Developing an Affordance-based Conceptualization of Social Media Interactions

Social media platforms allow their users to perform a wide range of tasks and activities. While researchers have examined the benefits of online social media use, these frameworks treat social media as a monolithic instrument with a single functionality. This approach is likely to conceal the differences in functionality between platforms. Hence, this study proposes to focus on features (e.g. messenger on Facebook) that lend functionality to platforms. To our knowledge, no prior research has examined features systematically, as a unit of analysis. The theoretical contribution of this research lies in the development of an affordance-based conceptualization of social media interactions. This conceptualization allows us to represent online media at the interaction-level. This research aims to advise companies (through exploring customers’ perceptions) about the use of online media in enhancing their customers’ interactivity with their brand as well as about building their brand more effectively.

[1]  Sang-Hee Park,et al.  Photograph Use on Social Network Sites among South Korean College Students: The Role of Public and Private Self-Consciousness , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[2]  A. Muñiz,et al.  How Brand Community Practices Create Value , 2009 .

[3]  Anne Helmond,et al.  The Affordances of Social Media Platforms , 2018 .

[4]  P. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association , 2013 .

[5]  Jesse Fox,et al.  Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale , 2017 .

[6]  L. Sajtos,et al.  Auxiliary theories as translation mechanisms for measurement model specification , 2016 .

[7]  Ian Hutchby,et al.  Aspects of the sequential organization of mobile phone conversation , 2005 .

[8]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  James W. Tankard,et al.  Communication theories: Origins, methods, uses , 1979 .

[10]  Gilbert A. Churchill.  A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs , 1979 .

[11]  M. Büttgen,et al.  Using social media to communicate employer brand identity: The impact on corporate image and employer attractiveness , 2015 .

[12]  Bendik Bygstad,et al.  Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: a framework for critical realist data analysis , 2016, J. Inf. Technol..

[13]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Extraversion as a stimulus for user-generated content , 2013 .

[15]  D. Muntinga,et al.  Introducing COBRAs , 2011 .

[16]  Karen Stendal,et al.  Analyzing the Concept of Affordances in Information Systems , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

[17]  J. Greeno.  Gibson's affordances. , 1994, Psychological review.

[18]  Ulrike Gretzel,et al.  Strategic Use of Social Media Affordances for Marketing: A Case Study of Chinese DMOs , 2014, ENTER.

[19]  Catalina L. Toma,et al.  Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects on emotional well-being , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  三嶋 博之.  The theory of affordances , 2008 .

[21]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[22]  William W. Gaver,et al.  AFFORDANCES FOR INTERACTION: THE SOCIAL IS MATERIAL FOR DESIGN , 1996 .

[23]  Heinz-Theo Wagner,et al.  The impact of information technology on knowledge creation: An affordance approach to social media , 2014 .

[24]  Thomas E. Ruggiero.  Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century , 2000 .

[25]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  Conceptualizing perceived affordances in social media interaction design , 2013, Aslib Proc..

[26]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..

[27]  Natalya N. Bazarova,et al.  Self‐Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network Sites , 2014 .

[28]  Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted,et al.  User Perceptions of Social Media: A Comparative Study of Perceived Characteristics and User Profiles by Social Media , 2013 .

[29]  D. Boyd.  Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications , 2010 .

[30]  Anita Whiting,et al.  Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach , 2013 .

[31]  Hope Schau,et al.  Vigilante Marketing and Consumer-Created Communications , 2007 .

[32]  A. Joinson.  Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity , 2001 .

[33]  Anthony M. Limperos,et al.  Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media , 2013 .

[34]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  Platforms, People, and Perception: Using Affordances to Understand Self-Presentation on Social Media , 2017, CSCW.