We’re going on a Pokéhunt: The community behind Pokémon Go

ABSTRACT: With the advent of Internet-related technology and computer-mediated communication, the way that communities come together and interact with each other has changed radically. We now have infinite online mediums, used to chat, find support or make friends. The community surrounding the casual mobile game Pokémon Go is a great example of a community that comes together both online and offline. This paper will examine the ways in which the Pokémon Go community form a ‘third space’, both on and offline, and look at the civic, social and health opportunities that can arise from such a community.

KEYWORDS: Pokémon Go, casual mobile games, third space, computer-mediated communication, online community, online games, weak ties

Pokémon, of Nintendo fame, is a hugely influential franchise. With over 20 years of history including numerous video games on Nintendo’s many platforms, anime shows and movies, a popular trading card game and more, Pokémon is set in a modern fantasy world, filled with creatures that players can capture and train as they travel about the world. The Pokémon franchise has remained successful with the July 2016 release of Pokémon Go, a ‘location-based augmented reality game where players explore their actual surroundings to capture and evolve creatures in the real world (Niantic, Inc., 2016). Pokémon has always been designed with a community spirit in mind, be it through trading creatures or battling against another player. These elements of the original Pokémon games are present in Pokémon Go. Players can gather at areas frequented by Pokémon, battle gyms or complete raids together. Communication between players is mediated by platforms such as Facebook groups or Discord channels, and, as players become closer to each other, personal online chats and messaging. As Mims (2016) points out, the game is a ‘stealth social’ game – while not explicitly for bringing people together, it does so anyway as those playing it share ideas, tips and progress. This paper will argue that the Pokémon Go is a great example of both a virtual and physical ‘third place’, and that the game has the ability to move a virtual and online communities offline and into a physical setting. It will examine the definition of a third place and how it relates to both the community and the vehicle of the game itself, and how the game can help bring community together and provide civic, social and health opportunities. The game has the possibility to provide great community support and strength.

As a group that engages via computer-mediated communication (CMC), as well as offline and in ‘real life’, the Pokémon Go community can be seen as inhabiting a virtual ‘third space’. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg introduced the concept of the third space in 1999 as a way “to describe the public spaces used for informal social interaction outside of the home and workplace” (Soukup, 2006, p421). These include cafés, churches, parks, hair salons, libraries and clubs.

Oldenburg (1999) describes some key features of third places, which are as follows:

They are on neutral ground;
They are a leveler;
Conversation is the main activity;
They are accessible;
They have ‘regulars’;
They have a low profile;
They are a home away from home; and
The mood is playful.

It can be seen that most of these characteristics are represented within the CMC of the Pokémon Go community, as well as within the gameplay itself.

Neutral ground
Steinkuehler and Williams (2006, p890) identify games as being “neutral grounds in the sense that there is no default obligation to play”. Unless a player enters into a legal, financial or otherwise agreement (such as in e-sports, an activity not typically linked to casual games such as Pokémon Go) they can start up and quit the game, or leave the community space, as they please.
Leveler
As is the case in the vast majority of games, all players of Pokémon Go, regardless of social or financial status, previous Pokémon playing experience, start the game on an equal level. An initial player has no Pokémon, no in-game currency and they begin at level 1.
Conversation
Players talk to each other through such mediums as online grassroots network The Silph Road (Geraghty, 2017) as well as other platforms such as Facebook, Discord and Reddit. The entire purpose of these platforms is to share conversation with other users.
Accessibility
Virtual communities such as those mediated by Discord, Facebook or Reddit are perpetually accessible, given their online nature. They are accessible directly via one’s home, or on the go via a mobile device or laptop and Internet. The game itself is also playable at any time, and players can go geographically almost anywhere with it.
Regulars
Whilst the game was very popular when it initially came out, and has gained over 750 million downloads (Carter, 2017) in its first year, users began to report a lack of game content and buggy servers. Despite this, nearly two years later as Geraghty (2017) says, it has retained a ‘surprisingly loyal fanbase’ of about 60 million players. A lot of these players participate in forums such as The Silph Road, Reddit or local Facebook groups, and no doubt form a core group of ‘regulars’ that frequently enjoy playing the game with each other.
Low profile
While Pokémon Go might have a bright, colourful and sometimes intense game design, and not fit the low profile criterion visually, the social function of its environment does. The social atmospheres are informal and without pretension, and are not mediated by any kind of official Pokémon organisation.
Home away from home
Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) report finding “online gaming may result in strong social ties, if gamers engage in online activities that continue beyond the game and extend these with offline activities”. This is definitely true of a game such as Pokémon Go, with its offline activities (such as hunting for Pokémon or battling gyms together) extending from the interactions that happen online (for example, planning such activities).
Playful mood
In his seminal text Homo Ludens, the Dutch theorist Huizinga (1955) defines play as “a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly”. Pokémon Go and its communities fit neatly into this definition, with players discussing strategies, ideas and other relevant information within groups, whilst maintaining an understanding of friendliness and lightheartedness.

As demonstrated above, it can be seen that the Pokémon Go community’s computer-mediated communication can be classified as a third space. But what about its offline communication, and the way players come together when there is nothing virtual except the game itself, played on mobile devices? Sessions (2010, p376) defines a ‘meetup’ as “local, face-to-face gatherings of online community members”. This definition fits Pokémon Go communities well, as they are indeed local due to the geographic element of the game (and players in different suburbs or cities might organize their own personal meetups based on the geographic placement of its community members). Her study shed light on the social implications of virtual community meetups. She notes, “It should not be assumed that meetups are beneficial to the community … in these cases, such communities may lose the benefit of weak ties, and the exchange of resources with weak social ties may be sacrificed” (Sessions, 2010, p376). These weak ties are essential to such a community because they provide diversity to the players. In addition, Constant, Sproull & Kiesler (1996) found that weak ties are essential because information providers gave advice and solved the problems of information seekers, “despite their lack of a personal connection with the seekers”. This technical advice is reflective of the way that players most often interact in forums and groups online, seeking advice and ideas from other players such as where there is an abundance of a certain Pokémon, or if anyone else is experiencing a specific glitch in the game. However, Sessions (2010) goes on to suggest that ‘multiplex’ relationships – which are relationships that are maintained both online and offline – make attendees of such meetups engage more with the online community as a whole, and contributes to creating social capital. Additionally, Trepte, Reinecke and Juechems (2011) suggest “beneficial effects of online gaming on online social capital and offline social support are particularly likely the more users interact both in online and offline settings”. So, whilst not with abandon, players should (and do) continue to ‘meetup’ in offline settings, hunting for Pokémon and battling gyms together.

Pokémon Go also has an effect on the wider community. As Perry (2016) wrote for Business Insider, “The other night, I put down a lure module on a PokéStop (which lures more Pokémon to the stop) in the park across from my apartment. At 10 p.m., with a slight drizzle coming down, several people showed up within minutes.” This is representative of the type of community engagement and spirit that people were playing the game with. Kagi (2017) reported that a visitation to King’s Park, a popular park in Perth, Western Australia, improved 12.5% on the previous year and was the highest visitation on record. This was largely due to the Pokémon Go craze, and players flocked to concentrated areas after rare Pokémon became available in the area. This ‘offline’ use of a digital game reflects the strength of the in-game community.

It can also bring isolated people together, and bring them into the community. One such health phenomenon that Pokémon Go could address is that of the condition hikikomori, of Japan – a severe social withdrawal documented amongst teenagers and adults who experience fear, anxiety and a sense of refusal (Tateno, Park, Kato, Umene-Nakano & Saito, 2012). Individuals who experience hikikomori become recluses in their own homes or rooms. This is almost directly correlated with the availability of the Internet and a growing incidence of Internet addiction. However, with the release of Pokémon Go, there are reports of gamers becoming less sedentary and having improvements in depression and anxiety through physical activity (McCartney, 2016). Tateno et al. (2016) indicate that for some cases of hikikomori, Pokémon Go could provide a rehabilitation opportunity, and suggest placing PokéStops at hikikomori support centres to serve as an adjunct to other psychiatric interventions. This is just one example of how gamification of a community resource could provide advances in care.

There is an ever-increasing amount of discourse about whether or not video games have a positive or negative impact on people’s social lives. Pokémon Go is absolutely beneficial to players for health reasons, due to them getting outside and moving about while playing the game, but it is also beneficial for their social experience as well. As Kaczmarek et al. (2017) found in their study, “Pokémon Go also provides an opportunity for players to interact face-to-face with each other and socialize, which has emerged as a social factor that has been related to greater engagement in games”. The successful gamification of activity brought on by Pokémon Go has allowed people to join strong and welcoming communities they would not otherwise have known existed. Within the community everyone has at least one shared interest – their interest in Pokémon Go – and because of this their social capital is increased. Once social capital has been established amongst the virtual community, it then spills over into offline social capital, as members begin to meet up and play the game together. Gross, Katz and Rice (2003) state that the attributes of a virtual gaming community “have many advantages over physical communities, such as successfully breaking down boundaries of race, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location established in physical communities.” Players talk to each other from across the world as well as locally, creating communities virtually and then taking them offline. As Soukup (2006) states, “the virtual third place should feel like a place that is integrated seamlessly into the existing textures and details of our lived communal experiences.” The communication that occurs in the community spaces takes place in oft-used digital spaces such as social media, further cementing the game and its community as a third space.

References

Carter, C. (2017). Pokémon Go has made $1.2 billion to date, surpasses 750 million downloads. Retrieved from https://www.destructoid.com/pokemon-go-has-made-1-2-billion-to-date-surpasses-750-million-downloads-446609.phtml

Constant, D., Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

Geraghty, L. (2017). Pokémon Go no longer has the hype of 2016, but a loyal fanbase remains. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/pokemon-go-no-longer-has-the-hype-of-2016-but-a-loyal-fanbase-remains-80438

Gross, M., Katz, J., & Rice, R. (2003). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6), 691.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens; a study of the play-element in culture. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.

Kagi, J. (2017). Pokémon Go craze drives extra 790,000 visitors to Kings Park in Perth. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-16/spike-in-kings-park-visitor-numbers-after-pokemon-go-craze/8950482

Kaczmarek, L. D., Misiak, M., Behnke, M., Dziekan, M. & Guzik, P. (2017). The Pikachu effect: Social and health gaming motivations lead to greater benefits of Pokémon Go use. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.031

McCartney, M. (2016). Margaret McCartney: Game on for Pokémon Go. BMJ, 354, 4306. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4306

Niantic, Inc. (2016). Explore! | Pokémon Go. Retrieved from http://www.pokemongo.com/en-au/explore/

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Cambridge, USA: Da Capo Press.

Perry, A. (2016). The 3 best things about ‘Pokémon GO’. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-3-best-things-about-pokemon-go-2016-7

Siegal, J. (2017). Four out of five ‘Pokémon Go’ users have quit. BGR. Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2017/04/03/pokemon-go-popularity-2016-users/

Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the World Wide Web. New Media & Society, 8(3), 421-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Steinkuehler, C. A. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as ‘‘Third Places’’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 885-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x

Tateno, M., Park, T.W., Kato, T.A., Umene-Nakano, W., Saito, T. (2012). Hikikomori as a possible clinical term in psychiatry: a questionnaire survey. BMC Psychiatry, 12, 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-169

Tateno, M., Skokauskas, N., Kato, T. A., Teo, A. R., Guererro, A. P. S. (2016). New game software (Pokémon Go) may help youth with severe social withdrawal, hikikomori. Psychiatry Research, 246, 848-849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.10.038

Trepte, S., Reinecke, L. & Juechems, K. (2011). The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.chb.2011.12.003

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Over-sharing in an online environment and its relationship to building communities and networks of virtue friends

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.

Image used under license from Freestock.com