Media Watch

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Cultivating Connections in 140 Characters: A Case Study of Twitter Relationship Building


Affiliations
1 Wichita State University, Elliott School of Communication, 1845 Fairmount Street, Wichita, Kansas 67260-0031, United States
2 Wichita State University, United States
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Social media use is ubiquitous in the United States. Not surprisingly, an academic debate has emerged about whether or not computer-mediated communication facilitates or hurts interpersonal relationships. This exploratory case study adds to the conversation by assessing how Twitter users in the Wichita, Kansas community view the impact of Twitter on their social lives, specifically, communication and relationships. Using a grounded theory approach and inductive thematic analysis, this paper analyzed data from a two-phase study involving key informant interviews (N=15) and six focus groups (N = 32). Three themes emerged: Twitter and professional relationships; Twitter and personal relationships, and Twitter and community. Analysis indicated that Twitter is a robust tool used to build and maintain interpersonal and community relationships that range from shallow and impersonal to deep and meaningful, depending on the desires of users, all in 140 characters or less.

Keywords

Twitter, Personal Relationships, Community, Social Media.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • About Twitter, Inc. (n.d.). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://about.twitter.com/company

  • Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Ballard-Reisch, D., Rozzell, B., Heldman, L., & Kamerer, D. (2011). Microchannels and CMC: short paths to developing, maintaining, and dissolving relationships. Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, 56–78.

  • Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle., D., Olson, G., & Wright, Z. (2002). Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computingsystems: Changing our world, changing ourselves. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dgergle/pdf/BosOlsonGergle OlsonWright_ RichMedia Trust_CHI02.pdf

  • Boyatis, R. E. (1998). Thematic Analysis and Code Development: Transforming Qualitative Information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January 6). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/TweetTweetRetweet.pdf

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.192955

  • Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1994). Channel expansion theory: A dynamic view of media and information richness perceptions. In D. P. Moore (Ed.), Academy of Management: Best papers proceedings 1994 (pp. 280-284). Madison, WI: Omnipress.

  • Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153-170.

  • Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: Norton.

  • Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 755-762.

  • Clayton, R. B. (2014). The third wheel: The impact of Twitter use on relationship infidelity and divorce. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(7), 424-430.

  • Daft, R., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.

  • Daft, R., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.

  • Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.

  • Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015, Jan. 9). Pew Research Center Social Media Update 2014. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-mediaupdate2014/

  • Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

  • Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. In Communities and technologies 2007 (pp. 41-66). Springer London.

  • Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.1045.

  • Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001

  • Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009, January). Beyond micro blogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In System Sciences, 2009.HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10).IEEE. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224373137_Beyond_Microblogging_ Conversation _and_Collaboration_via_Twitter

  • Java, A. Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Paper presented at the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis, San Jose, CA. Retrieved from http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/ _file_directory_/papers/ 369.pdf

  • Kaplan, A. M., & Hanlein, M. (2010). Users of the world unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.

  • Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2013). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Chicago: Pearson.

  • Mander, J. (2014). GWI Social Summary (Q4: 2014). Retrieved from http://insight.globalwebindex.net/ hs-f s/hub/304927/file-2377691590-pdf /Report s/GWI_Social_Summary_Q4_2014.pdf?submissionGuid=7d6a 12cc-69f1-47cc-a9e5-7103bca62bbd

  • 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. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313

  • Miller, K. (2004). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw Hill.

  • Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The darkside of internet freedom. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130. Retrieved from http://asq.sagepub.com/content/ 50/ 1/100.abstract

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Religion in Wichita, Kansas. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.bestplaces.net/ religion/ city/kansas/wichita

  • Short, J. S., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Thompson, C. (September 5, 2008). Brave new world of digital intimacy. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 32.

  • Turkle, S. (2011) Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/2079000.html

  • Voting in Wichita, Kansas (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/kansas/wichita

  • Wichita, Kans. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0877666.html

  • Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction; a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

  • Wright, K. B. (2004). On-line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within exclusively internet-based and primarily internet-based relationships. Communication Studies, 55(2), 15.


Abstract Views: 675

PDF Views: 0




  • Cultivating Connections in 140 Characters: A Case Study of Twitter Relationship Building

Abstract Views: 675  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Jessica D. Bertapelle
Wichita State University, Elliott School of Communication, 1845 Fairmount Street, Wichita, Kansas 67260-0031, United States
Deborah Ballard-Reisch
Wichita State University, United States

Abstract


Social media use is ubiquitous in the United States. Not surprisingly, an academic debate has emerged about whether or not computer-mediated communication facilitates or hurts interpersonal relationships. This exploratory case study adds to the conversation by assessing how Twitter users in the Wichita, Kansas community view the impact of Twitter on their social lives, specifically, communication and relationships. Using a grounded theory approach and inductive thematic analysis, this paper analyzed data from a two-phase study involving key informant interviews (N=15) and six focus groups (N = 32). Three themes emerged: Twitter and professional relationships; Twitter and personal relationships, and Twitter and community. Analysis indicated that Twitter is a robust tool used to build and maintain interpersonal and community relationships that range from shallow and impersonal to deep and meaningful, depending on the desires of users, all in 140 characters or less.

Keywords


Twitter, Personal Relationships, Community, Social Media.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.15655/mw%2F2015%2Fv6i3%2F77888