4. Small steps may (eventually)
lead to big conclusions
“Scientists put shrimp on a tiny treadmill “Study suggesting playing Farmville
to determine if sickness impaired the on Facebook helps adults develop
mobility of the crustaceans.” and maintain relationships.” 4
5. Challenge 1: What is my RQ?
Communication Audience
Practices
Privacy
5
6. Challenge 2: Narrowing
Focus
TECHNOLOGY RELATIONSHIPS
Facebook
IM
Twitter
Email
• Romantic vs. casual relationships
• Geographically close vs. long distance
• Network characteristics
• Formation vs. maintenance vs. dissolution
6
7. Challenge 3: Collecting Data
As we’ve seen, collecting data about technology users can be
HARD.
Some of the challenges:
• Picking the right method
• Reliability of self-reports
• Those darn Terms of Service
• Differences across populations of users
• Researching less popular sites
• Ever-evolving site features
• How the heck do you get a representative sample? 7
8. Challenge 4: Analyzing Data
Your RQs/Hypotheses must be testable!
•Questions to ask:
• Does my method allow enable me to test my RQs/Hs?
• Is it the best method to do so?
• Do I know the proper analysis techniques?
IF NOT:
•Can I learn them?
•Do I want to learn them?
•Do I have time to learn them?
•Can someone else teach me/run them?
8
12. Technology attenuates this
process.
12
This is why it is important to study this phenomenon—
technology changes existing structures/processes/outcomes.
13. This is what happens when my
network collides! (cue Powerman 5000)
13
14. How context collapse may
affect our use of technology
1) Strength of weak ties: users distribute content (esp.
resource requests) to entire network to increase
likelihood that someone will see it and respond.
2) Privacy controls: users employ increasingly granular
privacy settings to segment network into different
audiences.
3) Lowest common denominator: users only distribute
content appropriate for all “friends.”
14
15. Dissecting the RQ
How does context collapse affect use of SNSs &
outcomes?
• Access to resources—Facebook and social capital
(Ellison et al., 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012; Burke et al., 2010, 2011)
Social
User
Capital
15
16. Dissecting the RQ
How does context collapse affect use of SNSs & outcomes?
• Disclosures necessary to accrue social capital
(Ellison et al., 2010; Stutzman et al., 2012)
Social
User Disclosure
Capital
16
17. Dissecting the RQ
How does context collapse affect use of SNSs & outcomes?
• Privacy concerns may prevent disclosures
(Stutzman et al., 2011, 2012)
Network
Privacy
Concerns
Public
Info
User
Social
Disclosure
Capital 17
18. Dissecting the RQ
How does context collapse affect use of SNSs & outcomes?
• Privacy settings can assuage concerns
(Vitak et al., 2012; Ellison et al., 2011)
Network
Privacy
User
Concerns
Public
Info
Privacy Social
Disclosure
Settings Capital 18
20. Privacy Online … (is that an
oxymoron?)
Privacy: “selective control of access to the self,”
achieved by regulating social interactions (Altman, 1975)
Multiple
Stalkers Friends Accounts
ID Theft Only Restricting
Private Searchability
Restricting
Content
Tagging
Privacy Privacy Friend
Employers
Places / Lists
Concerns Controls
Check-ins Limit
Visibility Hacked
Account Old
of Content “refuseniks” Posts
Inappropriate Limited 20
Content Deleting
Profile
Account
21. Balancing Privacy &
Usability… Is this really
possible? (hint: I’m not convinced)
Features to increase Words that describe
site’s usability site’s privacy features:
(and support corporate goals): •Complex
•Simple design •Confusing
•Minimize “clicks” •Time consuming
•Intuitive movement through •Hard to find!
site •Frustrating
•Public sharing
21
22. What’s in a
disclosure?
Wheeless & Grotz’ General
Disclosiveness Scale (1976):
• Amount
• Depth
• Conscious Intention
• Positivity
• Honesty
22
23. Bridging
Social
Capital
Bonding
Social
Capital
23
26. PRIVACY
SETTTINGS
+
AUDIENCE
+ DISCLOSURES
+
SOCIAL CAPITAL
26
SEM Model
27. PRIVACY PRIVACY
SETTTINGS CONCERNS
+
-
AUDIENCE
+ DISCLOSURES
+
SOCIAL CAPITAL
27
SEM Model
28. PRIVACY PRIVACY
SETTTINGS CONCERNS
+
-
AUDIENCE
+ DISCLOSURES
+ +
SOCIAL CAPITAL
28
SEM Model
29. Implications
• How network composition impacts:
1) Engagement with site
2) Perceived resources available
• It’s not just who you’re connected to, but the characteristics
of the content you share that impact your perceptions of
access to resources.
• Site features (e.g., Friend Lists) may manage context collapse.
• Implications for design (e.g., better privacy & content
distribution controls) 29
30. Coming Full Circle
Big idea about technology
& relationships
Deal with various challenges in narrowing focus, conceptualizing
& operationalizing variables, collecting & analyzing data.
Develop new questions about your big idea based on your
findings & start process anew!
Push boundaries of what is known and accepted.
Side note: Non-significance != bad data. May be just as 30
important.
31. Thanks!
Jessica Vitak
University of Maryland iSchool
jvitak@umd.edu
Twitter: @jvitak
31
Hinweis der Redaktion
Original friends with benefits. Established theoretical perspective in the sociological literature. Social capital describes the resources that can be linked, deployed, and activated via our social relationships. Factors that influence your social capital include your position in a network, the size of your network, and the resources possessed by those in your network. A characteristic of all forms of capital (e.g., social, financial, human, intellectual) is that they are convertible to another form of capital (Resnick, 2001). Consequently, social capital is structured upon the maintenance of social relationships of various types and can be converted to other forms of capital such as favors (human capital) or new information (intellectual capital).
From our ICWSM paper: Notably, we do not find direct effects of privacy attitudes or behaviors on social capital, which indicates that the relationship between privacy and social capital is mediated by one’s ability to disclose successfully on the SNS. In other words, to reap the benefits of SNS use, one must disclose on the site, and one’s ability to disclose is a function of privacy attitudes and behaviors.
Irwin Altman (1975). The environment and social behavior. Petronio (2002) Communication Privacy Management Theory: The balance of privacy and disclosure has meaning because it is vital to the way we manage our relationships. Revealing is necessary, yet we see evidence that people value privacy when they lament its apparent demise.” Key word here is control: we control access to private information and choose whether to reveal or conceal that information. “ CPM suggests that privacy and disclosure are opposites having distinct features from one another that function in incompatible ways. Disclosure is not privacy and privacy does not represent the act of disclosure. … disclosing implies that we are giving up some measure of privacy. However, disclosure cannot occur if there exists no private information that can be told to others.” CPM describes the “mental calculus” we go through when trying to decide whether to share private information, and with whom it should be shared. CPM theory provides a systematic approach to understand disclosure about the self by focusing on the process of privacy management. In addition, the theory frames the content of information about the self as private. These two dimensions contribute significantly to broadening the scope of disclosure.”
FB has added problem (compared to G+) that Lists weren’t part of initial setup.