Can sharing affect liking? Online taste performances, feedback, and subsequent media preferences

An experiment tested whether online sharing improves attitudes toward media content.Participants shared their taste publicly or privately, and received feedback.Negative feedback reduced liking of content shared publicly or privately.Publicly expressed attitudes were strengthened for frequent sharers.Effects of negative and positive feedback were evident one week later. Web users share media content with each other in order to express tastes and manage impressions. This study examines this growing intersection between mass media use and computer-mediated communication. The consequences of these online taste performances for an individual's subsequent media preferences and media consumption were unknown. The identity shift framework is applied to explain how the display of tastes can alter later preferences. Specifically, an experiment tested for changes in attitudes toward media content after computer-mediated sharing, to examine how attitudes might change as a result of impression management. Taste performances were expected to result in identity shift due to mechanisms of publicness and feedback. A 2i?3 (publicnessi?feedback) between-subjects experiment tested these predictions. Participants evaluated and shared artistic photographs. Public sharing led to stronger attitudes among individuals who frequently displayed their tastes online but to weaker attitudes among individuals who rarely shared. Negative feedback consistently weakened attitudes toward shared photos, an effect that persisted for a week. Positive feedback yielded a sleeper effect on the appeal of alternative photos. The results have implications for creators, distributors, and marketers of media content, as well as for social media platforms where media content is shared.

[1]  D. Bem.  Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. , 1967, Psychological review.

[2]  Brandon Van Der Heide,et al.  Effects of Interpersonal Goals on Inadvertent Intrapersonal Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication. , 2010 .

[3]  M. Leary,et al.  Managing social images in naturalistic versus laboratory settings: Implications for understanding and studying self‐presentation , 2011 .

[4]  P. Bourdieu.  Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste* , 2018, Food and Culture.

[5]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[6]  Airi Lampinen,et al.  Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action , 2016, New Media Soc..

[7]  B. Latané,et al.  Choice of strategy and voluntary exposure to information under public and private conditions. , 1959, Journal of personality.

[8]  A. Rubin.  USES-AND-GRATIFICATIONS PERSPECTIVE ON MEDIA EFFECTS , 2009 .

[9]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  6. Katz, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[10]  Katie Day Good,et al.  From scrapbook to Facebook: A history of personal media assemblage and archives , 2013, New Media Soc..

[11]  C. Atkin.  ANTICIPATED COMMUNICATION AND MASS MEDIA INFORMATION-SEEKING , 1972 .

[12]  C. Heath,et al.  Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains , 2007 .

[13]  Alice Hall,et al.  The Social Implications of Enjoyment of Different Types of Music, Movies, and Television Programming , 2007 .

[14]  B. Hogan.  The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online , 2010 .

[15]  Danah Boyd,et al.  I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience , 2011, New Media Soc..

[16]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Identity Shift in Computer-Mediated Environments , 2008 .

[17]  H. Markus,et al.  THE DYNAMIC SELF-CONCEPT: A Social Psychological Perspective , 1987 .

[18]  Yair Amichai-Hamburger,et al.  The Effect of Feedback on Identity Shift in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2011 .

[19]  Andrew F. Hayes,et al.  Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[20]  J. Bryant,et al.  Media effects : advances in theory and research , 2002 .

[21]  J. Brehm.  Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[22]  Amonrat Thoumrungroje,et al.  The Influence of Social Media Intensity and EWOM on Conspicuous Consumption , 2014 .

[23]  Malcolm R. Parks.  Boundary Conditions for the Application of Three Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication to MySpace , 2011 .

[24]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

[26]  Daniel R. Fesenmaier,et al.  The Effect of Feedback within Social Media in Tourism Experiences , 2013, HCI.

[27]  D. Alwin,et al.  Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales , 1997 .

[28]  D. Tice,et al.  Self-concept change and self-presentation: the looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Joseph N. Cappella,et al.  Selection and Transmission Processes for Information in the Emerging Media Environment: Psychological Motives and Message Characteristics , 2015, Media psychology.

[30]  Kelty Logan,et al.  Why Isn't Everyone Doing It? A Comparison of Antecedents to Following Brands on Twitter and Facebook , 2014 .

[31]  Leaf Van Boven,et al.  Identifiable but Not Identical: Combining Social Identity and Uniqueness Motives in Choice , 2012 .

[32]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[33]  Nick Geidner,et al.  Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed From Something Blue: Experiments on Dual Viewing TV and Twitter , 2014 .

[34]  M. Slater.  Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity , 2007 .

[35]  S. C. Wheeler,et al.  The “Shaken Self”: Product Choices as a Means of Restoring Self‐View Confidence , 2009 .

[36]  Susan C. Herring.  Interactional Coherence in CMC , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  Coye Cheshire.  Selective Incentives and Generalized Information Exchange , 2007 .

[38]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[39]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[40]  A. Babrow,et al.  An Expectancy-Value Analysis of the Student Soap Opera Audience , 1989 .

[41]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[42]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[43]  Derek L. Hansen,et al.  Impact of Popularity Indications on Readers' Selective Exposure to Online News , 2005 .

[44]  J. Walther,et al.  Interaction of Interpersonal, Peer, and Media Influence Sources Online: A Research Agenda for Technology Convergence , 2010 .

[45]  Alan G. Sawyer,et al.  The sleeper effect in persuasion: a meta-analytic review. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  Hugo Liu,et al.  Social Network Profiles as Taste Performances , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[47]  Thomas R. Eisenmann,et al.  The Huffington Post , 2010 .