Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.3.3

Anonymous and Non-anonymous User Behavior on Social Media: A Case Study of Jodel and Instagram  

Kasakowskij, Regina (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf)
Friedrich, Natalie (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf)
Fietkiewicz, Kaja J. (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf)
Stock, Wolfgang G. (Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.6, no.3, 2018 , pp. 25-36 More about this Journal
Abstract
Anonymity plays an increasingly important role on social media. This is reflected by more and more applications enabling anonymous interactions. However, do social media users behave different when they are anonymous? In our research, we investigated social media services meant for solely anonymous use (Jodel) and for widely spread non-anonymous sharing of pictures and videos (Instagram). This study examines the impact of anonymity on the behavior of users on Jodel compared to their non-anonymous use of Instagram as well as the differences between the user types: producer, consumer, and participant. Our approach is based on the uses and gratifications theory (U>) by E. Katz, specifically on the sought gratifications (motivations) of self-presentation, information, socialization, and entertainment. Since Jodel is mostly used in Germany, we developed an online survey in German. The questions addressed the three different user types and were subdivided according to the four motivation categories of the U>. In total 664 test persons completed the questionnaire. The results show that anonymity indeed influences users' usage behavior depending on user types and different U> categories.
Keywords
user behavior; anonymity; social media; uses and gratifications theory; identifiability; user roles;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., & Lankford, C. M. (2017). Personality and online environment factors differ for posters, trolls, lurkers, and confessors on Yik Yak. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 54-56.
2 Shang, R. A., Chen, Y. C., & Liao, H. J. (2006). The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty. Internet Research, 16(4), 398-418.   DOI
3 Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7-25.
4 Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97.
5 Steiner, P. (1993). On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog [Cartoon.] The New Yorker, 69(20), 61.
6 Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188.   DOI
7 Thiele, P. (2015). Jodel-App: Karma-Punkte. Das steckt dahinter [Jodel App: Karma Points. That's behind it]. Retrieved Jun 30, 2018 from https://praxistipps.chip.de/jodel-app-karma-punkte-das-steckt-dahinter_43924
8 Wielert, E. (2017). Die Rolle von Anonymitat und Lokalitat in einem sozialen Netzwerk am Beispiel von Jodel [The role of anonymity and locality in a social network using the example of Jodel] (Unpublished bachelors thesis). Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany.
9 Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80-83.
10 Nowak, P., Juttner, K., & Baran, K. S. (2018). Posting content, collecting points, staying anonymous: An evaluation of Jodel. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.). Social computing and social media. User experience and behavior. 10th International Conference, SCSM 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018 (pp. 67-86). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
11 Peddinti, S. T., Ross, K. W., & Cappos, J. (2014). On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog: A Twitter case study of anonymity in social networks. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Online Social Networks (pp. 83-94). New York, NY: ACM.
12 Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computermediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-715.   DOI
13 Saveski, M., Chou, S., & Roy, D. (2016). Tracking the Yak: An empirical study of Yik Yak. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (pp. 671-674). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press.
14 Scheibe, K., Fietkiewicz, K. J., & Stock, W. G. (2016). Information behavior on social live streaming services. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 4(2), 6-20.   DOI
15 Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., & Fietkiewicz, K. (2017). Das Informationsverhalten von Streamern und Zuschauern bei Social Live-Streaming Diensten am Fallbeispiel YouNow [The information behavior of streamers and viewers in social live streaming services in the case of YouNow]. Information: Wissenschaft & Praxis, 68(5-6), 352-364.
16 Scholl, H. (2015). Instant profits guide to Instagram success. Budapest: PublishDrive.
17 McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory. London, UK: Sage.
18 Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers' social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10(6), 356-364.   DOI
19 Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(1), 13-29.   DOI
20 Gruenderszene (2017). Studenten-App Jodel erhalt sechs Millionen: und will in die USA expandieren [Student app Jodel receives six million: and wants to expand into the US]. Retrieved Jun 30, 2018 from https://www.gruenderszene.de/allgemein/jodel-studenten-app-usamillionen.
21 Jordan, T. (2002). Cyberpower: The culture and politics of cyberspace and the Internet. New York, NY: Routledge.
22 Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.   DOI
23 Katzer, C. (2016). Cyberpsychologie: Leben im Netz: Wie das Internet uns verandert [Cyberpsychology: Life on the Net: How the Internet changes us]. Munich, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
24 Kolodny, L. (2017). Yik Yak shuts down after Square paid $1 million for its engineers. Retrieved Jun 30, 2018 from https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/28/yik-yak-shutsdown-after-square-paid-1-million-for-its-engineers/
25 Krishnamurthy, B., & Wills, C. E. (2009). On the leakage of personally identifiable information via online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks (pp. 7-12). New York, NY: ACM.
26 Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331-339.   DOI
27 Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
28 Black, E. W., Mezzina, K., & Thompson, L. A. (2015). Anonymous social media: Understanding the content and context of Yik Yak. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 17-22.
29 Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and selfexpression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411.   DOI
30 Bernstein, M. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., Andre, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. G. (2011). 4chan and/b: An analysis of anonymity and ephemerality in a large online community. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 50-57). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press.
31 Blumler, J., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32 Dibbell, J. (2010). Radical opacity. Technology Review, 113(5), 82-86.
33 Fietkiewicz, K. J., Dorsch, I., Scheibe, K., Zimmer, F., & Stock, W. G. (2018). Dreaming of stardom and money: Micro-celebrities and influencers on live streaming services. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.). Social computing and social media. User experience and behavior. SCSM 2018 (pp. 240-253). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
34 Friedlander, M. B. (2017). Streamer motives and usergenerated content on social live-streaming services. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 5(1), 65-84.   DOI
35 Zimmer, F., Scheibe, K., & Stock, W. G. (2018). A model for information behavior research on social live streaming services (SLSSs). In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.). Social computing and social media: User experience and behavior. 10th International Conference, SCSM 2018 (pp. 429-448). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
36 Wodzicki, K., Schwammlein, E., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2011). Does the type of anonymity matter? The impact of visualization on information sharing in online groups. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 157-160.   DOI
37 Zhang, K., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2014). Anonymity in social media: Effects of content controversiality and social endorsement on sharing behavior. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM) (pp. 643-646). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press.
38 Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237-307.
39 Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2014). Entanglements in practice: Performing anonymity through social media. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 873-893.