Event 1

Categorizing the answers given to the open-ended questions revealed seven potential influence factor for (not) liking a Page. Overall, 215 codings were generated, 105 for nuclear energy and 110 for Burma. The seven categories will be presented in order of prevalence in the overall sample.

Self-constructional concerns as a reason to like a Page or to not like a Page were mentioned 75 times (34.88% of all generated codings), referring to the degree to which the Page reflected participants’ own opinion and their interest in the topic. A difference between both topics was observable as this aspect was mentioned more often in the context of nuclear energy (n = 43, 40.95%

of all codings for nuclear energy) than in the context of the Burma campaign (n = 32, 29.09% of all codings for Burma).

One participant who would like the Page describes it for example this way:

"I am against nuclear energy and I want to show that" [nuclear energy]

And another participant who would not like the Page said:

"I am not concerned with that group of protesters" [Burma]

The second aspect (mentioned 42 times, 19.53% of all generated codings) was a reason not to like a Page: lacking familiarity with the topic. This aspect was mentioned three times as often in the context of the Burma campaign (mentioned 32 times, 29.09% of all codings for Burma) than in the context of nuclear energy (mentioned 10 times, 9.52% of all codings for nuclear energy).

"As I am only vaguely informed about that topic, liking the Page would be wrong"

[nuclear energy]

"I have never concerned myself with that topic. I feel kind of uncomfortable because of my ignorance" [Burma]

The next aspect described as reason to not like a Page was participants’ self-censorship regarding political topics on Facebook or the like-feature in general, mentioned 41 times (19.07% of all generated codings), 23 times for nuclear energy (16.36%) and 18 times for Burma (21.90%).

"I don’t give political statements on Facebook, because this usually leads to endless discussions" [nuclear energy]

"I don’t want to present my political opinion about a controversial and global topic publicy on the Internet" [Burma]

The campaign topic itself as a reason to like the Page or not like the Page was mentioned 19 times (8.84%), 11 times for nuclear energy (10.00%) and 8 times for Burma (7.62%). In this context, both the attitude that the respective topic was relevant and deserved attention (along with the wish to distribute the message) was expressed as a reason to become a fan, but also the attitude that a like would not change anything (for both topics) was prevalent as a reason not to like the Page.

"I think all people on earth should be concerned with the topic, hence it should be discussed and considered" [nuclear energy]

"I doubt this will help the monks" [Burma]

The design of the Page and the presented information was mentioned 15 times (6.98%) as a reason not to like the Page, 8 times for nuclear energy (7.27%) and 7 times for Burma (6.67%).

"The Page does not cover all relevant arguments" [nuclear energy]

"I am not well-informed about the subject and the Page doesn’t seem to be official, but amateurish" [Burma]

Another aspect mentioned 15 times (6.98%, 9 times for nuclear energy/8.57% and 6 times for Burma/5.45%) is the fact that fans receive information updates from the Pages they have liked.

This was a reason to like a Page

"Because you get information, e.g. when there is news on the subject" [Burma]

as well as not to like a Page.

"I don’t find the topic particularly relevant and I wouldn’t want to constantly get status updates and information about it" [nuclear energy]

Finally, the presented friends shown as fans was mentioned 8 times as a reason (not) to like the Page (3.72%), 3 times for nuclear energy (2.73%) and 5 times for Burma (4.76%). Here, most answers do not contain specific reasons why friends’ likes affected their perception of the topic. Only one person described tie strength as relevant factor for liking a Page (see second example below):

"It was already liked by a lot of people, also my acquaintances. Hence, the topic might be interesting" [Burma]

While another person also noted that the respective friends were a reason not to like the Page:

"The Page has only been liked by people I am barely involved with" [nuclear energy]

To answer RQ7, the reasons (not) to like a Page mentioned most often seem to be associated with self-presentational concerns in the sense of self-construction and associated authenticity, namely opinion about the topic, interest in the topic and familiarity with the topic. Furthermore, self-censorship was mentioned, associated with privacy concerns but also concerns about the self-presentational audience. Finally, the last aspect associated with conformity or self-presentation was the presence or absence of fans that have liked a Page. Here, participants did not go into more detail about reasons why this is relevant.

8.4 Discussion

The aim of study 3 in the context of this thesis was to investigate conformity processes and according motives when it comes to friend-displays on Facebook. The focus here lay on the relationship towards the influencing agent(s). Furthermore, self-presentational goals and concerns were taken into account when considering liking as a conformity reaction.

The methodological approach was a correlative study, using two particular stimuli and assessing conformity (behavior and attitude) as well as according predictors via questionnaire. The stimuli

represented Facebook Ads of two campaigns (that differed with regard to familiarity and involvement) with according like-displays. The content of these like-displays was not manipulated but measured via questionnaire. To ensure a causal relationship between predictors and conformity indicators, the stimulus was presented in a way that the like-display and the actual topic of the campaign were independent. Preliminary analyses confirmed that the content of the like-displays showed no association with participants’ involvement of, familiarity with and attitude about the topic of the campaign. Consequently, it can be assumed that the stimulus was the origin of the observed effects, not the other way around. There was one exception, namely participants’ previous attitude was found to predict interaction frequency with the people shown in the stimulus. However, as no effects were found with regard to this predictor, the effect can be neglected in the following summary and discussion of the observed effects (in order of research questions).

The first two hypotheses (H1 + H2) were concerned with the question which relational characteristics affect conformity and how this effect might differ between campaigns. Effects found suggest that only similarity can predict conformity behavior. In detail, it served as predictor for like-intention and private support behavior for the familiar nuclear energy campaign and as predictor for like-intention for the unfamiliar Burma campaign. Looking at similarity as predictor, the effects can be interpreted against the background of the concept of referent informational influence (Turner, 1991) and also social reality testing (Festinger, 1945). Those two concepts are both associated with the goal of accuracy in terms of others’ behavior being indicative of subjective validity (see chapter 3.3.2.1). With regard to judgment tasks in particular, like the one at hand, similar others are assumed to serve as frame of reference (Turner, 1991). Furthermore, similarity has also been found to play an important role when it comes to self-categorization as part of a group, a process that is associated with the goal of positive self-evaluation (see chapter 3.3.2.3). When looking at results of study 1, it can be noted that similarity was often perceived as an indicator of target group fit. In the present context similarity might for example have been indicative of the degree to which the campaign topic was perceived as being fitting to one’s own general preferences and attitudes. Looking at which criterium variables were affected for the different campaigns, it is first noticeable that for nuclear energy, behavior (public and private) was affected by perceived similarity, but attitude was not. The first thing that would come to mind is the process of compliance, in which behavior is changed, but not the underlying attitude (e.g.

Festinger, 1953; Kelman, 1958; 1961). However, as also private behavior was altered by similarity, this explanation seems inaccurate. With regard to public conformity in form of liking, similarity might be indicative of a common interest and expressing that interest publicly would foster conversations with the respective people about that common interest (see results of study 1). This possibility would be likely to be associated with the conformity goal of positive self-evaluation (see discussion of study