Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Yik yak presentation

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 14 Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Yik yak presentation (20)

Anzeige

Aktuellste (20)

Yik yak presentation

  1. 1. Yik Yak Postings: Content and Categorization using Deindividuation Theory Amy Bradshaw-Hoppock, PhD Christina Frederick, PhD Rebecca Rohmeyer, Undergraduate student Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
  2. 2. Deindividuation Theory • Zimbardo (1969) claims that deindividuation traces back to our primal days as humans • “Mythically, deindividuation is the ageless like force, the cycle of nature, the blood ties, the tribe, the female principle, the irrational, the impulsive, the anonymous chorus, the vengeful furies” (p. 249) • The term was first introduced by Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1952) • “Under conditions where the member is not individuated in the group, there is likely to occur for the member a reduction of inner restraints against doing various things’” (p. 382) • Diener (1980) defines deindividuation as: “The absence of self-awareness and self- regulation in group members”
  3. 3. Purpose • To see whether or not Yik Yak users are experiencing the deindividuation phenomenon • To see how the participants categorized each Yik Yak post based on a set of categories
  4. 4. Method • Participants • 7 undergraduate students from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University • Ages between 18-25 years old • Materials • 7 desktop computers operating Windows 7 • Excel spreadsheet used to input data • 8 packets containing ~13 pages • Total of 453 posts from the application Yik Yak
  5. 5. Method (continued) • Procedure • Each participant was provided an Excel Spreadsheet to input their data • Drop down bars in each cell, providing each of the categories to choose from; eliminated typing errors • Each participant was instructed to go through each of the 8 packets and categorize 453 Yik Yak posts • Participants were instructed to categorize them into Primary and Secondary categories • i.e., Primary Content Category, Secondary Conent Category
  6. 6. Method (continued) Content Categories: • Aggression • Charity • Academic dishonesty • Crime • Escapism Intent Categories: • Prosocial (helps others) • Antisocial (hurts others) • Nonnormative (violating social norms but without helping or hurting others) • Neutral (meeting none of the other 3 categories Two types of categories: Content and Intent • Political activities • Sexual behavior • Social disruption • Interpersonal spying/eavesdropping • Travel • Miscellaneous
  7. 7. Results • Most of the Yik Yak posts were categorized as “Miscellaneous” • This may show that most of the users on Yik Yak are not experiencing deindividuation Content Category Frequencies Count % of Total Aggression 564 17.9% Charity 139 4.4% Academic Dishonesty 9 0.3% Crime 40 1.3% Escapism 187 5.9% Political Activities 22 0.7% Sexual Behavior 301 9.6% Social Disruption 210 6.7% Interpersonal Spying and Eavesdropping 17 0.5% Travel 23 0.7% Miscellaneous 1635 52.0% Total Content Categories Identified 3147
  8. 8. Results (continued) Secondary Content Category Frequencies Count % of Total Aggression 56 24.5% Charity 10 4.4% Academic Dishonesty 1 0.4% Crime 5 2.2% Escapism 8 3.5% Political Activities 3 1.3% Sexual Behavior 24 10.5% Social Disruption 38 16.6% Interpersonal Spying and Eavesdropping 3 1.3% Travel 3 1.3% Miscellaneous 78 34.1% Total Content Categories Identified 229
  9. 9. Results (continued) Primary Intent Category Frequencies Count % of Total Prosocial (helps others) 447 14.1% Antisocial (hurts others) 572 18.0% Nonnormative (violating social norms but without specifically helping or hurting others) 490 15.4% Neutral (meeting none of the other 3 categories) 1671 52.5% Total Intent Category Ratings 3180
  10. 10. Results (continued) Secondary Intent Category Frequencies Count % of Total Prosocial (helps others) 28 10.6% Antisocial (hurts others) 75 28.5% Nonnormative (violating social norms but without specifically helping or hurting others) 33 12.5% Neutral (meeting none of the other 3 categories) 127 48.3% Total Intent Category Ratings 263
  11. 11. Examples of Yik Yak Posts • Example of “Miscellaneous” categorized Yik Yak: • “It’s hard for me to up a yak when I know someone either copied it or took hours to think of.” • Example of “Aggression” categorized Yik Yak: • “Wish I had a shotgun to shut these f***ing crows up by the COE” • Example of “Sexual Behavior” categorized Yik Yak: • “Sitting in class, but all I want to do is masturbate”
  12. 12. Examples of Yik Yak Posts (continued) • Example of “Social Disruption” categorized Yik Yak: • “Hispanic word of the day: Ebola. He went bowling and Ebola perfect game” • Example of “Escapism” categorized Yik Yak: • “A girl I liked chose someone else so, I finally decided to say f**k everything, f**k your feelings, f**k trying to do it right, I’m just gonna go balls out and whatever happens happens I don’t care”
  13. 13. Discussion • Some improvements are needed • Many of the participants complained that there was not a “Humor” category under the Content Categories. • Another complaint from the participants was that there were not any positive-type categories. They suggested including “Happiness” as another category under the Content Categories
  14. 14. Bibliography Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. The psychology of group influence, 209-242. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,47(2S), 382. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska press.

×