1 / 35

Conflict Management via Twitter

Conflict Management via Twitter. Hannah Fraser, Abigail Roberson, Courtney Walker. Intro/Background. Social Media boom Social Media use Lack of Study. Purpose. Investigate Twitter more in depth Views of Social Media usage and communication College students fit this stereotype?.

darius
Télécharger la présentation

Conflict Management via Twitter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conflict Management via Twitter Hannah Fraser, Abigail Roberson, Courtney Walker

  2. Intro/Background • Social Media boom • Social Media use • Lack of Study

  3. Purpose • Investigate Twitter more in depth • Views of Social Media usage and communication • College students fit this stereotype?

  4. Theoretical Framework • Uses and Gratifications theory • (Lazarsfeld & Stanton,1944, 1949) • (Elihu Katz,1959) • (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008) • “The personal and social needs individuals are obtaining from using these friend-networking sites should be explored” (p. 170). • Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174.

  5. Literature Review • Twitter • (Dicken-Garcia, 1998) • (Dijck, 2011) • (Faina, 2012) • Conflict styles • (Wang, Fink& Cai, 2012) • (Caughlin & Golish, 2002) • Satisfaction • (Sepp, Liljander& Gummerus, 2011) • (Nardi, Schiano, Gumbrecht & Swartz, 2004)

  6. Hypothesis 1 • Undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte use Twitter in order to avoid face-to-face conflict. • IV- Queens University of Charlotte’s undergraduate students’ intended use of Twitter • DV-Avoiding face-to-face conflict

  7. Conceptual Definitions H1 • Face-to-face- communication between individuals where each can get a better sense of the other’s nonverbal cues along with what they are verbally saying (Meluch & Walter, 2012) • Conflict- “Conflict is defined as a social interaction between two or more interdependent parties about issues, goals, or actions. Disputants typically view the issues in a dispute as incompatible or mutually exclusive” (Putnam, 1987, p. 42). • Putnam, L. L. (1987). LEADERSHIP AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. Association For Communication Administration Bulletin, (61), 42-49. • Putnam, L.L., & Poole, M.S. (1987). Conflict and Negotiation. In Jablin, F.M., Porter, L., Putnam, L.L., & Roberts, K. (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

  8. Operational Definition H1 • Using scales which measured the frequencies in which people express their negative emotions (anger, frustration, sadness), say things they would not normally say in person, and handle conflict via social media

  9. Hypothesis 2 • Undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte use Twitter in order to avoid uncomfortable situations • IV- Queens University of Charlotte’s undergraduate students’ intended use of Twitter • DV- avoiding uncomfortable situations

  10. Conceptual Definition H2 • Uncomfortable situations- an interaction that produces a level of suffering to a person mentally through anxiety, suspense or fear. A “feeling of suspense through anticipation of dangers to come” (Benford et al., 2013, p. 68). • Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Giannachi, G., Walker, B., Marshall, J., & Rodden, T. (2013). Uncomfortable User Experience. Communications Of The ACM, 56(9), 66-73.

  11. Operational definition H2 • Using scales which measured uncomfortable situations by the frequencies in which respondents say things on social media that they wouldn’t say in person, and the frequency in which they fail to state their beliefs in person out of fear of being rejected by the majority.

  12. Hypothesis 3 • Undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte who use Twitter to avoid face-to-face conflict in uncomfortable situations find satisfaction in doing so. • IV- the act of tweeting to avoid face-to-face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations • DV- finding satisfaction

  13. H3 Conceptual definitions • Satisfaction- “the affective response to the fulfillment of expectation-type standards” (Mueller & Lee, 2002, p. 221). • Mueller, B. H., & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Communication Satisfaction in Multiple Contexts. Journal Of Business Communication, 39(2), 220-244. • Face-to-face, conflict, and uncomfortable situations uses the same conceptual definitions as in H1 and H2, respectively.

  14. Operational definition • Using scales which measured satisfaction by the degree to which respondents agree that twitter is a safe place to express their disapproving feelings towards others, feel better about a situation after posting to twitter, and feel like their feelings can be adequately expressed via twitter.

  15. RQ1 • Do Queens University of Charlotte students practice sub tweeting to avoid face-to-face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations? • IV- subtweeting • DV- avoidance of face to face conflict and uncomfortable situations

  16. Conceptual Definition • Subtweeting- tweeting about someone without mentioning their name (Browning & Sanderson, 2012) • Face-to-face, conflict, and uncomfortable situations use the same conceptual definitions as in H1 and H2, respectively.

  17. Operational Definition • Using scales which measured subtweeting by the frequency in which respondents tweet about people without tagging them in the tweet, and tweet negative feelings while remaining general rather than tagging a particular person in their tweet.

  18. RQ 2 • Does the frequency of tweeting per day correlate with the desire to avoid face-to-face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations using Twitter. • IV- frequency of tweeting • DV- desire to avoid face-to-face conflict

  19. Conceptual Definition RQ2 • Face to face conflict, and uncomfortable situations are conceptually defined in this research question as they are in the other research question and hypotheses of this study

  20. Operational Definition RQ2 • Frequency- the number of times per day that a student creates a tweet or retweets another person and posts it on their feed

  21. Methodology & Data Collection • Sample • Nonprobability- Convenient, Purpose & Volunteer • Size-104 • Survey using paper questionnaire • Classes • Face-to-face

  22. Findings • Pilot Study • Sample of 25 • Changes • Age and Major – switched to bottom • Original Q: When I tweet negative feelings, I prefer to send it to a particular person rather than the twitter community in general. • Confusing • Scale didn’t test it • Changed Q: When I tweet negative feelings, I prefer to remain general, without tagging (@mentioning) a particular person in my tweet.

  23. Findings (frequencies) • H1 was not supported; As a majority, undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte do notuse Twitter in order to avoid face-to-face conflicts.

  24. Findings (frequencies) • H2 was not supported; As a majority, undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte do notuse Twitter in order to avoid uncomfortable situations

  25. Findings (correlation) • H3 was not supported; As a majority, undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte who use Twitter to avoid face-to-face conflict in uncomfortable situations do not find satisfaction in doing so.

  26. Findings (correlation)

  27. Findings (correlation)

  28. Findings? (frequencies) • RQ1 We found that the majority of Queens students do not subtweet.

  29. Findings (correlation) • RQ2 We found that the correlation of the frequency of tweeting and the desire to avoid face-to-face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations did not yield significant results.

  30. Discussion & Implications: • H1 & H2- Not supported that Queens students use Twitter to avoid face to face conflict and uncomfortable situations • H3- Not supported that Queens students who use Twitter to avoid face to face conflict are satisfied. • RQ1- Do Queens students practice sub tweeting in order to avoid face to face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations? • Question error • RQ2- Findings too insignificant to report – no significant correlation between frequency of tweeting per day and avoiding face to face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations

  31. Discussion & Implications • Uses and Gratifications Theory • Twitter satisfies other needs not particularly related to avoidance of face to face conflict and/or uncomfortable situations • Other satisfaction possibilities • Conversation and dialogue, collaboration and exchange, information and news sharing, marketing and advertising, status updating and checking • (Van Dijck, 2011) Twitter • Entertainment, socializing, information, life documenting • (Sepp, Liljander, & Gummerus, 2011).

  32. Limitations • More scales to cross reference • Excluded gender • Time & money • Reach (scheduling difficulties) • Scales for RQ1

  33. Recommendations • Fix our limitations • Look into comparing majors • Comparing genders- who avoids more via Twitter?

More Related