Understanding Feedback Expectations on Facebook

Is Anybody out There?: Understanding Masspersonal Communication through Expectations for Response across Social Media Platforms

“…Even so, prior research suggests that network characteristics influence how people engage on SNS, including how they project their identity (Marwick & boyd, 2011) and share disclosures . In fact, recent work on expectations on Facebook found that people have higher expectations for response when they have larger networks that they feel connected to (Grinberg, Dow, Adamic, & Naaman, 2017). Based on this work, we predict that anticipated response is related to the size of a user's network and the diversity of social groups present, where more diverse networks consist of a greater number of different social groups.…”

“…Prior research has found differences in expectations for comments and likes on Facebook. Specifically, expectations for commenting, but not liking, were related to tie strength, where strong ties, such as spouses, were less expected to comment on a post, presumably because they respond face-to-face rather than on Facebook (Grinberg et al, 2017). As a result, we hypothesize for our two dimensions of anticipated interaction:…”

“…Prior research has found differences in expectations for comments and likes on Facebook. Specifically, expectations for commenting, but not liking, were related to tie strength, where strong ties, such as spouses, were less expected to comment on a post, presumably because they respond face‐to‐face rather than on Facebook (Grinberg et al, ). As a result, we hypothesize for our two dimensions of anticipated interaction:

H5: The likelihood of expecting a response differs between composed response and one‐click response, controlling for relational and situational factors.

H6: For those that expect a response, the specificity of the imagined responsive audience differs between composed response and one‐click response, controlling for relational and situational factors.

…”

When Nobody “Likes” You: Perceived Ostracism Through Paralinguistic Digital Affordances Within Social Media

“…On social media, phatic cues are exemplified by PDAs which, in spite of the fact that they are used billions of times per day, can serve as cues for relational maintenance, the provision of social support, and acknowledgment of a message (Carr et al, 2016;Wohn et al, 2016); and the total number received clearly matters to users, with users paying at least some attention to who is sending them (Carr, Hayes, & Sumner, 2018;Carr et al, 2016;Reich et al, 2018;Scissors et al, 2016). Scissors et al (2016) and Grinberg, Kalyanaraman, Adamic, and Naaman (2017) both found that while the quantity of Facebook Likes received was important, there were differences in expectations or desires for Likes from certain relational groups. In addition, unlike other tools, PDAs are near-ubiquitous and heavily used across the top social media sites, making them particularly appropriate to study effects across and between social media (Hayes et al, 2016b).…”

Detection and Prevention of Abuse in Online Social Networks

“…system that evaluates, predicts and protects users against perceived friend abuse in Facebook. AbuSniff also builds on the findings of Grinberg et al[GKAN17] that Facebook users are more likely to expect feedback on their posts from closer friends, and ofToma [Tom14b] that Facebook profile cues (e.g., number of friends, tagged photographs, comments) can predict user perceived trustworthiness.Specifically, we first develop a friend abuse questionnaire that captures the user perception that a Facebook friend (1) is a stranger, (2) would publish abusive responses to pictures and status updates posted by the user, or (3) would publish and distribute offensive, misleading, false or potentially malicious information. Further, we devise rules to convert identified abuse into defense actions.…”