Personality Influences on Etiquette Requirements for Social Media in the Work Context

When Jaunty Juveniles Communicate with Serious Suits
  • André Calero Valdez
  • Anne Kathrin Schaar
  • Martina Ziefle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)


Today social media is used extensively in both private and professional contexts, with using habits and conventions shaped by the private using context. It is unknown how in the users perception professional social media usage might differ from the private context and which implicit or explicit etiquette criteria apply. With an empirical questionnaire approach (N=99, ages 20-59) we examined the impact of perceived formal correctness, formal politeness and workflow compatibility of social media applications (email, blog and chat) on the acceptance of social media in the working context. We additionally analyzed the impact of personality on users perceptions toward social media etiquette. Therefore we examined correlations between two Five Factor Model (FFM or Big Five) personality traits (conscientiousness and agreeableness) and requirements for formal correctness, formal politeness and compatibility. Linear regression shows that requirements for social media etiquette are strongly influenced by conscientiousness, age and social media expertise. Differences in etiquette are evaluated in regard to formal addressing, correct spelling, acronym and emoticon usage, work disruption and perceived urgency. Furthermore differences in etiquette between different media are explained.


Social media technology acceptance etiquette personality user centred-design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53(1), 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holzinger, K., Holzinger, A., Safran, C., Koiner-Erath, G., Weippl, E.: Use of wiki systems in archaeology: Privacy, security and data protection as key problems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Intern. Conf. on e-Business (ICE-B), pp. 1–4 (July 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maier, R.: Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drucker, P.F.: The information executives truly need. Harvard Business Review 73(1), 54–63 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erlich, A., Bichard, J.A.: The welcoming workplace: designing for ageing knowledge workers. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 10(4), 273–285 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calero Valdez, A., Schaar, A.K., Ziefle, M., Holzinger, A., Jeschke, S., Brecher, C.: Using mixed node publication network graphs for analyzing success in interdisciplinary teams. In: Huang, R., Ghorbani, A.A., Pasi, G., Yamaguchi, T., Yen, N.Y., Jin, B. (eds.) AMT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7669, pp. 606–617. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D.: The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Comp. Hum. Beh. 20(2), 201–223 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hickey, R.: The german address system. Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Pragmatics and beyond New Series 107, 401–425 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Westbrook, L.: Chat reference communication patterns and implications: applying politeness theory. Journal of Documentation 63(5), 638–658 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D.: Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5), 974–983 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Satow, L.: Big-five-persönlichkeitstest (B5T): Test- und Skalendokumentation. (July 2012),
  12. 12.
    Richter, A., Stocker, A., Mller, S., Avram, G.: Knowledge management goals revisited – a cross-sectional analysis of social software adoption in corporate environments. In: ACIS 2011 Proceedings (January 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior 23(6), 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electronic Journal of Health Informatics 6(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calero Valdez, A., Schaar, A.K., Ziefle, M.: State of the (net) work address developing criteria for applying social networking to the work environment. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41, 3459–3467 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaar, A.K., Calero Valdez, A., Ziefle, M.: Social media for the eHealth context. a requirement assessment. Adv. in Human Aspects of Healthcare 10, 79 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richter, A., Koch, M.: Functions of social networking services. In: Proc. Intl. Conf. on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-le-Rouet, France. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rothwell, J.D.: In the company of others: An introduction to communication. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown, P., Levinson, S.C.: Politeness: Some universals in language usage, vol. 4. Cambridge University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hayes, C.C., Miller, C.A.: Human-Computer Etiquette, vol. 5. Auerbach Publications (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alagöz, F., Ziefle, M., Wilkowska, W., Valdez, A.C.: Openness to accept medical technology - a cultural view. In: Holzinger, A., Simonic, K.-M. (eds.) USAB 2011. LNCS, vol. 7058, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wirth, U.: Chatten. Plaudern mit anderen Mitteln. In: Siever, T., Schlobinski, P., Runkehl, J. (eds.) Sprache und Kommunikation im Internet: Sprache Und Kommunikation Im Internet, 1st edn. Gruyter (June 2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kilian, J.: T@stentöne. Geschriebene Umgangssprache in computervermittelter Kommunikation. Historisch-kritische Ergänzungen zu einem neuen feld der linguistischen Forschung. In: Beisswenger, M. (ed.) Chat-Kommunikation: Sprache, Interaktion, Sozialität & Identität in synchroner computervermittelter Kommunikation: Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dresner, E., Herring, S.C.: Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20(3), 249–268 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holzinger, A., Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Ebner, M.: Interactive technology for enhancing distributed learning: a study on weblogs. In: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology, BCS-HCI 2009, pp. 309–312. British Computer Society, Swinton (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koo, C., Wati, Y., Jung, J.J.: Examination of how social aspects moderate the relationship between task characteristics and usage of social communication technologies (SCTs) in organizations. International Journal of Information Management 31(5), 445–459 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt, J.: Weblogs: Eine kommunikationssoziologische Studie. Uvk Verlags GmbH (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Digman, J.M.: Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41(1), 417–440 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosen, P., Kluemper, D.: The impact of the big five personality traits on the acceptance of social networking website. In: AMCIS 2008 Proceedings (January 2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Devaraj, S., Easley, R.F., Crant, J.M.: Research Note–How does personality matter? relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research 19(1), 93–105 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hughes, D.J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., Lee, A.: A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(2), 561–569 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W., de Ziga, H.G.: Who interacts on the web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(2), 247–253 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Vinitzky, G.: Social network use and personality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(6), 1289–1295 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Calero Valdez
    • 1
  • Anne Kathrin Schaar
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations