Abstract
With the expansion of social media platforms and the increase in user numbers, people are sharing personal information on an unprecedented scale. Consequently, the term “over-sharing” has been used to describe the online habits of many social media users. This conference paper draws on academic research to argue that social media users have developed online communities and social networks built on “virtue friends”, creating an environment where over-sharing is simply a normal and characteristic behaviour pattern of those seeking to maintain and build strong connections.
Introduction
Social media platforms today have given people the ability to craft their own identity, expand their social networks and feel as though they are part of a real but online community – all of which are intrinsically linked in contributing to a person’s online behaviour. As online connections turn into virtue friendships, over-sharing has become an expected and normal pattern of behaviour.
This paper will seek to define virtue friendship and explain why this level of friendship can be achieved in an online environment. It will also seek to explain why people look to build social networks and be part of online communities, including to illustrate what over-sharing is and investigate what motivates people to do it. This paper will combine all of these to demonstrate that over-sharing is nothing new, but rather a pattern of behaviour that has always been there between virtue friends. However, it is a behaviour that has seen greater visibility with the expansion of social media platforms.
Virtue friendship
Social media has generated much debate on whether the connections people form on platforms such as Facebook can be defined as virtue friendships, the highest level of friendship that can be reached according to Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his teaching, Aristotle believed that this kind of friendship was “based on mutual admiration of our friend’s character and sharing of the same values” and “based on mutual concern of each person for the other for his own sake” (Kaliarnta, 2016, p.66).
Aristotle’s view is consistent with more contemporary research on identity, networks and community as evident in Zizi Papacharissi’s book titled A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, which was a collection of academic research papers on social media platforms. It concluded:
“Social network sites carry the expectations of sociability, meaningful connection to others, conviviality, perhaps even empathy and support…there can be no question that “community”, with all its affective and historical complications, will continue to frame popular understanding of MySpace and Facebook” (Papacharissi, 2011, p.106).
Through these descriptions one can draw the conclusion that people seek to build and maintain virtue friendships in both the offline and online environments. However, many researchers still believe that this level of friendship is unattainable online.
In 2012, a group of researchers published in the journal Ethics and Information Technology three key reasons as to why virtue friendship could not be achieved online. The authors expressed concern that people would only present a certain aspect of their character online, rather than reveal their complete self, which prevented the ability to build close connections. The same researchers also believed that people would be unable to pick up on subtle behaviour patterns that people exhibit when having one-on-one physical interactions in an offline environment ‑ something that would arguably allow people to gain more of an insight into another person’s character. Additionally, there was a belief that social media was changing the way people interact with one another. Specifically, that people were satisfied with having very brief connections online, rather than developing the traditional type of friendship that one would expect to achieve in an offline environment (Kaliarnta, 2016).
In contrast to the argument that virtue friendship cannot be achieved online—and in support of the thesis of this paper—researchers argue that social media platforms do the exact opposite by expanding the avenues by which people can learn about others through their online communities and social networks without having to engage in direct communication. A person’s behaviour—in terms of what they say and do—can be observed on multiple social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, and assists in building a more accurate picture of that person’s character (Kaliarnta, 2016). To illustrate this in more detail, a person may want to portray themselves in a particular light on Facebook. However, this presentation will be undermined by their own actions on other social media platforms, therefore allowing for a more accurate assessment by others. In other words, a person’s digital footprint tells a story—no matter how fragmented the information is—about where they work, what they say, what they do, what music they like, where they go for holidays, what their political affiliations are, with whom they socialise, and whether or not they are in a relationship (Power of positivity, n.d.). All this and more can be determined by observing the online activities of others without the need for any one-on-one interaction in an offline environment. This personal information, which is available from multiple social media platforms, demonstrates that virtue friendship can be achieved, or perceived to be achieved online, through the ability to determine another person’s character through their digital footprint. This was the very character Aristotle said was important to building virtue friendships. Interestingly, research has shown that an estimated 70 per cent of Facebook users have people they already know offline as Facebook friends (Kaliarnta, 2016, p76). These findings support the argument that social media platforms are being used by people to develop the connections they have offline and online and turn them into virtue friendships.
Over-sharing
The concept of over-sharing is not new at all. In the 1988 book ‘Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research, and interventions’ it was stated that “disclosure of inner feelings and experiences to another person fosters liking, caring, and trust, thereby facilitating the deepening of close relationships” (Duck 1988, p. 372). This assessment illustrated that even before social media existed, virtue friendships were built on over-sharing and that it was the normal character behaviour for people seeking to build virtue friendships and find a sense of “belonging”. Stefano Tardini and Lorenzo Cantoni’s 2018 research paper defined belonging as being part of a community (Tardini & Cantoni, 2018, p.373).
Since the introduction of social media platforms, over-sharing has become more pronounced and has received a significant amount of negative publicity. In Oversharing: A Critical Discourse Analysis, it defined over-sharing as:
“a new word for an old habit made astonishingly easy by modern technology. It is yet another product of digital advances that allow people to record and transmit their lives—in words, videos, and graphics—to anyone with internet access” (Hoffmann, 2009, p.2).
This definition is consistent with other research that concluded over-sharing was:
“to divulge more of their inner feelings, opinions and sexuality than they would in person, or even over the phone. Text messaging, Facebooking, tweeting, camming, blogging, online dating…are vehicles of this oversharing, which blurs the boundary between public and private life” (Agger 2015).
Though these definitions are contemporary and are well founded, they are simplistic and do not acknowledge other research that has identified numerous phycological factors as to why people over-share on social media.
Over-sharing, belonging and community
The 2011 review Why do people use Facebook? brought together several studies that looked at the psychology behind what motivated people to use that particular social media platform. The review found that 1) a need to belong and 2) a need for self-presentation were the two key factors driving people to use Facebook (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245). This view is consistent with American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which identified five key areas as to what drives a person’s motivation in life. These were physiological, safety, social or sense of belonging, esteem and self-actualization needs. Maslow’s held that:
“people act to satisfy the lower needs before satisfying their higher needs. A starving man for example, first devotes his energy to finding food. If the basic need is satisfied, he can spend more time on his safety needs, such as eating the right foods and breathing good air. When he feels safe, he can take the time to deepen his social affiliations and friendships. Still later, he can develop pursuits that will meet his need for self-esteem and the esteem of others. Once this is satisfied, he is free to actualize his potential in other ways. As each lower level need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator and a higher need starts defining the person’s motivational orientation” (Andreasen & Kotler, 2008).
In 2012, belonging was also defined as “the experience of being valued, needed, or important with respect to other people, groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in or being congruent with other people, groups, or environments through shared or complementary characteristic” (Zhaoa, Lua, Wang, Chauc, Zhang, 2012, p.4), which is also consistent with Tardini and Cantoni’s definition of community. These definitions support this paper’s argument that social media users developed social networks and online communities built on virtue friends.
The review by Nadkarni and Hofmann uncovered that social media had also been an excellent tool for those who struggled to make connections offline. One of the studies highlighted in the review identified that “people with low or high levels of neuroticism were inclined to share more basic information” (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245).
The journal Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control published by Keith Wilcox and Andrew Stephen in 2012 conducted research into social networks, self-esteem and self-control. This study complimented and extended on the research by Nadkarni and Hofmann. The research concluded that people seeking “strong ties” online experienced an increase in self-esteem and confidence the more they browsed online, resulting in a reduction of self-control (Wilcox & Stephen, 2012). This research did not focus specifically on over-sharing but looked more broadly at the implications of a person having reduced self-control. While Nadkarni and Hofmann’s research demonstrated that some people over-share because social media platforms give them the confidence to express themselves and build connections through those platforms, in Wilcox and Stephen’s study it appears that over-sharing could be a behaviour exhibited when a person experiences an increase in self-esteem and confidence that leads to a lack of inhibitory self-control when seeking to build strong connections. These findings support this paper’s thesis that over-sharing is simply a normal characteristic behaviour that one would expect to see on social media platforms. The combination of building a social network and online community of virtue friends, having greater self-confidence, a desire to belong, and a reduction of self-control have created an environment of over-sharing.
The research so far reviewed in this paper has confirmed that it is a combination of variables that have contributed to an environment of over-sharing, with the search for belonging a common thread that connects all of them together. Several studies have introduced the concept of “social capital” to explain the connections people make and the behaviours they exhibit online today. It has been defined as:
“the core idea of social capital theory is that networks have value…social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups…Human capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Bartkus & Davis, 2009, p.18).
In 2007, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication published the findings from a comprehensive study that examined the relationship between Facebook and social capital. The findings in this study again supported the results in other research identified in this paper that concluded that building strong connections had a direct relationship with self-esteem. Additionally, the journal paper supported Nadkarni and Hofmann’s conclusion that online networks were helping those who would otherwise struggle to build strong connections or find a voice, as well as encourage more self-disclosure (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007, p.1146 & 1147). This reference to greater self-disclosure can be interpreted as over-sharing. Regardless of whether you accept this interpretation or not, the finds support the argument of this paper that over-sharing online is expected behaviour between virtue friends. It also highlights that virtue friendship can be achieved in an online environment.
Conclusion
From research identified in this paper, it is evident that social media platforms have enabled people to grow their social networks widely with apparent aim of cultivating virtue friendships, the extent of which may at times seem limitless. The ability to determine a person’s character through the sharing of personal information on multiple social media platforms has been recognised as the conduit to achieve this. Through their quest for belonging, users have identified with a community and it has given those who lack confidence the means to share their stories with a wider audience. Even though over-sharing has been seen by some to be about depicting a false representation of one’s self, research has demonstrated that for others it has been about getting oneself known by actively connecting to a wide social network which over-sharing facilitates. Over-sharing is now seen as the norm if one is seeking to build strong connections in both offline and online environments, and a way of reaching-out to the world. A person’s desire to belong and build strong connections is clearly evident by the growth in the number of people joining social media platforms.
References
Agger, B. (2012) Oversharing: Presentations of Self in the Internet Age. Summary retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136448270
Andreasen, A., Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bartkus, V., Davis, J. (2009). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA51115531750001951
Bernstein, E. (2013). Thank You for Not Sharing – What Triggers People to Reveal Too Much; Avoiding the Post-Conversation Cringe. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323826804578466831263674230
Duck, S (1988). Handbook of personal relationship: theory, research, and interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwcssc/sites/default/files/Reis%20%26%20Shaver,%201988.pdf
Ellison, E., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Kaliarnta, S. (2016) Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: a critical counterview. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9384-2.pdf
Nadkarni A., Hofmann, S. (2011). Why Do People Use Facebook? Review. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608#
Power of positivity (n.d.) What Do Your Social Media Updates Reveal About Your Personality? Retrieved from https://www.powerofpositivity.com/social-media-updates-personality/
Tardini, S., Cantoni, L. (2018) A Semiotic Approach to Online Communities: Belonging, Interest and Identity in Websites’ and Videogames’ Communities. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266218884_A_SEMIOTIC_APPROACH_TO_ONLINE_COMMUNITIES_BELONGING_INTEREST_AND_IDENTITY_IN_WEBSITES%27_AND_VIDEOGAMES%27_COMMUNITIES
Wilcox, K., Stephen, A. (2012) Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control. Journal of Consumer Research. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/668794
Zhaoa, L., Lua. Y., Wang, B., Chauc, P., Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.006
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Julian,
I found your conference paper very pleasing to read as you touched upon points which were very valid and important when approaching identity online.
I found it interesting because we both heavily referenced the use of social networking sites and social media in the construction of one’s identity, and how communication can be form, however, you’ve taken the approach of how one can overshare and build ‘fake’ friends online which I found was an interesting approach to take, one that is highly relevant and prominent online.
I found it interesting when you mentioned that researched found virtual friendship unattainable, as I feel as though online friendships are sometimes the only friendships some people can have nowadays, as we (as a generation) are becoming more and more introverted and angled towards technology, we are affecting our ‘real life’ friendships at the expense of virtual ones. You do mention however, which I think is important that, “virtual friendship can be achieved, or perceived to be achieved online” which is a the main message here. Online, any kind of relationship or friendship can be expressed, regardless if it may be authentic or not.
Several times throughout your paper, you reference a scholarly text in support of your argument, but then almost dismiss it later saying the definitions or research was too simplistic or that it doesn’t acknowledge other research regarding the particular topic. I think this can be a bit confusing for the reader because it doesn’t give me a clear indication on where you stand and what side you are choosing to take. I would recommend finding sources which fully support your argument and work in your favour, that way your paper would flow more consistently.
In saying that, you’ve stayed consistent in reinforcing the idea that over-sharing is a common and expected practice of individuals online. I’ve enjoyed reading your theories regarding this and the research you’ve incorporated into it as well.
Good job!
Thanks for that feedback Elli. It was really good feedback.
Just one thing I noticed from your feedback was your reference to ‘virtual friends’. My paper actually talks about ‘virtue’ not ‘virtual’ friendships. I don’t regard these as the same thing. I’m essentially talking about the level of friendship people achieve as ‘best friends’.
You were spot on regarding my ‘achieved or perceived’ comment. I wanted to acknowledge that it is really up to the individual to determine what they regard as a close connection.
My argument was that virtue friendship CAN definitely be achieved online, and you are right in saying that I needed to use stronger language (probably more so at the end of that section) to make it absolutely clear that was what my position was. I deliberately didn’t dwell too much on the research that said virtue friendship could NOT be achieved, as I wanted to demonstrate in more detail how in fact it CAN be achieved. I thought it important to at least acknowledge the other side of the argument. Before I launched into the reason as to why virtue friendship CAN be achieved I did say “in support of the thesis of this paper”. However, my closing statements in that section needed to be stronger.
My comments around definitions being too simplistic and not acknowledging other research was in relation to the definition of “oversharing” that some researchers had given. What I was trying to convey was that those definitions didn’t acknowledge at all the psychological reasons as to why people over-share. I could have made this clearer. However, you would have noticed once I made those comments I progressed into psychological reasons behind over-sharing, namely the search for belonging (which is human nature).
Hey again Julien,
Thanks for replying to my feedback and responding to it so well. I definitely think your points are justified, and I’m glad you’ve had the chance to further explain your reasoning behind some of the issues I raised.
I’m a little embarrassed that I mistaken “virtue” with “virtual” but even so, I think my original points regarding that were worth mentioning.
It honestly was a very well written conference paper and I am glad to have provided some sort of critique and have you accept it well.
Thanks for that elli. Your comments definately did still stand on virtual friendship. At the end of the day friendship is still friendship no matter how close or distant it is. Your feedback actually proved how important it is to get someone else to read your work, because after a while of reading over your work again and again you become blind to the areas that need improvement. In this case using stronger closing statements.
Hi Julian, I really enjoyed this paper, it was extremely well-informed and the development of online virtue friendships is now so commonplace. I was unfamiliar with Aristotle’s theory around the levels of friendship and found these really interesting, particularly the other two levels of ‘friendships of utility’ and ‘friendships of pleasure’ – the definition of a virtue friendship in that this is the greatest level of friendship, where friends are engaged in the common pursuit of a virtuous life particularly resonant with social media use, online interaction and the resultant behaviour of over-sharing.
Various discussion/critique of the limitations online interactions have in comparison to offline interactions is a worthy point you raise – though there are often less hindrances with online interactions, as you mention, it does give those with less confidence the means to share their stories with a wider audience. Individuals are also able to engage and facilitate in an ongoing conversation with others as social media shifts towards asynchronous platforms and strengthen the development of online communities. Thanks for sharing your paper 🙂
Cheers,
Teresa
Thanks for your feedback Teresa. I thought the best way to try and support my paper was to look at research that pre-dated social media to demonstrate that the behaviour we see is nothing new. I thought looking at some past philosophers would help. Fortunately or sadly (not sure which) I remembered some of the material I learnt in philosophy all those years ago as an undergraduate.
Hi Julien,
It’s great to read your finished paper after reading your early thoughts and ideas on the Discussion Board. I can see some connections between your paper and mine, particularly with regards to how people wish to present their character online. In my paper, I argue that pseudonymity allows social network users to avoid “context collapse” (Hogan, 2013, p. 300; Marwick & boyd, 2011). This means that they can present themselves differently to different audiences and in different contexts. You argue that people cannot present just one aspect of themselves, because their digital footprint and their own actions makes it possible to link one of their social media identities to their other social media identities. I think you are right, and this can also happen with social media users who use a pseudonym. It is also a problem for people who use a pseudonym for political protest or freedom of expression, as it is still possible for governments or members of the public to trace their offline identity, but psudonymity still provides some security. I also agree with you that it is possible to cultivate virtue friendships online, as I argue in my paper that persecuted religious and non-religious minorities use social media and pseudonymity to connect with others who share their beliefs.
References
Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real‐name Web. In A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–307). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1002/9781118321607.ch18
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Hey Julian,
what a great read! I really enjoyed your analysis of how people overshare online and how this helps facilitate online relationships. I wasn’t familiar with Aristotle’s theory on virtue friendships, it’s cool that you were able to link something that was first written about so long ago and apply it to our modern context.
Something that caught my eye was the conclusions from Nadkarni and Hofmann that said people who struggle in offline interaction can often thrive online. In my paper, I also discuss how those who are in less than ideal offline environments, where parental relationships might be strained or the individual might be troubled, are more likely to form bonds and friendships virtually. I was wondering why you think it might be the case that these vulnerable people are more likely to overshare and turn to online relationships? You mentioned that oversharing is likely linked to self-esteem issues, do you think that is the case in my example!
Great work!
Here’s the study I referenced, which might be interesting for you to read in relation to your paper!
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(02)00114-8