Consumer Psychology in a Social Media World

Claudiu V. Dimofte,Curtis P. Haugtvedt,Richard F. Yalch

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317502067
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Consumer Behaviour
• Index: Business

Consumer Psychology in a Social Media World seeks to illustrate the relevance of consumer psychology theory and research to understanding the social media world that has rapidly become a key component in the social and economic lives of most individuals. Despite the rapid and widespread adoption of social media by consumers, research focused on individuals' use thereof and its implications for organizations and society has been limited and published in scattered outlets. This has made it difficult for those trying to get either a quick introduction or an in-depth understanding of the associated issues to locate relevant scientific-based information.

The book is organized into five broad sections. The first presents a summary overview of social media, including a historical and cultural perspective. The second section is focused on social media as a modern form of word of mouth, always considered the most impactful on consumers. It also touches upon a motivational explanation for why social media has such a strong and broad appeal. Section three addresses the impact that consumers' switch to social media as a preferred channel has had on marketers' branding and promotional efforts, as well as the ways in which consumer involvement can be maintained through this process. Section four takes a methodological perspective on the topic of social media, assessing ways in which big data and consumer research are influenced by novel ways of gathering consumer feedback and gauging consumer sentiment. Finally, section five looks at some consumer welfare and public policy implications, including privacy and disadvantaged consumer concerns.

Consumer Psychology in a Social Media World will appeal to those who are involved in creating, managing, and evaluating products used in social media communications. As seen in recent financial and business market successes (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pinterest, WhatsApp, etc.), businesses focused on facilitating social media are part of the fastest growing and most valuable sector of today's economy.

PART I Consumer Engagement With Social Media

1 Motivations for Consumer Engagement with Social Media

Eva C. Buechel and Jonah Berger

DOI: 10.4324/9781315714790-2

Social media is a form of virtual interaction whereby users create, share, and exchange user-generated content (Kaplan and Michael, 2010). Particularly popular examples of social media are online social networks. Online social networks (OSNs) allow users to create profiles and link them with profiles of other users in the network (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). Whereas OSNs differ in the various features they provide or emphasize, they have in common that they allow users to interact with each other, for example by sharing content such as short messages (i.e., microblogs), pictures, videos, and/or private messages to which other users in their network can respond.

Since their inception, OSNs have experienced immense popularity. As of 2010, 75% of American Internet users visited social networks regularly, and an average user spent over three hours a day on these sites. Facebook is the most prominent and popular online social network, with over 200 million users in America and well over a billion users worldwide. Surveys show that over 60% of Facebook users log in to the site daily, 28% of whom report doing so even before getting out of bed in the morning. The second most popular online social network is Twitter, with over 500 million users worldwide. About half of Twitter users log in and tweet daily, resulting in over 500 million tweets per day (Bullas, 2014). These two most popular OSNs are just the top of a long list of other OSNs such as Instagram, Google+, Pinterest, and Tinder, to name a few.

The number of online social networks and the amount of time users spend on these sites demonstrate that networking sites are immensely popular, having become an integrated part of our lives. They have influenced the way we spend time, the way we communicate, and the way we form and cultivate relationships. But why do people in general and consumers in particular use these sites in the first place, and what drives people to use them so often? And how do these sites impact their users?

The present chapter first summarizes and organizes existing literature on the antecedents and consequences of consumer online social network use. We then report on our own research investigating why consumers use a particularly popular feature on online social networks, namely the microblogging feature. The chapter ends with a discussion of the remaining questions pertaining to online social network use, as well as implications and suggestions for future research.

Literature Review: Antecedents and Consequences of Online Social Network Use

With the rise of online social network use, researchers have turned to attempting to understand why online social networks are so popular, what motivates consumers to use them, and how they impact the users of these sites (Wilson et al., 2012). A survey and synthesis of the current literature on social media seems to suggest that consumers engage in online social networking for three key reasons, which we discuss in turn.

Affiliation

Perhaps the most important motivator of online social network use is our desire to socialize and connect with others (Hoffman and Novak, 2012; Wilson et al., 2012). People have a high need to belong, and social relationships are critical for our well-being (Bessière et al., 2008; Bowlby, 1977; Burleson, 1998; Harlow, 1961; Stroebe and Stroebe, 1996). Online social networks cater to this need by allowing users to connect with other users in the network. They allow users to search and befriend new and existing social ties, thus providing a practical and easy way to connect and keep in touch with a broad set of friends, even the ones who are geographically removed.

Accordingly, research has found that the need for affiliation and social interaction is a main driver for ONS use (Ellison et al., 2007; Joinson, 2008). A qualitative survey asking people about the motivations to use Facebook revealed that “keeping in touch,” “reconnecting with old friends,” and “virtual people-watching” were the most mentioned reasons for Facebook use, and that these activities also yielded the most enjoyment (Joinson, 2008). Furthermore, research has found that the extent of online social network use is driven by an appreciation for social interaction. For example, extroverts, who take pleasure in being social, spend more time and have a greater number of social ties on online social networks (Gosling et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2010).

Whereas it is clear that the social aspects of OSNs drive their use, researchers have been interested in how online social networks are impacting users’ communication behavior and consumers’ well-being. To what extent are online social networks replacing offline interactions and how do interactions on these sites fulfill users’ need for affiliation?

Many researchers and philosophers have expressed concerns that the shift to online communication with close friends—as opposed to more traditional forms of offline communication—may have harmful effects on the users and their relationships, leaving them depressed and lonely (Kraut et al., 1998; Tonioni et al., 2012; Yoffe, 2009). The main worry is that the Internet reduces valuable face-to-face interaction with peers and family members, thus detracting from meaningful relationships and diminishing social capital (Green and Brock, 2008; Nie, 2001). Interestingly, initial correlational research investigating the impact of OSN use on social capital suggests that these concerns may not be warranted. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) surveyed undergraduate students about their Facebook usage and their sense of affiliation. They found that higher intensity of Facebook usage was actually associated with higher self-reported social capital and decreased loneliness (Ellison et al., 2007).

Yet, follow-up research points to an important caveat to this finding. Users on OSNs are usually linked to a large group of social connections (the median number of Facebook friends is above 200—Smith, 2014), including strong offline ties with whom they interact directly, as well as weaker ties whom they follow in a more passive manner (Burke et al., 2010; Toubia and Stephen, 2013). Burke and colleagues (2010) found that online interaction with close friends (e.g., direct messaging, commenting, liking) leads to greater social capital and less loneliness, whereas the mere following of online friends did not have the same beneficial effect on users’ well-being. The passive consumption of content posted by others actually increased loneliness (Wise et al., 2010; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007). This pattern suggests that the consequences of online social networks depend on how these sites are used. Active online interaction with strong social ties might possibly substitute offline interaction to a certain degree, such that online social networks can promote stronger relationships and well-being. However, this is not true for all online social network use; passive online networking might have negative effects on users.

This finding is important because existing online social networks differ in the type of social ties and interaction they foster. Some online social networks encourage interactions with stronger ties. For instance, Facebook users tend to initiate, maintain, and strengthen friendships with people with whom they also have an offline connection, as opposed to meeting new people (Ellison et al., 2007). Other online social networks (e.g., Twitter, Instragram, Pinterest), on the other hand, encourage connections with weaker ties. These sites encourage users to “follow” other users (friends, public figures, celebrities) without being followed by them in a bidirectional manner (Toubia and Stephen, 2013). If sites such as Facebook encourage active interaction with relatively close ties, whereas other sites (e.g., Twitter) encourage passive online social networking behavior, then the consequences of online social network may not be uniform and likely depend on the platform used. Sites such as Facebook might increase consumer welfare, whereas sites such as Twitter or Instagram may have more detrimental effects on consumer welfare.

To summarize, affiliation is an important, if not the most important motivator for online social network use. Whether users reap the benefits from social interaction on these sites, however, may depend on the nature of the platform, the quality of social ties, and the nature of the interaction with said ties.

Self-Expression and Identity Representation

Another motivator for online social network use that has received attention in the literature is the fact that they allow for self-expression and identity representations (Buffardi and Campbell, 2008; Kraut et al., 1998; Nadkarni and Hoffman, 2012). Online social networks allow users to share content such as biographical information, interests, activities, thoughts, and photos with other users, thus providing an avenue to portray an online version of themselves on these sites.

Users seem to be eager to share information about themselves with other users. The majority of Facebook users disclose their biographical information, their interests and hobbies, as well as their political and dating preference on their Facebook accounts (Gross and Acquisti, 2005). Furthermore, 293,000 statuses and 136,000 photos are uploaded on Facebook per minute (Noyes, 2014), informing social ties about users’ current activities, experiences, and thoughts. The amount of self-relevant content and the eagerness with which content is shared on these sites is reflective of the fact that self-representation is a key driver of online social network use.

But how do users represent themselves on these sites? Researchers have wondered whether users on online social networks portray their real identity when they are managing their online social network profiles, or whether they portray an idealized version of themselves.

On the one hand, one could argue that Facebook represents an extension of people’s offline environment by mirroring offline interactions in which people can connect and communicate with their social ties. As previously mentioned, extraverts, who enjoy social interaction offline, also spend more time on online social networks (Gosling et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2010). Similarly, narcissists have been shown to share more self-indulgent content online (Ryan and Xenos, 2011). It is therefore reasonable to assume that users display their real self (or offline self) on these networks (Gosling et al., 2007).

On the other hand, OSNs allow for deliberate and selective information sharing. Unlike offline representations and interactions, users can choose which parts of their lives to share and selectively post online, or they can delete unflattering contents posted by others (Wilcox and Stephen, 2013). In addition, they have time to construct and refine what to say (Berger and Iyengar, 2012). Some researchers have therefore argued that, as a result, users represent themselves in an idealized and more interesting way, one that is not always reflective of reality (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011; Wilcox and Stephen, 2013).

Back and colleagues (2010) were interested in testing the two competing predictions empirically. To examine whether online representations were extensions of the offline self (extended real-life hypothesis) or whether they represented an idealized version of users (virtual-identity hypothesis), they used a simple but clever set-up. They recruited OSN users, all of whose OSN profiles had been saved before the study. They then asked these target participants to fill out a personality inventory that measured the users’ self-reported Big Five personality traits (Extroversion, Openness, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness). In addition, they asked four close acquaintances to judge the target’s personality using the same personality inventory. The five measures were then aggregated to represent the target participant’s “real self.” Target participants were asked to fill out the same inventory a second time, this time asking them to describe themselves how they ideally would be. This represented the target’s “ideal self.” The researchers then asked independent observers to examine the target participant’s OSN profile and fill out the personality inventory based on the inferred personality traits, which represented the “observed self.” What they found is that the “observed self” more closely resembled users’ “real self” than their “ideal self,” implying that profiles more closely reflect users’ actual self than their ideal self. Supporting these findings, Golbeck and colleagues (2011) were able to predict users’ personality profiles from publicly available data on Twitter within a 10% margin.

Whereas these findings suggest that OSN profiles represent relatively accurate impressions of the user’s actual personality, there is also some evidence that users do engage in some censoring on online social networks (Das and Kramer, 2013), and that censoring is mainly motivated by positive self-representation. Sleeper and colleagues (2013) followed 18 participants over the course of a week. P...