Our final day of lecture/discussion will be spent talking about new and social media, and how these programs are influencing the way we share information and interact with one another. No doubt, social media has become a major player in the media landscape and we will attempt to explore some of the history of this research so that we can understand the future of these programs.

1. MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY
AND INFLUENCE
Week Four+ - Application and Extension

2. Day One: Social and New
Media
Media Psychology and Influence
SPICE 2012 (Erfurt)
ND Bowman PhD, Instructor

3. Outline
 Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005)
 Strength of Weak Ties (Granovetter, 1973)
 Clay Shirkey (a handful of select readings)

4. Web 2.0
 What is social media?
 People + Connections

5. Web 2.0
 A more precise definition:
 Web-based services that allow individuals to:
1. construct a public or semi-public profile within a
bounded system,
2. articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and
3. view and traverse their list of connections and
those made by others within the system.
 Let’s look at O’Reilly (2005)

6. Web 2.0

7. Web 2.0
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
 1:many  1:1
 (more) passive  (more) active
 One-Way  Two-Way
 Hierarchal  Communal
 Reading  Creation
 Retrieving  Collaboration
 Information  Conversation

8. “Four Pillars” of Social Media
1. Communication
2. Collaboration
3. Education
4. Entertainment
All geared at supporting
CONVERSATON

9. Web 2.0

10. Web 2.0
 Main principles
1. Web as Platform
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence
3. Data is the Next “Intel Inside”
4. End of the Software Release Cycle
5. Lightweight Programming Models
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device
7. Rich User Experiences

11. Web 2.0 and Media Influence

12. The Strength of Weak Ties
 Historically, we
considered
networking to be a
practice in meeting
“people of influence”
 But today, we might
focus less on who
you know, but more
on who they know!

13. The Strength of Weak Ties
 What makes a tie “strong”
 Amount of time
 Emotional intensity
 (mutual) intimacy
 Reciprocation
Who do we have strong ties
with?

14. The Strength of Weak Ties
24%
“bridge”
60%
40%

15. The Strength of Weak Ties
…If you want information
to spread quickly, who
would you tell?
(c) ND Bowman, 2011 7/1/2012

16. The Strength of Weak Ties
 Safe and easy diffusion happens with central
leaders (strong tie), but what about marginal
ones (weak ties)?:
Or, do we still have
marginal people in the
Age of Information
(Social Media?)

17. The Strength of Weak Ties
 Weakness in our
own networks?
 Egocentric groups,
community groups
can be joined
through bridging
 We often
(unknowingly?)
bond each other to
each other

18. The Strength of Weak Ties
 Interpersonal contacts
still key, but more key
is their contacts!
 Weakness in our own
networks?
 Egocentric groups,
community groups can
be joined through two-
step flow
 We tend to get unique
information from
weak ties, not strong
ones!

19. Here Comes Everybody!

20. Here Comes Everybody!
 How was Evan able to accomplish this?
We’ve always looking for social
networks, but we’ve only been
able to afford so much. Has social
media changed our
“connection budget”?

21. Here Comes Everybody!
 “Give me a place to stand
and a lever long enough,
and I will move the world”
 Apply this to Web 2.0
 With today’s information,
we don’t so much receive
information as we do use
it
 Incase of Sidekick,
“Sasha” assumed “Evan
would fail!
 Did not count on user
action

22. Here Comes Everybody!
 Justice prevails, but
what else happened?
 Death threats
 Sexual harassment
 “Browbeating” became
We have the
the new solution
freedom to  OTHERS?
speak to
more people
than ever
before. But,
what is our
responsibility

23. Here Comes Everybody!
 New media is “an architecture of participation”
 BONUS: Who said this?
 But, is it the tools or is it something else?
Evan had:
• Drive
• Resources
• Anger
• TOOLS

24. Here Comes Everybody!
What is the Difference?

25. Cognitive Surplus
 1700s London: Work hard, play hard
Gin was a
drink of
the urban
class.
WHY?

26. Cognitive Surplus
 Fast forward to today, we see a 100% drop in
the average work week
 1850: 80 hrs
 1950: 40 hrs
TV is the
“gin” of
the 20th
Century?

27. Cognitive Surplus
 …and the increase in television viewing led to
a decrease in social capital – how?

28. Cognitive Surplus
 Not just a USA think
 Most all countries with rising GDPs, with all of us:
 Working
 Sleeping
 Watching TV
 FEAR?
 Less satisfied with real life
 More anxiety
Sounding Familiar?
 More materialistic aspirations
 Lack of engagement in other things

29. Cognitive Surplus
 If Traditional Media is isolating, then what
about New Media?
 Some evidence that new media is displacing old
media, especially among younger audiences
 New media also used to augment old media
 New media is used, not consumed, which
requires skills and community
 New media encourages production!
 Think Web 2.0

30. Are we all media?
 Is there such a thing as professional media?
 Training
 Code of conduct (and reward)
 Okay, but what do they REALLY do that we
can’t?

31. Are we all media?
 Fundamental change
in publishing from
“Why publish this?” to
“Why not?”
 Low (re)production
and distribution costs
lead to a greater
willingness to pull the
trigger
 A good thing?

32. Are we all media?
32
 Okay, but what do they REALLY do that we
can’t?
 Start-up capital
 Production expertise
 “in the know”
 Professionalism
 Others?

33. Are we all media?
33
 Okay, but what do they REALLY do that we
can’t?
 Start-up capital
 Production expertise
 “in the know”
 Professionalism
 Others?

34. Are we all media?
 Consider the scribes
 1400s, elite class (usually clerics) were tasked
with recording all of humanity
 Challenged by Gutenberg and his movable type
 Ex.: The 93 aches of Luther
 Technology didn’t cause the thoughts…
 …but allowed for the spread of information
about them

35. Are we all media?

36. Publish, then Filter
 We see social media
leading to a “mass
amateurization of
information”
 A good thing?

37. Publish, then Filter
 One to many, or many to many?

38. Publish, then Filter
38
 Users, not audiences

39. Publish, then Filter
 Network of users =
network of weak
ties…
 …each publishing
unique information…
 …so do all of us know
more than some of
us?
[THEORY HERE?]

40. Closing Thoughts
Media Psychology and Influence
SPICE 2012 (Erfurt)
ND Bowman PhD, Instructor

41. Closing Thoughts