Guest Post: John Todor on the psychology of social networks
Social media is all the rage. But why? Why is the connected society becoming so relentlessly social? Are we smitten with the technical cleverness of Facebook and MySpace? Do we revel in the empowerment of distribution and sharing offered by YouTube, Digg and Twitter? Are we simply fools for anything new – or for the newest frontier of digital business opportunities (and cycles)? Are we like the drones in the 1985 Apple commercial – unwittingly following the crowd? Or, are there deeper human drives at work? Are there psychological and sociological reasons behind people’s eagerness to connect? In this brief guest post, psychologist and business strategist John I. Todor offers a psycho-social view of the growth of social networks and the human behaviors and aspirations reflected in the digital experience. – Andrew Nachison
Long before social media and networks such as Facebook and MySpace arrived on the scene, people were affected by rapid innovation in technology and constant change. It is difficult to keep up with what’s happening in one’s own field or area of special interest. But it is nearly impossible to avoid anxiety, frustration, and confusion when the world around you changes in unpredictable ways.
Certainly we all feel frustration when confronted with new technology. Most often we figure it out and eliminate the confusion. Or do we? Everyone knows how to use Microsoft Word. However, most people use a very limited set of capabilities. They get by until they have a need to do something new, like place a photo in a block of text. Figuring out how can be a lesson in frustration.
Our reality is that we live in a world of abundance and overwhelming choice and, while it may seem paradoxical, these conditions push us out of our psychological comfort zones.1 We also must contend with information overload, the stress of dealing with the uncertainty and complexity brought on by change, and the time pressures associated with living in a 24/7, always-on world. All of these factors erode our sense of orderliness and safety. They reduce our sense of control, our ability to predict events in the external world. Often we cope by finding a temporary fix or we find ways to avoid these situations. It is easy to assume that each episode has only a temporary negative effect. The evidence, however, reveals a much more pervasive and enduring societal impact.
Recent research presents compelling evidence that anxiety, stress, depression2, aggravation3, distrust4 and procrastination5 have all increased at a societal level. So have alienation, loneliness6 and our social connectedness7. At a personal level we are disengaged8,9 or indifferent in more and more situations. This impacts self-esteem and our psychological system’s ability to adapt. At an interpersonal level, we are less connected, especially in trusting relationships that we can count on when the chips are down.
The Need for Sense Making
The human psychological system is remarkable in its ability to make sense out of uncertainties, face what was once complex, and make it understandable and predictable. It enables us to regain a sense of predictability and control. What once created anxiety or frustration is replaced by a new sense of order. This is fundamental to one’s self-esteem which reflects an inward knowledge of being able to adjust to change, to thrive, and even desire the new and novel. It is a critical aspect of mental well being and the foundation of happiness.
In his book, A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age,10 Dan Pink argues that we have plenty of information; in fact, we face too much information and too much uncertainty coming at us too fast. As a consequence we struggle with finding understanding and value in change. When we do, it is psychologically rewarding and it enables us to derive experiential value from our new insights.
Relationships and Communities
How does this need for sense making relate to our need for social connectedness? Research by Robert Kelly of Carnegie Mellon University brings it clearly into focus. In 1986 when he asked people what percentage of the knowledge they needed to do their job was inside their own head, the average estimate was 75%. By 1997 the average estimate was below 20%. You can imagine what it is today! We are dependent on relationships with others to deal with knowledge explosion and increasing complexity. Kelly was asking people about their job where they were paid to be competent.11
What about the average citizens trying to adapt to waves of change in virtually all aspects of their lives?
Relationships are the essential medium. However, for relationships to work there must be mutual trust. Without trust there is lack of the openness or intimacy required to allow the relationship to focus on issues.
Peers rank at the top of trust scales. Why? Because there is a shared perspective. Recommendations of friends or associates are contextually relevant. If it is meaningful to them, it is likely to be meaningful to us. The stronger the trust in the relationship, the more credibility we put in the recommendation.
Peer review and consumer generated content are highly trusted, even though they may be posted by someone we don’t personally know. Why is this? Other consumers tend to describe the experiential aspects of purchasing a product and, importantly, focus on the experiential value derived from using the product.
In contrast, trust in companies, their marketing and employees ranks in the bottom third of trust scales. As a result, interactions between customers and companies tend to focus on the economic transaction. Lacking trusted relationships, customers focus on the best trade-off between price and convenience and companies find they must repeatedly compete with each other to win each sale.
Social theorists make a distinction between weak tie relationships and strong tie relationships. In the social networking world, most ties or connections are relatively weak. People with over 500 connections in LinkedIn have mostly weak ties to acquaintances rather than relationships that come from close interaction.
Both weak and strong ties are valuable online. The weak tie connection in a peer review facilitates an immediate decision. As the level of participation and contribution increases by all parties, the strength of the ties increases. Some travel sites start with recommendations but facilitate collaborations that result in strangers co-operatively planning vacation together and sharing real-world experiences. Similarly, online discussions among individual stock traders can evolve into collaborative subgroups that function as a shared brain trust.
Social Companies
If companies are generally less trusted than peers, does that mean they have no place in the networked culture? Are they left out?
They are if they do not become part of the conversations and an authentic member of the communities. When Fiat was planning the re-release of the Fiat 500 car, they started by building a community of interest. Five hundred days before the release, they enticed more than 8,000 people to help them design the accessories for the car. The result: popular accessories AND a highly interactive community sharing a passion and commitment to all things Fiat 500. They advised each other on how to “experience” the car. They evangelized their experiences with the car to prospective buyers. They provided Fiat with the insights to keep this community happy and loyal. And they did so for free.
Psychologist John I. Todor, Ph.D., is managing partner of The Whetstone Edge, a firm that advises companies on how to use social media to foster relationships with customers that have a real world benefit to both parties. He is also a member of the We Media Community [view profile]. His most recent book is Addicted Customers: How to Get Them Hooked on Your Company.
Notes
1. John I. Todor, Addicted Customers: How to Get Them Hooked On Your Company. (Martinez, CA: Silverado Press, 2006).
2. Martin Seligman, Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. (New York: Free Pres, 2002).
3. Steve Farkas and Jean Johnson, Aggravating Circumstances: A Status Report on Rudeness in America. A report from Public Agenda prepared for the Pew Charitable Trust, 2002.
4. Richard Edelman, The 2006 Edelman Trust Barometer [PDF], PRWeek, January 26, 2006.
5. Steel, P. The Nature of Procrastination. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94, 2007.
6. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin and Matthew Brashear, Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades, American Sociological Review [PDF], vol. 71, 353-375, 2006.
7. Robert D. Putnam. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
8. Harry Hoover, Why Passionate Employees Matter (MarketingProfs.com, Nov. 5, 2002).
9. Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequence of Work in the New Capitalism, (New York: Bantam Books, 1998).
10. Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age. (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005).
11. Robert E. Kelly, How to Be A Star at Work, (New York: Times Books, 1998).
