The structure of conversations on social networks: Between dialogic and dialectic threads

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.04.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Conversations on social media can be dialogic or dialectic.

  • In dialogic conversations, social media users interact among themselves.

  • In dialectic conversations, social media users interact with the company.

  • Modern social media are characterized by dialogic conversations.

  • Young users consider dialogic conversations more informative than dialectic ones.

Abstract

The structure of conversations on social networks may affect the users’ perceptions regarding the informative value of the conversations. Consequently, to draw the maximum benefit from social networks, companies should understand which form these online conversations take. The paper argues that the conversations on social networks can have two forms: (1) dialogic: users interacting among themselves; (2) dialectic: users interacting with the company. Through three empirical studies, the research suggests that users express some preference for dialogic conversations, and young users have a higher tendency than senior users to consider dialogic conversations more informative than the dialectic alternative. These results suggest that social media managers should shape the layout and design of social media platforms to support dialogic conversations, encouraging horizontal interactions among users.

Introduction

Social media represent a radical revolution through which companies redefine the manner in which they conduct business. The new era of the Web is characterized by user-generated content (UGC) and co-creation (Kozinets, Hemetsberger, & Schau, 2008), and social media are the ideal platform for the co-creation of value. Value creation is no longer the exclusive terrain of the company – offering consumers the final output of its process – and now encompasses the direct interaction between the company and an empowered customer (Antorini, Muñiz, & Askildsen, 2012; Füller et al., 2009, Ritzer, 2014). The typical form of online interaction is that of conversations through which actors create knowledge and value (Kuk, 2006). There is today a renewed need to understand the best structure of conversations on social media so that the company can improve its communications strategy performance and user experiences. The paper argues that conversations in social media take two main forms: dialogic (i.e., horizontal interactions among peers) and dialectic (i.e., exclusively vertical interaction with the source of an input, such as the company’s comment initiating the thread). Through three empirical studies, the paper investigates social media users’ preference between dialogic and dialectic conversations, both in general and in a product-related context. The results emerging from the study and managerial implications are then discussed. The paper aims to answer the question of how organizations can effectively and efficiently exploit social media by monitoring and managing the structure of online conversations.

In Information Systems studies, a “growing body of research is examining […] networks to gain a better understanding of how firms interact with their consumers, how people interact with each other” (Sundararajan et al., 2013; p. 883). The focus of those studies is in the network and its structure, while less is known about the preferences of users for a given conversational structure. By analyzing both the network structure of a conversation and the perception of online users, our work contributes to advance the knowledge on this gap by studying the preference of online users towards a dialogic vs. a dialectic structure of conversations.

Section snippets

Interactions on social media

The variety of social media available for business is striking. Today, collaborative platforms, blogs, virtual worlds, and social networks of any sort offer enterprises of any size a vast repertoire of communication and collaborative tools (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). A key mandate for firms is to integrate all these tools into a common communication strategy (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011). One aspect of this integration is to adopt key performance indicators (KPIs) that would be used as

Empirical studies: users’ perceptions of the structures of online conversations

As noted above, there is no much knowledge about the perceptions of users on dialogic vs. dialectic structures. We therefore illustrate the empirical study addressing the perceptions of users. Study 1 addresses RQ1; Study 2 and 3 address RQ2. Study 1 assesses the general preference of online users for dialogic or dialectic conversations. Study 2 analyzes the difference between young and senior users in terms of their preference. Finally, Study 3 adopts a product-related conversation among

Discussion and conclusions

Conversation structures in social networks play a crucial role. A simple Like, retweet, or single replies to online content cannot satisfy a company’s need for a rich conversation around content posted online. Dialogic conversations are richer than dialectic conversations because they engage users in interactions among themselves rather than simple interactions with the initial content. Modern forms of social media (e.g., Facebook) are more likely to host dialogic conversations than past social

Limits and future research

In our research, respondents were presented with a simulation of dialogic and dialectic conversations. This research design ensures that the respondents would focus on the structure of the conversation rather than the specificities of its content. However, this design presents a limit that future researches can overcome, by studying the preference of users with respect to real conversations. The study asked respondent to evaluate conversations in which they were not involved. Further studies

References (40)

  • S.P. Borgatti et al.

    Network analysis in the social sciences

    Science

    (2012)
  • d. boyd

    Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life

  • B.S. Butler et al.

    An attraction-selection-attrition theory of online community size and resilience

    MIS Quarterly

    (2014)
  • N.B. Ellison et al.

    The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites

    Journal of Computer Mediated Communication

    (2007)
  • J. Füller et al.

    Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation

    Journal of Management Information Systems

    (2009)
  • S. Faraj et al.

    Network exchange patterns in online communities

    Organization Science

    (2011)
  • S. Faraj et al.

    Leading collaborations in online communities

    MIS Quarterly

    (2015)
  • C. Fuchs et al.

    The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand

    Journal of Marketing

    (2010)
  • S. Gonzalez-Bailon et al.

    The structure of political discussion networks: a model for the analysis of online deliberation

    Journal of Information Technology

    (2010)
  • C. Grönroos et al.

    Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation

    Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

    (2013)
  • Cited by (9)

    • Exploring key indicators of social identity in the #MeToo era: Using discourse analysis in UGC

      2020, International Journal of Information Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      One of the main characteristics of social platforms is the ease with which users can change their identity, their form of interaction, behavior and their social appearance. This makes it easier for users to present different identities (Bucholtz & Hall, 2008) or experience changes in these identities influenced by the polarization and acculturation while interacting with other users (Pace, Buzzanca, & Fratocchi, 2016); all these trends modify users’ behavior, preferences, and social identity (Grover et al., 2019). This paper focuses on an in-depth analysis of social identity.

    • Meet The Truth: Leverage Objective Facts and Subjective Views for Interpretable Rumor Detection

      2021, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text