Nicole Ellison talk at ICWSM - Researching interaction in social media: Examining online and offline communication processes in online dating & social network sites

1. Nicole
Ellison
Telecommunication,
Information
Studies
&
Media
Michigan
State
University

4. • Because
user
perceptions
can
be
important.
• Because
offline
activity
is
often
not
evident
in
online
data.
• Because
user-­‐generated
data
has
biases.

5.  How
do
communication
technologies
reshape
how
we
form,
maintain,
and
access
our
social
relationships?
 Two
primary
research
contexts:
social
network
sites
and
online
dating

7.  RQ:
Does
Facebook
use
play
a
role
in
enabling
individuals
to
accrue
and
maintain
social
capital?
 Yes
(Ellison
et
al.,
2007;
Burke
et
al.,
2010;
others)
 RQ:
What
online
and
offline
communication
patterns
are
associated
with
Facebook
use
–
and
what
are
their
social
capital
implications?
Does
the
quality
and
quantity
of
“Friends”
matter?

8.  “connections
among
individuals
-­‐
social
networks
and
the
norms
of
reciprocity
and
trustworthiness
that
arise
from
them”
(Putnam,
2000)
 Putnam
distinguishes
between
bridging
and
bonding
social
capital

10. reflects
strong
ties
with
family
and
close
friends,
who
might
be
in
a
position
to
provide
emotional
support
or
access
to
scarce
resources

11. is
linked
to
“weak
ties”
(Granovetter,
1982),
loose
connections
who
may
provide
useful,
novel
information
or
new
perspectives
for
one
another
(but
typically
not
emotional
support)
“…
technologies
that
expand
one’s
social
network
will
primarily
result
in
an
increase
in
available
information
and
opportunities
—
the
benefits
of
a
large,
heterogeneous
network”
(Donath
&
boyd,
2004).

12. • Surveys
– August,
2005:
series
of
items
in
survey
given
to
entire
incoming
first-­‐
year
class
at
MSU
(N=1440)
– April,
2006:
random
sample
of
MSU
undergraduates
(N=286)
– April,
2007:
participants
from
2005
survey
(N=94)
plus
new
random
sample
(N=482)
– April,
2008:
new
random
sample
(N=450)
and
panel
data
– April,
2009:
new
random
sample
(N=373)
and
panel
data
– April,
2010:
new
random
sample
and
panel
data
• Interviews
and
cognitive
walk-­‐throughs
– Spring,
2007:
Focus
on
FB
“Friendship”
(N=18)
– Spring,
2010:
Focus
on
adult
FB
users
and
info-­‐seeking
(N=18)
• Automated
capture
of
web
content
– Spring,
2006:
Periodic
downloads
of
the
MSU
Facebook
site

14.  What
are
the
communication
practices
that
Facebook
users
are
engaging
in?
 “Meeting
new
people”
vs
maintaining
old
ties
 Are
some
Facebook-­‐enabled
communication
strategies
more
productive
than
others?
 Are
some
friends
more
helpful
than
others?

15.  Total
stranger:
“Imagine
a
[university]
student
you've
never
met
in
real
life
or
had
a
face-­‐to-­‐
face
conversation
with.”
 Someone
from
your
residence
hall
(latent
tie):
“Imagine
someone
at
[university]
who
lives
in
your
residence
hall
who
you
would
recognize
but
have
never
spoken
to.”
 Close
Friend:
“Think
about
one
of
your
close
friends.”

16.  I
use
Facebook
to
meet
new
people.
 Total
stranger:
Browse
their
profile
on
Facebook
 Total
stranger:
Contact
them
using
Facebook,
or
by
using
information
from
Facebook
 Total
stranger:
Add
them
as
a
Facebook
friend
 Total
stranger:
Meet
them
face-­‐to-­‐face

17.  Close
friend:
Browse
their
profile
on
Facebook
 Close
friend:
Contact
them
using
Facebook,
or
by
using
information
from
Facebook
 Close
friend:
Add
them
as
a
Facebook
friend
 Close
friend:
Meet
them
face-­‐to-­‐face

18.  I
have
used
Facebook
to
check
out
someone
I
met
socially.
 I
use
Facebook
to
learn
more
about
other
people
in
my
classes.
 I
use
Facebook
to
learn
more
about
other
people
living
near
me.
 Imagine
someone
at
X
University
who
lives
in
your
residence
hall
who
you
would
recognize
but
have
never
spoken
to.
How
likely
are
you
to
browse
their
profile
on
Facebook?

20.  “Approximately
how
many
TOTAL
Facebook
friends
do
you
have
at
[university]
or
elsewhere?”
 Median:
300
 “Approximately
how
many
of
your
TOTAL
friends
do
you
consider
actual
friends?”
 Median:
75
(25%)

21.  I
feel
I
am
part
of
the
[X]
University
community
 Interacting
with
people
at
[X]
makes
me
want
to
try
new
things
 Interacting
with
people
at
[X]
makes
me
feel
like
a
part
of
a
larger
community
 I
am
willing
to
spend
time
to
support
general
[X]
activities
 At
[X],
I
come
into
contact
with
new
people
all
the
time
 Interacting
with
people
at
[X]
reminds
me
that
everyone
in
the
world
is
connected

22.  There
are
several
people
at
[X]
I
trust
to
solve
my
problems.
 If
I
needed
an
emergency
loan
of
$100,
I
know
someone
at
[X]
I
can
turn
to.
 There
is
someone
at
[X]
I
can
turn
to
for
advice
about
making
very
important
decisions.
 The
people
I
interact
with
at
[X]
would
be
good
job
references
for
me.
 I
do
not
know
people
at
[X]
well
enough
to
get
them
to
do
anything
important.
(Reversed)

23.  Year
in
school,
daily
Internet
hours,
self
esteem,
minutes
on
Facebook
 Total
Friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
(squared
term)
 Social
Information-­‐seeking
 Adj.
R2
Without
Information-­‐Seeking:
.14
 Adj
R2
With
Information-­‐Seeking:
.18

24.  Year
in
school*,
daily
Internet
hours,
self
esteem***,
minutes
on
Facebook
 Total
Friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook***
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
(squared
term)*
 Social
Information-­‐seeking***
 *:
p<.05
 ***:p<.0001

27.  Year
in
school,
daily
Internet
hours,
self
esteem,
minutes
on
Facebook
 Total
Friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
(squared
term)
 Social
Information-­‐seeking
 Adj.
R2
Without
Information-­‐Seeking:
.09
 Adj
R2
With
Information-­‐Seeking:
.11

28.  Year
in
school,
daily
Internet
hours,
self
esteem***,
minutes
on
Facebook
 Total
Friends
on
Facebook
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook***
 Actual
friends
on
Facebook
(squared
term)*
 Social
Information-­‐seeking***
 *:
p<.05
 ***:p<.0001

31.  Different
SNS
communication
practices
(‘connection
strategies’)
exist
and
have
different
implications
for
social
capital
levels
 Of
the
three
(Maintaining,
Initiating,
&
Social
Information-­‐Seeking),
only
Social
Information-­‐
seeking
significantly
predicts
social
capital
levels.
 Users
distinguish
between
Facebook
Friends
and
“actual”
friends
on
the
site;
only
“actual”
friends
impact
perceptions
of
social
capital
(curvilinear
relationship)

32.  Participants
are
using
the
site
to
learn
more
about
the
people
around
them.
 This
information
can
be
used
to
find
common
ground,
lower
barriers
to
interaction,
guide
conversations
to
socially
relevant
topics
 Extends
notions
of
latent
ties
(Haythornthwaite,
2005):
Facebook
provides
not
only
the
technical
ability
to
connect,
but
also
the
personal
social
context
that
can
make
these
interactions
socially
relevant
(vs
digital
“crank
calling”)

33.  Friends
vs
Actual
Friends
 Friends
who
are
not
considered
actual
friends
are
less
likely
to
provide
social
capital
benefits
 Actual
Friends
are
productive
–
but
only
to
a
point
 SNSs
as
a
proxy
for
proximity?
 Identity
information/self-­‐expression
(profile)
 Bring
together
those
with
shared
interests
 More
communication
opportunities

34.  User
perceptions
are
important.
 Actual
vs
all
Friends:
All
Friends
are
not
equal.
 Perceptions
of
social
capital
 Offline
activity
is
often
not
evident
in
online
data.
 Social
information-­‐seeking
(an
important
predictor
of
social
capital):
using
the
site
to
find
out
more
about
those
with
whom
users
have
a
minimal
offline
connection
with.
Online
profile
information
can
facilitate
offline
interactions.

35.  Unlike
other
forms
of
CMC,
anticipated
future
face-­‐to-­‐face
interaction
is
expected
and
highly
salient.
 How
do
online
daters
negotiate
their
desire
to
engage
in
selective
self-­‐presentation
with
their
need
to
present
an
authentic
self?
 To
what
extent
do
online
data
represent
offline
characteristics?
 Ground
truth
regarding
deception
in
this
context.

36.  Interviewed
34
online
daters
about
online
self-­‐presentation
&
impression
formation
 Small
cues
matter
(e.g.,
spelling,
timing
of
email)
 Need
to
balance
desirability
and
accuracy
▪ One
strategy:
Portraying
one’s
‘Ideal
Self’
▪ “I
think
they
may
not
have
tried
to
lie;
they
just
have
perceived
themselves
differently
because
they
write
about
the
person
they
want
to
be...In
their
profile
they
write
about
their
dreams
as
if
they
are
reality.”
 Establishing
credibility
(Show,
don’t
tell)

37. •
Investigated
the
extent
to
which
online
dating
profiles
accurately
represented
offline
characteristics
(establishing
“ground
truth”)
• Methods
notes:
• Data
collection
took
place
in
NYC
• 80
(heterosexual)
participants,
40
male/40
female
• Paid
$30
incentive
to
participate
in
a
study
on
“Self-­‐Presentation
in
Online
Dating”

38.  Appear
attractive
 Reduced
cues;
editable;
asynchronous
(Walther,
‘96)

39.  Appear
attractive
 Reduced
cues;
editable;
asynchronous
(Walther,
‘96)
 Appear
honest
 Anticipated
future
interaction;
recordability
of
profile
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/2197990074/

40.  Appear
attractive
 Lie
Frequently
 Appear
honest
 Lie
Subtly

41. Profile-­‐based
Self-­‐Presentation
Observed
Self-­‐Presentation
In
lab
measure:
Cross-­‐Validation
Height
Age
Weight
Income
Photograph

42. Overall! Males! Females!
Lied about height! 48.10! 55.30! 41.50!
Lied about weight! 59.70! 60.50! 59.00!
Lied about age! 18.70! 24.30! 13.20!
Lied in any category! 81.30! 87.20! 75.60!
% Participants Providing Deceptive Information

43. shorter in reality
than profile info
shorter in reality
than profile info
taller in reality than
profile info
taller in reality than
profile info
Height

44. Female Male
Lighter in reality
than profile info
lighter in reality
than profile info
heavier in reality than
profile info
Heavier in reality than
profile info
Weight

45. younger in reality
than profile info
younger in reality
than profile info
older than
profile info
older in reality than
profile info
Female Male
Age

46.  Appear
attractive
 Lie
Frequently

81%
of
participants
lied
at
least
once

weight
most
frequently,
age
least
 Appear
honest
 Lie
Subtly
 Small
magnitude
for
most
lies
 1
–
5%
deviations
from
actual
self
 But
there
were
a
few
whoppers!
 3
inches;
35
pounds;
9
years

47.  User-­‐generated
data
has
biases
 Some
are
predictable;
others
are
not.
 Multiple
methods
may
be
needed
to
understand
a
particular
online
context
▪ Technical
constraints
&
affordances,
participants’
goals,
site
norms,
etc.
 Understanding
a
particular
social
context
is
critical
for
knowing
how
to
interpret
data
produced
by
its
participants.

48.  How
do
online
dating
participants
determine
what
kinds
of
misrepresentations
are
acceptable
and
which
are
unacceptable
(lies)?

49.  “For
the
most
part
people
give
a
fairly
accurate
description
of
themselves.
They
might
have
a
little
leeway
here
and
there
like
I
do.
…
I
kind
of
expect
that,
you
know,
they’ll
say
“I’m
35”
and
in
fact
they’re
39.
I
mean
if
they
don’t
look
the
difference,
what’s
the
big
deal
to
me?
It’s
not
skin
off
my
nose.
If
they’re
19
and
they
say
they’re
29
then
I’ve
got
a
problem
with
that....
If
you
misrepresent
to
the
point
where
it’s
going
to
be
a
problem
in
the
relationship,
that’s
not
acceptable.
If
you’re
just
fudging
to
get
over
the
hump,
so
to
speak,
OK,
it’s
‘no
harm
no
foul.’

50. • Because
user
perceptions
can
be
important.
• Because
offline
activity
is
often
not
evident
in
online
data.
• Because
user-­‐generated
data
has
biases.

51. • email:
nellison@msu.edu
• papers:
https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/pubs.html
• thanks
to
collaborators
and
co-­‐authors
(in
order
of
appearance):
jennifer
gibbs,
rebecca
heino,
chip
steinfield,
cliff
lampe,
jeff
hancock,
catalina
toma,
danah
boyd,
&
jessica
vitak.