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?

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Methodology & Data Collection

Sample Nonprobability- Convenient, Purpose & Volunteer Size-104

Survey using paper questionnaire Classes Face-to-face

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.

22%

24%

30%

13%

6%

1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Age Percentages

18192021222426283139

Commuic

ation

Nursing

Busin

ess

Intern

ation

al Stu

dies

Elemen

tary E

ducati

on

Double

Major

Politic

al Sci

ence

Psycho

logy

Allied

Health

Undecid

ed

Bioche

mistry

Interd

iscipl

inary

Health

Stud

ies

New Med

ia Desi

gn

Pre-m

ed

Sports

Manage

ment

Art Adm

inistra

tion

Biolog

y

Creati

ve Writi

ng

Human

Servi

ces

Intern

ation

al Rela

tionsMusi

c

Music T

herap

y

Pre-la

w

Pre-ph

ysical

thera

py

Sports

and E

xercis

e Scie

nce0

5

10

15

20

25

21

1615

65 5 5 5

3 32 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Number of Respondents by Major

Number of Respondents by Major

Findings (frequencies) H1 was not supported; As a majority,

undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte do not use Twitter in order to avoid face-to-face conflicts.

Findings (frequencies) H2 was not supported; As a majority,

undergraduate students at Queens University of Charlotte do not use Twitter in order to avoid uncomfortable situations

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.

Findings (correlation)

Findings (correlation)

Findings? (frequencies) RQ1 We found that the majority of Queens

students do not subtweet.

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.

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

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).

Limitations

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

Recommendations

Fix our limitations

Look into comparing majors

Comparing genders- who avoids more via Twitter?