1. General Online Research Conference GOR 14 March 05-07, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Ruoyun Lin, Knowledge Media Research Center
How to rebuild your public image online
Contact:

2. How to Rebuild Your Public Image on Facebook?
The Effects of Feedback Comments and Profile Owners’ Reactions on Rebuilding Interpersonal Trust on Facebook
How to Rebuild Your Public Image on Facebook?
Ruoyun Lin
March 2014

3. Who am I ? Introduction Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
PhD: Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany. (2014-now)
Prof. Sonja Utz
Master: Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. ( )
Dr. Uwe Matzat
Prof. Chris Snijders
Bachelor: Zhejiang University, China. ( )
Heavy SNS user.

4. Two aims Introduction Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
To explore the effective strategies of rebuilding interpersonal trust (in newly-formed relationships) on Facebook
Two types of accusations
Five types of reactions (on Facebook)
To resolve the prior divergent findings on trust rebuilding (offline vs. online marketplaces).
Apology vs. denial (Integrity-based accusation)

5. Accuser Trustee Trustor
Trust Rebuilding?!
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Accuser
Trustee
Trustor
Following XX type of accusation, XX type of reaction can effectively repair the perceived trustworthiness of the trustee in the eyes of an trustor.

6. Accuser Accusations Competence-based accusation of trust violation
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Integrity-based accusation of trust violation
Accuser

7. Trustee Reactions Denial Internal Apology External Apology No response
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Reactions
Internal Apology
External Apology
No response
Deletion
Trustee

8. Offline setting (Kim et al., 2004)
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Type of accusation?
Competence-based accusation
Integrity-based accusation
Apology > Denial
Denial > Apology
Hierarchically Restrictive Schema
Made a mistake?
No big deal
Once a liar?
Always a liar

9. Online marketplaces (Utz et al., 2009)
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Type of accusation?
Competence-based accusation
Integrity-based accusation
Apology > Denial
Denial > Apology
Apology > Denial

10. (Utz et al., 2009; Matzat et al., 2012)
Why different?
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Offline
Online Marketplaces
(Kim et al., 2004)
(Utz et al., 2009; Matzat et al., 2012)
Believability!
Facebook

11. Multi-level Linear Regression (scenario-wise analysis)
Participants: 459 worldwide Facebook users
Method: Online experiment with mocked up scenarios;
In total, there are 20 scenarios (2  5  2).
Manipulated IV:
Types of accusation
Type of response
Measured Moderator:
Believability of a response
Measured DV:
Perceived trustworthiness
of the profile owner.
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Multi-level Linear Regression (scenario-wise analysis)

12. Introduction Theory Method Results Conclusion Offline Online
Hypothesis
Type of accusation
Type of response
Expected Results
Results
H1a
Competence
Internal apology vs.
Denial
Internal apology > Denial
Lack of Supported
H1b
Integrity
Strongly believed denial
Denial > Internal apology
Supported
H1c
Not strongly believed denial
H2a
External apology
Internal apology > External apology
H2b
Strongly believed external apology
External apology > Internal apology
H2c
Not strongly believed external apology
H3a
No response vs.
Internal apology
No response < Internal apology
H3b
No response < Strongly believed denial
H3c
No response < Strongly believed external apology
H3d
Both
Unbelieved denial
No response > Unbelieved denial
H4a
Deletion vs.
No response
Deletion < No response
H4b
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion

13. Similar to previous offline findings
H1b
Integrity-based accusation:
(Internal) apology < (Strongly believed) denial
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Not believed
Believed
χ2(1) = 6.13, p = .013
Not strongly believed
Strongly believed
Similar to previous offline findings

14. Similar to previous online findings
H1c
Integrity-based accusation:
(Internal) apology > (Not strongly believed) denial
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Not believed
Believed
χ2(1) = 14.66, p = .001
Not strongly believed
Strongly believed
Similar to previous online findings

15. Similar to previous online findings
H3d
For both type of accusation
(Not believed) denial < No response
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
 = − 0.562, p = .024
baseline
Not believed
Believed
Not strongly believed
Strongly believed
Similar to previous online findings

16. Once perceived, deletion is detrimentalH4
For both type of accusation
(Perceived) deletion < No response
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
 = − 0.542, p < .001
baseline
Once perceived, deletion is detrimental
53% of Facebook teenage users have deleted other’s comments on their profiles. (PEW report, 2013)

17. Why Different? Introduction Theory Method Results Conclusion Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Offline
Online Marketplaces
Context
Incident
Believability
Different trust rebuilding models
Believability of a denial on Facebook
Believability of a denial on eBay
Believability of a denial offline

18. Practical implications
Introduction
Theory
Offline
Online
Method
Results
Denial vs. apology
No response
Deletion
Conclusion
Following a competence-based accusation, offering an internal apology may be the most effective response if the trust violation is valid.
Following an integrity-based accusation, a highly convincing denial is very effective, while an unconvincing denial is detrimental for trust rebuilding
A deletion, once it has been perceived, is the least effective way to rebuild trust.

19. Thank you! Any questions?