Twitter users prefer information to being social

Twitter of FacebookTwitter is a great social network – after all, you can have quick conversations with people, sharing your thoughts about a TV programme “live”, or commenting on a soccer player’s mishaps on the field with other Tweeters in the stadium. You can even tell people you are eating a cheese sandwich, if you wish. However, when you look at a stream of Tweets you will notice it is full of links – these take you to blog posts, to pictures, to videos, essentially to other sources of information.

Over at Facebook, the density of links is lower. People hold conversations and share pictures, or their play games with groups of like-minded friends. But the sharing of information and leading people towards other sites appears to be lower.

Could it be that Facebook is “more social” than Twitter? Do we use these different social networks for alternative purposes?

These are the kind of questions which are partially answered by a new research study from the University of Manchester. The research looked at 300 social networking users and was trying to find out if there was any connection between personality type and which social network people used. The study did not really find any strong connection between measures of personality and either Twitter or Facebook. There were some minor variations, but nothing significant.

However, the study revealed a difference in the way people tended to use these social networks. It transpires that Twitter users seek more fulfilment of the “need for cognition” – the psychological term for the desire to be mentally stimulated. This suggests that what we want when using Twitter are those links to more useful information, whereas we don’t look for this when we are on Facebook.

It means that if you wish to make the most of Twitter you need to be sure you add links to useful information – not just fun stuff, but material which people will find interesting and valuable. But if you do this on Facebook, the research implies that you will get lower engagement because that’s not the kind of thing we want to find on that social network.

The research is not really conclusive, but it does demonstrate that we do appear to use different social networks for alternative purposes. That means if you are using social media as a means of promoting your business or connecting with your customers, you should provide slightly different kinds of content on each network you engage with. On Twitter, provide links to thought-provoking material – on Facebook, just chat about that material.

Useful items
  • Blog Profit Crusher Blog Profit Crusher 8 Module Course, Checklists, Process Map and Worksheets - Special Discount
  • Niche Video Site Builder This is the most popular video website builders. Improved years after years, it now powers more than 350,000 video websites on the Internet with its unsurpassed features.
  • 3 WordPress Premium Business Themes - I 3 Amazing WordPress Premium Business with Developers License.

Don’t be too honest on Facebook

Truthfulness on Facebook can be negativeFacebook users are nothing if not honest. Several studies have shown that we are frequently more truthful online than we are in the flesh. Want to know the “real person” you meet? Take a look at what they say on Facebook and other social networks and you’ll glimpse parts of their personality they keep hidden from view in the “real world”. This is such a well-known feature of social networking that no self-respecting recruitment consultant would dare to employ anyone without first checking out an applicant’s activity on Facebook or LinkedIn, for instance.

But there is a reason why we are “economical with the truth” in the real world; it enables cooperation. The human species depends upon collaborative behaviour – it is how we succeed. After all, no matter how much the movie “The Social Network” might want us to think that Facebook was the pioneering invention of one man, Mark Zuckerberg, in reality it was and still is a massive team effort. Similarly, try getting oil out of the ground without collaboration, or indeed running any business without the support of others. It is cooperation which makes us succeed.

However, we don’t always get collaboration if the people around us do not like us. So our behaviours are geared to getting other people to think positively about us. But what if there is an aspect of our personality they might not like? Well, we don’t show it to them. And how do we know not to show them aspects of our thinking and behaviour which they might not like? We use feedback mechanisms to determine what to display about ourselves. These include verbal communication, tone of voice, body language and a host of other features which enable us to assess – often instantly – whether or not we should say something to another person. If we reveal part of  our personality which their prior communication suggests they may not like, then we hold back. We are economical with the truth and the result is we gain cooperation – the big behaviour prize.

Online, however, we do not have such efficient and complex methods of feedback. Tone of voice is missing, as are those micro-muscular changes in facial muscles which help us determine what another person might be thinking. On the Internet, we are working very much in the dark as far as communication is concerned.

So, over on Facebook what do we do? Well because we don’t have those effective feedback systems available to us, we just resort to being honest. It’s all we have. But that loses friends, not gains them. This is shown in research on people with low self-esteem. The study found that when people have negative self-feelings they say so on Facebook. But this makes them less appealing to their friends and it loses them the connections they so desperately need in order to boost their self-esteem. In other words, Facebook works against them, not for them.

This makes sense, of course. When someone is merely typing negative stuff, it is not the kind of material we want to read if we are in a cooperative mood. In the “real world” such negative thinking tends to be addressed straight away by a group of friends, who rally round and encourage the person with low self-esteem. It stems the negativity at the source. But on Facebook the negative diatribe simply puts people off connecting. In other words, the honest feelings of the person with low self-esteem makes them less appealing to other people – the complete reverse of what the individual is trying to achieve.

Now, you may not have poor self-esteem, but this study should be a warning to you. It suggests that before posting anything on a social network like Facebook you need to think: how will what I say come across without tone of voice, without body language, without those facial expressions? If there is any room for doubt, maybe you should select another communications method.

Useful items

Profile pictures online should be baby-faced

Profile pictures depend on your eyes

What is the first thing you look at when you land on someone’s social network profile page? When you look at an “About Us” web page, where do your eyes go? If you are like the bulk of Internet users you will focus your attention on the eyes of the person pictured. And, according to research you will make a decision whether or not you like that person within 100ms. In one-tenth of a second, a mere blink, you will have assessed the profile pictures of the people you are looking at and decided whether to trust them. Either we are pretty shallow, or we have highly sophisticated mechanisms within our brains to help us make such judgements.

So, the kind of image you have on your website or on your social networking profiles will influence whether people wish to connect with you. Have the right profile pictures on Facebook or Twitter, for instance, and you’ll get more friends and followers. Similarly, if your company’s “About Us” page has an appropriate image of you, the business could well do better. But what is the right kind of picture? There is much debate online as to whether your profile picture should be head-and-shoulders, or a full body shot of you in some setting you enjoy, such as that picture of you beside your Ferrari, or windsurfing in the Mediterranean. Such images give a glimpse of your personality, true, but they don’t allow your website visitors to see what they really want. They want to look into your eyes.

Hence a close-up, head-and-shoulders, shot does allow your profile visitors to start making those judgements about you. But what if they don’t like what they see in your eyes? They can see what they want to make that snap judgement, but if they assess your character to be less than trustworthy within just 100ms, you could have lost them for ever.

Thankfully, new research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem shows us what we need to choose as our profile pictures. You need the most baby-faced picture you can get of yourself. The study used photo-editing software to manipulate the images of politicians so that the area around the eyes was softened. Then, the before and after shots were tested to see how far these politicians were trusted. And, you guessed it, the baby-faced pictures with the wrinkles ironed-out were the ones which got the positive votes. Even the political enemies of these people trusted them more when they were baby-faced than when they were natural.

Now, this does not mean you should rush out and start airbrushing all your profile pictures. But it does imply that if you choose a picture which enhances your youthful looks you will do better online. And how do you get such profile pictures without faking them? Simple. You need to get your profile pictures shot professionally by a photographer. Simple snaps done by your mate or your children will not be lit properly to make you look your best. But if you ask a professional photographer to help hide your wrinkles, they’ll know exactly what to do so that you get a truthful image which shows your baby-face.

Useful items

Princess Diana and Bin Laden are both alive and well…! Really?

Did Princess Diana fake her own death?Princess Diana shares something with Osama Bin Laden apparently – like him, she is alive…! Trust me, it must be true because several people believe it and say so online. Yes, they are conspiracy theorists, admittedly. But there are plenty of people chatting away on the Internet who suggest, for instance, that Princess Diana faked her own death or that Bin Laden was already dead when the special forces stormed the building where he had been living. The problem with these people is that their beliefs are contradictory. Did you notice that the people who believe that Bin Laden is alive also claim he was dead at the time of the raid…? Er…how is that possible? And the people who believe that Princess Diana faked her own death also appear to think that she was assassinated by the authorities. Again, she cannot be both dead and alive at the same time.

Conspiracy theories are rife on the Internet. Only recently there was a theory circulating on the web that the Italian cruise ship, the Costa Concordia, had been torpedoed by the Iranians. When it was pointed out that there was no explosion, but a gaping hole with a rock embedded in the side of the hull, the conspiracy theorists explained it away by the “fact” that the Iranians had perfected the technique of disguising torpedoes as rocks. The contradiction in the physics of not being able to behave in a torpedo-like way if you were shaped as a rock, somehow did not seem to matter.

And how many times have you heard that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon because the whole Apollo programme was made-up by the US Government in league with Hollywood…?  The fact that this hoax needs the 50-year-long co-operation of hundreds of thousands of scientists and film crew members seems to escape the conspiracy theorists because it can be “explained away” by the notion that “hardly anyone knew”, not even the astronauts themselves apparently…! So, the theory is you don’t send them to the moon but make them and everyone else think they have been, thanks to the support of a handful of exceptional experts who have all stayed silent since. Once again, the contradictory nature of the moon landing conspiracy escapes the consciousness of the people who support such theories.

New research from the University of Kent, UK, shows that if someone believes an “official story” is untrue, then they become willing to accept contradictory notions – such as Princess Diana faking her own death and also being killed by MI5 or MI6. The contradictory nature of the various theories is seemingly invisible to people because of their fundamental desire to accept that the official story is untrue. That belief seems to “trump” the contradictions.

In the online world – where such contradictory theories can circulate rapidly and easily – it means that we need to be particularly wary. If someone is unwilling to accept any official story for whatever reason, then it appears changing their mind with logical argument is unlikely as they will counter such debate with illogical and contradictory claims, without seeing the nonsense of their viewpoint.

For online businesses this can be a problem too. The people who believe that a company is simply out to profiteer, to fleece the individual, are willing to accept that whilst also believing that the firm is deliberately making losses. A company cannot make a profit and a loss at the same time, but the conspiracy theorists would think that possible.

It all rather suggests that if you suffer from conspiracy theorists attacking your views or your company’s position if you are in business, then the best thing you can do is completely ignore them. If you enter the debate you will just fuel the fire of illogicality and contradiction.

Useful items
  • 3 WordPress Premium Business Themes - I 3 Amazing WordPress Premium Business with Developers License.
  • Niche Video Site Builder This is the most popular video website builders. Improved years after years, it now powers more than 350,000 video websites on the Internet with its unsurpassed features.
  • Blog Profit Crusher Blog Profit Crusher 8 Module Course, Checklists, Process Map and Worksheets - Special Discount

Stephen Hester cannot help it – you should blame his Mum and Dad

Stephen Hester, the embattled boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland, cannot help being the current most-disliked man in Britain. It is not his fault that his employers decided to pay him £1.2m a year. Neither is he to blame that they decided to give him a bonus worth almost as much. But would he be as disliked as he is today if he had a different name? What if he were Tarquin Hester or Dave Hester or Jonathan Hester? The fact of the matter is, his name affects what we think of him.

Names affect usSo, if he is somewhat reviled today you can blame his Mum and Dad for choosing “Stephen” instead of a name that the rest of us might prefer – sorry if your name is Stephen…!

Your name has a significant impact upon what other people think about you. For example, it has been shown to have an effect on your academic performance because your teachers, presumably subconsciously, react better to some names than others. People with certain names do better at school than others. Choosing your child’s name can have a major effect on their life.

New research confirms the “name effect”. The study, conducted in Germany and the USA, found that the names of individuals affected, for instance, the extent of interest in them in online dating sites. The names of individuals were also related to measurements of self-esteem and smoking – people with negative names smoked more and also had lower levels of self-esteem. That’s probably linked to perceived lack of like-ability; because of their name some people get fewer social connections and feel less popular, which makes them think negatively about themselves.

So, if you lack followers on Twitter, or friends on Facebook it might be simply that your name is “wrong”. Human beings might like to profess we are not prejudiced against particular names, but this study – and others before it – show that we are biased against certain names and that we favour others. You might do better online if you use your nick-name, or your middle name.

Alternatively we could all call ourselves the most popular and most highly rate name found in this new research – Alexander. If we were talking about Alexander Hester today, the coverage would be a lot less negative. Still, at least his parents didn’t call him Kevin.  The research shows that is the most disliked name of all. Apologies to Kevins reading this…!

Useful items

Some of the links on this page are Affiliate Links and lead to sites where I can earn commission income should you buy anything. Graham Jones is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk

This site uses cookies. For more information please see the Privacy page.