One Click, Many Meanings: Interpreting Paralinguistic Digital Affordances in Social Media

References

• Alhabash, S., & McAlister, A. R. (2015). Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media & Society, 17, 1317–1339. doi:10.1177/1461444814523726
   Google Scholar
• Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, C. T. (2011). Online information and implications for perceptions of applicants’ organizational fit: A test of two mechanisms. (Ph.D. Dissertation), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23. doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.972282
   Google Scholar
• Chung, D. S., & Yoo, C. Y. (2008). Audience motivations for using interactive features: Distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 375–397. doi:10.1080/15205430701791048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J. D. (1992). “How are you?:” Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society, 21, 207–230. doi:10.1017/S0047404500015268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organizational Science, 5, 121–147. doi: 1047-7039/94/0502/0121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donner, J. (2008). The rules of beeping: Exchanging messages via intentional “missed calls” on mobile phones. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00383.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facebook. (2014). Like. Desktop Help. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/452446998120360
   Google Scholar
• Frith, J. (2014). Communicating through location: The understood meaning of the Foursquare check-in. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 890–905. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 211–220. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, Y., Li, Y., & Ito, N. (2014). Exploring the predicted effect of social networking site use on perceived social capital and psychological well-being of Chinese international students in Japan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 52–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. doi:10.1086/268109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, C-Y., & Yang, H-L. (In press). Determinants and consequences of Facebook feature use. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444814555959. Retrieved from http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/17/1461444814555959.abstract
   Google Scholar
• Langley, H. (2014). Creator of the Facebook “Like” explains why you’ll never get a “Dislike” button. techradad. Retrieved from http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/creator-of-the-facebook-like-explains-why-you-ll-never-get-a-dislike-button-1269788
   Google Scholar
• LaRose, R. (2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20, 194–222. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01360.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2010). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Malinowski, B. (1972). Phatic communion. In J. Laver & S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod, J. M., Bybee, C. R., & Durall, J. A. (1982). Evaluating media performance by gratification sought and received. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 3–12, 59. doi:10.1177/107769908205900101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, V. (2008). New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, 387–400. doi:10.1177/1354856508094659
   Google Scholar
• Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11, 199–220. doi:10.1177/1461444808099577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2010). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212–230). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Internet Project. (2014, January). Social media networking fact sheet. Internet & Tech. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/
   Google Scholar
• Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Rayburn, J. D. (1996). Uses and gratifications. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 97–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Reddit. (2014, September). reddiquette. reddit. Retrieved from http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 417–436). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3–37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
   Google Scholar
• Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. New York, NY: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2322–2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statista. (2014). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2014. Social Media & User-Generated Contet. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504–525. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam, D. (2012, August 22). Facebook processes more than 500 TB of data daily. CNET. Retrieved from http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-processes-more-than-500-tb-of-data-daily/
   Google Scholar
• Twitter. (2014). Glossary. Support. Retrieved from https://support.twitter.com/groups/50-welcome-to-twitter/topics/204-the-basics/articles/166337-the-twitter-glossary#f
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., Tong, S. T., DeAndrea, D., Carr, C. T., & Van Der Heide, B. (2011). A juxtaposition of social influences: Web 2.0 and the interaction of mass, interpersonal, and peer sources online. In Z. Birchmeier, B. Dietz-Uhler, & G. Stasser (Eds.), Strategic uses of social technology: An interactive perspective of social psychology (pp. 172–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, V., Tucker, J. V., & Rihll, T. E. (2011). On phatic technologies for creating and maintaining human relationships. Technology in Society, 33, 44–51. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.017
   Google Scholar
• Wohn, D. Y., & Lee, Y-H. (2013). Players of Facebook games and how they play. Entertainment Computing, 4, 171–178.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, K. B. (2002). Social support within an on-line cancer community: An assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages, and motives for using the community from a communication perspective. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 195–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo, C. Y. (2011). Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification‐seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory, 21, 67–89. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01376.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar