MoveOn.org,
and
Peter
Koechley,
former
managing
editor
of
The
Onion,
attempts

to
do
just
that
(Pariser,
2012).
They
take
important
political
information
and
disguise
it
in
an

attention-‐grabbing,
humorous,
and
easily
digestible
costume.
In
doing
so,
they
copy
many
of

the
features
of
the
inane
viral
content
that
spreads
quickly
online.
Their
motto
is:
“Make
your

friends
accidentally
think”
(http://www.upworthy.com,
accessed
5-‐4-‐12).

Here
is
an
example
of
an
Upworthy
item:


Figure 3 From Upworthy.com's FB stream (https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy, accessed 5-4-12)

Figure 4 A riff on the internet Venn diagram jokes, from Upworthy.com's FB header
(https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy, accessed 5-4-12)

The
MoveOn.org
webpage
has
something
similar:

Figure 5 From MoveOn.org's homepage (http://www.moveon.org, accessed 5-6-12)

As
mentioned
above,
the
need
for
provocative
or
controversial
material
is
potentially
at
odds

with
users’
best
interests
in
creating
normative
self-‐representations.
Care
should
be
taken
to

create
“shareworthy”
material
without
making
potentially
damaging
identity
claims.

Gaming

Another
example
of
creating
entertainment
value
is
through
gaming.
In
the
wake
of
the
2010

Haiti
earthquake,
social
game
maker
Zynga
raised
over
$1.5M
by
incorporating
virtual
Haiti-‐
related
virtual
products
into
the
game
and
donating
the
proceeds
to
charity
(Hameed,
2010).

The
aforementioned
study
of
an
environmental
FB
application
also
demonstrated
that


gamification
is
a
powerful
motivator
for
sharing
(Robelia
et
al.,
2011).
In
addition
to
giving
a

reason
to
share,
gaming
increases
the
VEntert
metric
in
the
sharing
value
equation
above.

Current
events

Berger
and
Schwartzs’
finding
(2011)
that
environmental
cues
lead
to
higher
rates
of
WOM

suggest
that
as
someone’s
exposure
to
a
topic
increases,
people
are
more
likely
to
share
it.
This

means
content
that
is
specific
to
the
current
public
agenda
is
more
likely
to
get
shared
than

more
universal
topic
that
is
getting
less
media
attention.
According
to
David
Karpf,
MoveOn.org

and
other
next-‐generation
political
organizations
have
been
able
to
successfully
use
the

internet
to
capitalize
on
the
latest
news
in
real-‐time.
This
practice
has
been
dubbed
“headline

chasing”
(Karpf,
2010).

6.4. Differences
among
users

Another
important
factor
in
determining
sharing
volume
is
the
user.
Users’
likelihood
of
sharing

vary
quite
a
bit.
Additionally,
the
motivations
above
are
not
all
shared
by
everyone
in
equal

proportions.
Most
of
the
studies
looked
at
links
shared,
given
the
primary
motivation
of
that

particular
person,
supporting
the
notion
that
that
there
are
distinct
user
types.
Here
is
a

succinct
sample
of
the
kinds
of
differences
that
have
an
impact
on
sharing
propensity
or

method:

• Not
everybody
shares!
Consumption
online
is
much
more
common
than
production

and
there
are
many
so-‐called
“lurkers”
who
participate
on
FB
only
to
gather

information
(Heinonen,
2011).

• Personality
qualities
lead
to
different
levels
of
regret
and
posting.
Explaining
24%
of

self-‐postings
and
42%
of
postings
about
others
(Moore
&
Elroy,
2011).

• Women
share
more
than
men
(Glynn
et
al.,
2012).
This
effect
is
not
always
found

(Baek
et
al.,
2011).

• Women
affiliate
with
groups
more
than
men
(Haferkamp
et
al.,
2012).

• Unhappy
people
share
more
(Glynn
et
al.,
2012).

• People
who
spend
more
time
online
share
more
(Baek
et
al.,
2011;
Hyllegard
et
al.,

2011).

• Mavens
share
more
(Hyllegard
et
al.,
2011)

• Younger
people
are
more
likely
to
engage
in
WOM
(Strutton
et
al.,
2011)

• In
different
countries,
different
kinds
of
sharing
are
more
prevalent
(Vasselou
et
al.,

2010)

Wang
and
colleagues
found
that
different
groups
of
people
use
different
self-‐censoring

techniques.
Young
people
simply
avoid
people
of
a
certain
social
rank,
such
as
parents
or

teachers.
Professionals
create
boundaries
around
formal
and
informal
relationships.
Older

people,
on
the
other
hand
simply
share
with
everyone
or
don’t
share.
As
FB’s
sophistication


increases,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
posting
to
different
groups
becomes
easier
and
more

common
(Wang
et
al.,
2011).

People
are
different:
Challenge
and
solution

No
one
tactic
will
work
with
everyone.
On
the
bright
side,
there
is
an
opportunity
online
to

personalize
messaging
and
experiences
to
achieve
optimal
share
rates.

Effort
should
be
taken
to
segment
users
based
on
demographic,
psychographic
or
behavioral

profiles
and
apply
different
tactics
towards
the
different
segment
to
achieve
maximum
results.

For
example,
the
civic
engagement
platforms
Change.org
and
MoveOn.org
very
successfully

send
different
petitions
to
different
people.
They
vary
the
message
based
on
the
characteristics

of
the
petition
and
the
data
they
have
about
those
people
(Conversations
with:
Change.org

employee,
2-‐7-‐12,
MoveOn.org
employee
2-‐8-‐12).

In
the
world
of
political
campaigns,
this

tactic
has
been
around
for
decades
and
is
called
“microtargeting”.

7. Study

Given
the
above
research,
the
author
set
out
to
test
two
of
the
proposed
methods
for

increasing
altruistic
sharing.
Specifically,
I
was
interested
in
learning
if
people
would
be
more

likely
to
share
their
altruistic
behavior
if
the
request
for
sharing
framed
it
as
a
favor,
rather
than

an
opportunity
for
self-‐promotion.
The
study
also
looked
at
how
sharing
an
altruistic
act

indirectly,
along
with
evoking
a
sense
of
community
affected
share
rates.

H1:
If
request
to
share
is
framed
as
a
favor,
rather
than
an
invitation
for
self-‐promotion,
the

sharing
rates
will
increase.

H2:
If
the
share
content
mentions
the
altruistic
behavior
only
indirectly
through
a
community

lens,
the
sharing
rates
will
increase.

H3:
If
the
sharing
is
framed
as
self-‐promotion,
and
the
content
is
promotional,
the
sharing

rate
will
be
close
to
0.

7.1. Method

For
this
experiment,
500
Haas
students
were
recruited
via
email
to
fill
out
a
survey.
The
survey

asked
2
dummy
questions
(about
sleeping
habits
and
breakfast)
and
then
asked
one
of
the
4

questions
below,
determined
randomly
(Figure
6).


Frame Message

Altruistic

Vague self-
promotion

Blatant self-
promotion

Indirect/community
promotion

Figure 6 Test prompts distributed randomly

If
the
respondent
clicked
on
the
link
to
share,
they
were
taken
to
an
FB
page
that
told
them
the

link
was
a
dummy
and
they
should
return
to
the
survey.
Then
they
were
asked
why
they
chose

to
click
the
link.
If
the
respondent
chose
not
to
share,
they
were
asked
how
close
they
were
to

sharing
and
why
they
chose
not
to
share.
It
was
thought
that
the
Indirect/community
frame

Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook

Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook

Semelhante a Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook (18)

Último

Último (20)

Sharing altruistic behavior on facebook