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

Comm

uica

tion

Nursin

g

Busin

ess

Inte

rnat

iona

l Stu

dies

Elem

enta

ry E

duca

tion

Doubl

e Maj

or

Polit

ical

Scie

nce

Psyc

holo

gy

Allied

Hea

lth

Undec

ided

Bioch

emistry

Inte

rdiscipl

inar

y Hea

lth S

tudi

es

New M

edia

Des

ign

Pre-

med

Spor

ts M

anag

emen

t

Art Adm

inistra

tion

Biolo

gy

Creat

ive

Writ

ing

Human

Ser

vice

s

Inte

rnat

iona

l Rel

atio

ns

Music

Music

Ther

apy

Pre-

law

Pre-

phys

ical

ther

apy

Spor

ts a

nd E

xerc

ise S

cienc

e0

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?