"The Group Influence of GroupMe" (ULWR Comm 362)
INTRODUCTION
Because of the explosion of digital devices and their services, individuals have been granted with the seemingly necessary ability to socially connect with others digitally, thus, social circles, groupings and organizations have grown exponentially. This ability to be in constant contact with one another raises the question of how one goes about organizing these giant social networks that have become the norm. Enter GroupMe, the mobile messaging application that allows users to form separate group chats with individuals in their contacts and beyond. The application answers the question of both social organization and compartmentalization by allowing those who engage with it to create separate group chats with the individuals in their network. Because of its organizational grouping feature, ability to like others’ contributions through the tapping of the heart icon itself, and the way GroupMe promotes the like affordance as a response, I aim to explore the idea that GroupMe encourages message contributions more as a means of gaining approval from one’s peers and less as a contribution to the conversation that is authentic in original thought.
DATA
In order to fully understand why I wish to further explore the possibility that GroupMe’s various affordances may be contributing to the way individuals perform themselves within the chat, I completed a close reading of GroupMe in comparison to another messaging system which lacks the affordances GroupMe has. Through this comparison, I composed a dense explanation of each messaging systems’ characteristics, qualities and practices. First looking closely at iMessage, it is important to note that this mobile messaging application is available only to Apple products including: iPhones, iPads, iPod touches and Macintosh computers. iMessage allows the user to converse with words, emojis, photos and videos. The user can create group messages and name them, much like GroupMe, and the groups virtually have no cap, meaning there can be as many people in them as one desires. When a user opens iMessage on their iPhone, iPad or Mac, they are greeted with a list of every private and group conversation they have not deleted. Looking at what I’m particularly interested in, the group feature of iMessage, one can click a group they are a part of in the application, and all individuals’ names will appear as they do in that user’s contact list. The user can also click “Details” in the upper right corner, and they can find a full list of everyone in the group chat, an option to share locations, an option to “mute” (or not receive notifications from that group), an option to leave the group and a full archived gallery of any photos that were ever sent.
Turning to GroupMe, the application is very similar, and it allows for essentially all of what iMessage does, plus further affordances. Unlike iMessage, which is only accesible with iOS software, GroupMe is available for iOS, Android and Windows products. Like iMessage, the groups have no cap, they can be named and they allow for the sending of videos, emojis, photos and text. However, a GroupMe user does not need to have an individual in their contact list to add them to a chat. With GroupMe, the application remembers individuals the user has been in past chats with, and they have the ability to create groups and direct messages with individuals who may not be in their contact lists, but whom they have conversed with in past GroupMe chats. Users on the app can also create mini profiles of themselves, complete with an identifying photo and customary user name, and they can connect their username to their Facebook and Twitter accounts.
When the user first opens the application, they will see a stream of all the groups they are currently in. The individual has the option of opening any of these chats, and once the chat is open, they can begin to send messages, photos, etc. If the user clicks on the group’s photo, which appears in the upper right hand corner of the screen, a drop down menu appears where they can look at every individual who is in the group, a gallery (complete with any photo ever shared in the group), a calendar (where individuals can add events for the entire group to see), a settings tab (where individuals can clear the chat history, mute and/or leave the group) and a “popular” tab. This popular tab shows messages from the past day, week and month that have received the most likes from the group.
This leads me to my final and crucial difference that I look to further examine in my claim about GroupMe: the application’s affordance of a like button, one that is not afforded in other messaging systems such as iMessage. When a user sends a message to the group, those involved with the group have the option to tap a small heart icon, which appears next to the message sent. If an individual clicks on the heart, this means they liked the message. All users have the ability to click any message sent in the group chat to see who liked it, and the popular tab on the menu reveals the messages that have received the most likes in the group (from the past day, week and month.) Because of the digital approval through likes that GroupMe affords, a support that other group messaging systems, such as iMessage lack, I aim to further explore why these affordances are present and what implications they might come with, as I look into the specific aspects of my claim about the application.
BACKGROUND/ LITERATURE REVIEW
According to groupme.com, Jared Hecht and Steve Martocci founded the application in the summer of 2010. Hecht was the former creator of Tumblr, while Martocci worked with a different application, Gilte Groupe, before the two founded GroupMe together. They were inspired by a project conceived at the TechCrunch Disrupt Hackathon, a day and a half dedicated to the creation and implementation of new technological products and services. According to TechCrunch, the only project that became an actual business on this hackathon was GroupMe, and it raised a good amount of funding from top tier investors. With top tier investors and the affordances of the application itself, GroupMe took off, and it has established itself in the world of popular digital applications. In 2011, Skype acquired GroupMe for a whopping $85 million dollars, giving consumers another reason to believe just how valuable this application has become (Shontell, 2011).
Looking at how GroupMe’s various features have made the application’s influence what it is, it is important to look at the effects that organized, large group settings have on the way individuals present themselves. In a study conducted by York University, researchers found that when placed in a group setting, reinforcement for agreeing with a group message elicited more conformity than social pressure in the group without reinforcement. In summary, the study shows, “the situational factor of reinforcement is a more important determinant of conformity than the motivational factor of social approval” (Endler, Minden & North, 1973). The study illustrates that when individuals are placed in a group setting and receive reinforcement from those in the group, this reinforcement is a strong determinant of how their behavior is shaped. The reinforcement the people received was a stronger cause of how the individuals altered their performance to conform to the opinions of the group, and it was a greater influence than the other factor under examination: psychological motivation for social approval.
Further delving into the way group organization on social media shapes an individual’s online performance, The New York Times looks at how individuals’ brains are chemically wired to feel included within a group setting, where that inclusion often entails gaining support from peers through likes and further social media support. The article notes that, “Social media exacerbates the satisfaction of feeling part of a group, and the pain associated with feeling excluded from a group” (Feiler, 2014). Social media has the ability to intensify the pleasure users receive from receiving support on social media, but conversely it also has the ability to deepen the pain users feel if they receive a lack thereof. Looking deeper at this pain, the article goes on to mention, “While getting a lot of likes feels great, the feeling of rejection from not getting them is often greater” (Feiler, 2014). With a fear of rejection chemically wired into the brains of individuals, an individual’s natural response is to do whatever possible to avoid confirming this fear of rejection within a group setting, especially when such a fear is magnified even more so in social media settings.
Looking at how the act of liking may foster a certain sort of identity performance amongst users, Giddings and Lister note, “There are distinct approaches to self-representation in the sites studied, which Stern summarises as ‘spirited’, ‘sombre’, and ‘self-conscious’ sites. Each of these develops new ways of making private practices of identity construction public, such as light-hearted listings of likes and dislikes” (Giddings & Lister, p. 268, 1999). This source makes the argument that the layout of the sites affects how individuals construct their own identities, and they note that the liking feature of these sites has a large role in that effect. Giddings and Lister discuss that the ability to physically like things people posts on these sites affect what the users decide to publish. The identities being performed on these sites are ‘spirited’ and ‘self-conscious’ because their performance is partially shaped by what they feel those viewing it will approve.
Turning to another study that examines how likes affect the identity performance of individuals, in a journal comparing women’s uses of Facebook and Instagram, researchers aimed to compare how women use Facebook and Instagram for self-portrayal and what that portrayal means to them. A noted crucial finding in the study explains, “The most important finding was the appreciation and focus on Instagram, and it was interpreted as attributing Instagram a higher importance for self-portrayal…they communicated with and received confirmation from their followers through ‘likes’” (Aerni, p. 47, 2014). The study found that likes were a crucial factor in shaping how and what these women decided to portray. Further noted in the article, a woman states, “‘If there weren’t automatically a couple of likes on my photo, then I would know it was weird or not accepted” (Aerni, p. 28, 2014). The stressed importance of likes and the verbal confirmation this woman gives in explicitly stating that she alters what she publishes based on the responses she receives, confirms speculation that peers’ responses can alter how individuals perform their own online identities and what the individuals deem as acceptable to be posted on social media.
Lastly, looking at how the shape of the icon creates an ease in offering support to other individuals, Twitter’s product manager just recently released this statement with an important change they’ve made in the layout of their site, “We are changing our star icon for favorites to a heart and we’ll be calling them likes. We want to make Twitter easier and more rewarding to use, and we know that at times the star could be confusing, especially to newcomers. You might like a lot of things, but not everything can be your favorite” (Kumar, 2015). The product manager is explicitly stating that Twitter is implementing this icon change because they want you to feel comfortable liking (hearting) a lot of things, where as favorites (stars) are seen as more of a commitment. As he says, not everything can be a favorite, but you can like a lot. The heart icon is a feature that has come to connote a like, and the company is adopting it in hopes of creating an environment where users feel they can freely and casually show their support for others online.
INTERPRETATION/ANALYSIS
First, in order to fully understand how GroupMe’s liking affordance is unique in that it has been emphasized as a key component to messaging within the application, it is meaningful to see the distinct difference between GroupMe and iMessage in terms of what each company highlights as vital to a messaging experience. Looking at iMessage, Apple’s website notes that it is important to know someone has received your message, and they discuss how speech bubbles are crucial because they allow you to see when someone is typing. For Apple, this is valued in messaging because according to them, “nobody likes to be interrupted” (Apple, 1997). They are making the assumption that every text message elicits a curated response, and since people are taking the time to respond, they do not want to be interrupted. In this assumption, it is clear that Apple values conversation as a thought contribution, an understanding, and ultimately, an exchange process. If someone is taking the time to reach out to an individual over digital message, Apple promotes the idea that their messages should be read and responded to.
Looking at the clear difference in what GroupMe emphasizes, the website addresses their value of the like in messaging noting, “Sometimes the message doesn’t need a text response. Tap the heart to show you care” (GroupMe, 2010). With this simple explanation, GroupMe demonstrates that they uphold a different value-set when it comes to messaging. While Apple seems to promote thought response and contribution, GroupMe says a tap of a heart is enough of a response. Because GroupMe is promoting this affordance and classifying the like as a form of a reply, it seems they have made the decision to afford likes on messages in order to add an easier means of “response.” They are making the assumption that sometimes taking the time to create a message reaction might be too much effort, so by adding the heart, you can show you care without actually taking the time to show you care through the drafting and sending of an original message.
The content of the company’s website sets up the driving idea that is further explored throughout the following analysis. If GroupMe promotes the idea to consumers, that a like is response enough, the company fosters the attitude that individuals do not need to take the time to generate an original thought contribution in return because a like will suffice. By accepting a like as a response, there may be an overall decrease in original, generated text message responses amongst the users of GroupMe. Beyond just the decrease of original messages in general, by promoting likes as acceptable “responses”, the probability of social influence affecting group members’ contributions caused by likes on a message might be more probable. Because the application is not promoting the like affordance as a means of approval, but rather they are promoting it as a way to respond to others, individuals may be more willing to like messages if they view the affordance as a way of responding. This may further contribute to the illustrated influence that likes have on what individuals decide to post or contribute to the chat, one which is further explored throughout the subsequent analysis.
Looking further at the influence likes have on what individuals contribute, GroupMe further cultivates message contribution more as a means of gaining social approval rather than a message that is authentic in thought simply by affording users with the ability to like messages. It was noted within several studies that individuals were influenced based on what they saw their peers liked. Similar to the “self-consciousness” Giddings and Lister discuss, as well as how the women in the Instagram study deem what they find acceptable to post based off of this digital support, the liking feature that GroupMe offers comes with that same social guidance. With the ability to show approval of individuals’ messages, the identities performed within the GroupMe chat may be altered based on what the contributors feel will gain support from their peers, rather than a more authentic performance of their true identity that might exist without the option to receive such encouragement.
GroupMe employs the same liking affordance as Instagram and other social media sites, but instead of likes on photos or statuses, it’s likes on messages. As the women in the Instagram study did, and in the observation of an individual’s self-conscious online representation as noted by Giddings and Lister, users of GroupMe may decide how and what to contribute to the group based off likes they receive from their peers. Ultimately, this ability to like has the capability of altering how users portray themselves within conversation. If someone wants to contribute something to the chat, but they feel like it might not receive likes, mirroring the behaviors of the individuals in the studies of social media applications with this same feature, they may choose to withhold that original thought and alter it to something they think others will find more acceptable. Rather than the seemingly more authentic thought contributions that would occur in messaging systems without this liking feature and resulting social media pressure, such as iMessage, GroupMe provides a social media affordance that has proven to shape how people present themselves to their network, whether that be online or within a chat in GroupMe.
Looking at how the literature and affordances of GroupMe further foster message contributions as a means of gaining group endorsement, the casualty of the heart icon chosen to drive the likes of the application is an important player in such cultivation. As noted earlier, with Twitter employing the heart feature in the hopes of creating an environment where users feel they can freely show their support for other individuals, this provides evidence for the idea that the heart icon, whether it is a tweet or a message on GroupMe, is something that comes with a relatively casual liking connotation. Because liking is a more relaxed action than something like favoriting it makes the display of social approval for one another within the chat super accessible. With that accessibility, it is easy for users to acknowledge what they like/support. The influence on messages becomes even more probable because the heart icon is accepted as showing support, but it is not tied to a connoted commitment that comes with other icons, such as a star. The more people accept this non-commitment idea as true, the more likely they are to freely show support for messages, and the more likely messages are to be affected in seeing this increase in support, support that is so easy to give because of the casualty the heart icon connotes.
Lastly, it is important to understand how the organizational grouping feature of GroupMe further encourages message contribution as a means of gaining social approval, rather than input that is authentic in thought. Looking at the study conducted by The New York Times, individuals’ fears of group exclusion were intensified in social media settings and in the York study, reinforcement had a huge effect on an individual’s conformity within the group. Looking at the fear of being excluded from a group through the absence of social media approval from peers, it is interesting to know that this fear psychologically drives users to present themselves in a way that will allow them to feel included within their own social media community. Participating in a chat on GroupMe automatically places the user within an “inclusive” circle of social media users, but the actions executed can keep them feeling included within that community or have them feeling exiled from it. If individuals do not receive the virtual support they crave, they may feel isolated within the chat.
As noted in The New York Times article, this intense fear of isolation has the ability to influence users to curate their messages in a way that will allow them to feel accepted and included within the chat. Knowing that acceptance is felt through the receiving of likes on their messages, individuals’ contributions may be shaped to receive this inclusion they psychologically crave. On the psychological note of group influence, but in the opposite manner of fear, the York study showed that reinforcement had a large effect on how individuals shaped their behavior within groups. Reinforcement was a greater determinant of conformity than the motivational factor of social approval. Thus, this further makes sense of the idea that likes (digital reinforcement) possess the power to alter how individuals decide to construct and convey their messages within group settings afforded by GroupMe chats, even more so than sheer motivation itself, thus even more so than other group chat settings in other applications like iMessage.
DISCUSSION
Looking at the data gathered in combination with both the synthesis of the background literature and my own interpretation and analysis of how and why GroupMe affords the things it does, I believe the research conducted in this paper supports my claim that GroupMe encourages message contributions more as a means of gaining approval from one’s peers and less as a contribution to the conversation that is authentic in original thought. Because of the application’s organizational grouping feature, ability to like others’ contributions through the casualty of the heart icon, and the way the company promotes the like affordance as a form of response, the way the application has been organized, what it culturally implies, and what it affords leads to less genuine conversation. Face-to-face conversation and generic messaging applications, such as iMessage, do not offer the ability for people to like messages. Similar to liking a Facebook status or an Instagram post, GroupMe allows for a liking affordance that has become so common amongst various social media platforms. The ability to show support adds a layer of social media pressure and approval that is usually absent from other messaging systems, such as iMessage and real-life conversation.
However, going off of this liking affordance and its similarity to Facebook and Instagram, the feature brings up a question that might not support the claim I seem to have solidified throughout the duration of my paper. While liking something generally means the user genuinely feels a like towards it, sometimes a like on social media can actually mean dislike, or rather, it may mean that someone just has some sort of feeling towards the post. They are evoked by it in some way, and thus they show they have been evoked by the expression by liking it, even if they do not really like it. For example, if somebody is asking to borrow an item of clothing from a friend, and they only receive likes on the message, they are not receiving any useful feedback, but rather they are receiving minimal acknowledgement from their peers. If an individual were to notice a trend of purely likes and a lack of any textual response from their peers, this could contribute to ingenuity not only within the group chat, but ingenuity within the relationships themselves. If the idea that giving a like to someone might not mean a genuine feeling of like, but rather just any sort of feeling, the ideas of approval influencing message curating that I have illustrated throughout my paper would be challenged. It would bring into question whether likes on a message might illustrate and contribute to shallowness in relationships with individuals, rather than fakeness in message contribution due to what is not actual approval, but rather just an acknowledgment.
CONCLUSION
Based on my close reading, my extensive review of past literature and my own interpretation/ analysis, I believe that my claim that GroupMe encourages message contributions more as a means of gaining approval from one’s peers and less as a contribution to the conversation that is authentic in original thought was shown to be true. Although my personal research supports this claim, there were many limitations that constrain the truth of my claim to this paper alone. For starters, there is a very limited amount of research on GroupMe in general. Nearly all of the things I claim and show support for are tied to some other social media device with the same features. Had there been concrete studies examining the direct effects of the liking feature on GroupMe messages, I would have had more definitive support of my claim being replicated in past research. Although my paper’s claim and subsequent backing were based off of many connections of the application to other applications that offer the same affordances, it brings to light many ideas and legitimate ties that would benefit from further research on the GroupMe. With all of these undeniable and supported connections between social media applications’ post likes and GroupMe’s messaging likes, a further investigation of this application and the liking feature, and how that feature influences an individual’s message creation would definitely be one of interest and legitimacy.
References
(1997). In Apple. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com
(2010). In GroupMe. Retrieved from https://groupme.com Aerni, M.
(1997). The passionate ‘sharing’ of creative women: A Study of self-portrayal on Facebook and Instagram (Master's thesis).
Feiler, B. (2014, May). For the Love of Being ‘Liked’ [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. ST2.
Kumar, A. (2015, November). Hearts on Twitter. In Twitter. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
Lister, M., Giddings, S., Dovey, J., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 250-270). New York City, NY: Routledge. Retrieved October 27, 2015.
Shontell, A. (2011, August). How GroupMe Sold For $85 Million Just 370 Days After Launch. In Business Insider. Retrieved November 4, 2015.