Small Talk with Facebook: Phatic Communication in Social Media

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we analyzed a data set of 484 unique communication events taking place in Facebook. The key contribution of this paper is the content based analysis showing that people mostly share events from their everyday lives, even if the information is repetitious or does not have any informational meaning, this practice prevailing even though most such updates were regarded as uninteresting ones. Moreover, a considerable amount of status updates was seen to fall into category of 'small talk'. The results show that the communication through Facebook has strong element of phatic communion, i.e. it serves the purpose of maintaining and defining social relationships and enacts social cohesiveness. Our results reveal an interesting contradiction between uninteresting content and (obviously) interesting service; and suggest that small talk type entries can be seen as a tool for increasing one's social capital by being active.

References

1. Barkhuus, L, Toshiro, J. 2010. Student Socialization in the Age of Facebook. In Proc. CHI 2010, 133--142.
2. Bilandzic, M., Filonik, D., Gross, M., Hackel, A., Mangesius, H., Krcmar, H. 2009. A Mobile Application to Support Phatic Communication in the Hybric Space. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG 2009), IEEE 2009.
3. Burke, M., Marlow, C., Lento, T. 2010. Social Network Activity and Social Well-Being. In Proc. CHI 2010, 1909--1912. ACM.
4. Coupland, J., Coupland, N., Robinson, J. D. 1992. "how are you?": Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21, 207--230, Cambridge University Press.
5. De Choudhury, M., Sundaram, H. 2011. Why do we converse on social media?: an analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic network factors. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGMM international workshop on Social media (WSM'11). ACM.
6. Donath, J. 2007. Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), Oct 2007, article 12.
7. Goldsmith, D., Baxter, L. 1996. Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, Vol 23(1), Sep 1996, 87--114.
8. Greasemonkey. http://www.greasespot.net/ (last accessed May 6th 2013)
9. Facebook. http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts (last accessed May 6th 2013)
10. Joinson, A. N. 2008. 'Looking at', Looking up' or 'Keeping up with 'People? Motives and Uses of Facebook. In Proc. CHI 2008, 1027--1036. ACM.
11. Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In The Meaning of Meaning, Ogden, C.K., Ricahrds, I.A. Eds. Routledge, London, 146--152.
12. Miller, V. 2008. New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture. In Convergence, Vol. 14, No. 4, 387--400, 2008. SAGE Journals.
13. Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., and Panovich, K. 2010. What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message q&a behavior. In Proc. of CHI '10, 1739--1748. ACM.
14. Nadkarni, A., Hofmann, S. G. 2012. Why do people user Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012), 243--249. Elsevier.
15. Nosko, A., Wood, E., Molema, S. 2010. All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2010), 406--418. Elsevier.
16. Smith, W. P., Kidder, D. L. 2010. You've been tagged! (Then again, maybe not): Employers and Facebook. Business Horizons (2010) 53, 491--499. Elsevier.
17. Zhao, S, Grasmuck, S., Martin, J. 2008. Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008), 1816--1836. Elsevier.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing