Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2818048.2820066acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What's in a Like?: Attitudes and behaviors around receiving Likes on Facebook

Published: 27 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

What social value do Likes on Facebook hold? This research examines people's attitudes and behaviors related to receiving one-click feedback in social media. Likes and other kinds of lightweight affirmation serve as social cues of acceptance and maintain interpersonal relationships, but may mean different things to different people. Through surveys and de-identified, aggregated behavioral Facebook data, we find that in general, people care more about who Likes their posts than how many Likes they receive, desiring feedback most from close friends, romantic partners, and family members other than their parents. While most people do not feel strongly that receiving “enough” Likes is important, roughly two-thirds of posters regularly receive more than “enough.” We also note a “Like paradox,” a phenomenon in which people's friends receive more Likes because their friends have more friends to provide those Likes. Individuals with lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels of self-monitoring are more likely to think that Likes are important and to feel bad if they do not receive “enough” Likes. The results inform product design and our understanding of how lightweight interactions shape our experiences online.

References

[1]
Michael S. Bernstein, Eytan Bakshy, Moira Burke, and Brian Karrer. 2013. Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. CHI 2013, 1462–1471.
[2]
Moira Burke. 2011. Reading, writing, relationships: The impact of social network sites on relationships and well-being (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University). http://reportsarchive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/anon/usr/ftp/hcii/CMUHCII-11-107.pdf
[3]
Moira Burke and Robert Kraut. 2013. Using Facebook after losing a job: Differential benefits of strong and weak ties. CSCW 2013, 1419–1430.
[4]
Moira Burke and & Robert Kraut. 2014. Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through social network site use. CHI 2014, 4187–4196.
[5]
Moira Burke, Cameron Marlow, and Thomas Lento. 2009. Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. CHI 2009, 945–954.
[6]
Brent M. Donnellan, Frederick L. Oswald, Brendan M. Baird, and Richard E. Lucas. 2006. The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–293.
[7]
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook Friends:' Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
[8]
Nicole B. Ellison and Jessica Vitak. 2015. Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In S.S. Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology (pp. 205–227). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
[9]
Nicole B. Ellison, Jessica Vitak, Rebecca Gray, and Cliff Lampe. 2014. Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 855–870.
[10]
Facebook's growth in the past year. 2013. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/photos/a.1015190 8376636729.1073741825.20531316728/101519083768 31729/
[11]
Facebook Help Center. 2015. 'How News Feed Works.' https://www.facebook.com/help/327131014036297/
[12]
Scott L. Feld. 1991. Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1464–1477.
[13]
Amanda L. Forest and Joanne V. Wood. 2012. When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), 295–302.
[14]
Paul T. Fuglestad and Mark Snyder. 2009. Selfmonitoring. In M. Snyder, M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 574–591). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[15]
Jeffrey A. Hall and Natalie Pennington. 2013. Selfmonitoring, honesty, and cue use on Facebook: The relationship with user extraversion and conscientiousness. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1556–1564.
[16]
Keith N. Hampton, Lauren Sessions Goulet, Cameron Marlow, and Lee Rainie. 2012. Why most Facebook users get more than they give: The effect of Facebook 'power users' on everybody else. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Facebookusers.aspx
[17]
Joinson, A. N. 2004. Self-esteem, interpersonal risk, and preference for e-mail to face-to-face communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 479–485.
[18]
Mark R. Leary, Ellen S. Tambor, Sonja K. Terdal, Deborah L. Downs. 1995. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530.
[19]
Richard D. Lenox and Raymond N. Wolfe. 1984. Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349–1364.
[20]
Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2014. A bumpy ride on the information superhighway: Exploring turbulence online. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–529.
[21]
Mary Madden, Amanda Lenhart, Sandra Cortesi, Urs Gasser, Maeve Duggan, Aaron Smith, and Meredith Beaton. 2013. Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-socialmedia-and-privacy/
[22]
Jennifer N. Morey, Amy L. Gentzler, Brian Creasy, Ann M. Oberhauser, and David Westerman. 2013. Young adults' use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1771–1778.
[23]
Zizi Papacharissi and Andrew Mendelson. 2011. Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media Perspectives for the 21st Century (pp. 212–231): Routledge.
[24]
Pew Internet Report. (2014) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6new-facts-about-facebook/
[25]
Tamara Peyton. 2014. Emotion to action?: Deconstructing the ontological politics of the "Like" button. In T. Benski & E Fisher (Eds.), Internet and Emotions (pp. 113–129). New York, NY: Routledge.
[26]
Morris Rosenberg. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[27]
Craig Ross, Emily S. Orr, Mia Sisic, Jaime M. Arseneault, Mary G. Simmering, and R. Robert Orr. 2009. Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 578–586.
[28]
Lauren Scissors, Michael Roloff, and Darren Gergle. 2014. Room for interpretation: The role of self-esteem and CMC in romantic couple conflict. CHI 2014, 3953–3962.
[29]
Andrew D. Smock, Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2011. Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2322–2329.
[30]
Mark Snyder. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.
[31]
Stephanie J. Tobin, Eric J. Vanman, Marnize Verreynne, and Alexander K. Saeri. 2014. Threats to belonging on Facebook: lurking and ostracism. Social Influence, 10(1), 31–42.
[32]
Catalina L. Toma and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2013. Selfaffirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321–331.
[33]
Joseph B. Walther and Malcolm R. Parks. 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd edition (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[34]
Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, SangYeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong. 2008. The role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals' on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49.
[35]
Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Lauren M. Hamel, and Hillary C. Shulman. 2009. Selfgenerated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36(2), 229–253.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)How the Platform Enables Creators: An AI Feedback PerspectiveSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4769961Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Dual Communication in a Social Network: Contributing and Dedicating AttentionSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4758215Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Exploring ‘Audience Awareness’ Among Instagram Users : Focusing on the Concept of the Imagined AudienceKorean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.1.00668:1(193-230)Online publication date: 29-Feb-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CSCW '16: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
February 2016
1866 pages
ISBN:9781450335928
DOI:10.1145/2818048
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 February 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Facebook
  2. Like paradox
  3. Likes
  4. Social network sites
  5. self-esteem
  6. self-monitoring

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

CSCW '16
Sponsor:
CSCW '16: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
February 27 - March 2, 2016
California, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

CSCW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 142 of 571 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)220
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)How the Platform Enables Creators: An AI Feedback PerspectiveSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4769961Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Dual Communication in a Social Network: Contributing and Dedicating AttentionSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4758215Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Exploring ‘Audience Awareness’ Among Instagram Users : Focusing on the Concept of the Imagined AudienceKorean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.1.00668:1(193-230)Online publication date: 29-Feb-2024
  • (2024)Domesticating Paralinguistic Digital Affordances in Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Parent-adolescent Relationships: A Relational PerspectiveJournal of Adolescent Research10.1177/07435584241232213Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
  • (2024)The Effects of Social Approval Signals on the Production of Online Hate: A Theoretical ExplicationCommunication Research10.1177/00936502241278944Online publication date: 14-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Exploring Activity-Sharing Response Differences Between Broad-Purpose and Dedicated Online Social PlatformsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36868988:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Theorizing Self Visibility on Social Media: A Visibility Objects LensACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366033731:3(1-28)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Wrist-bound Guanxi, Jiazu, and Kuolie: Unpacking Chinese Adolescent Smartwatch-Mediated SocializationProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642044(1-21)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Scrutinizing job satisfaction during COVID-19 through FacebookTranslation Spaces10.1075/ts.23017.liuOnline publication date: 4-Apr-2024
  • (2024)A Mimetic Approach to Social Influence on InstagramPhilosophy & Technology10.1007/s13347-024-00736-w37:2Online publication date: 22-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media