information and happiness

1. information and happiness Ian Ruthven and various of his clever students University of Strathclyde

2. introduction • rapid growth in available content people access purely for pleasure • at same time rise in depression and related conditions with consequent demand on health services • many searching for alternative ways to increase happiness • ‘Poetry on prescription’ services • ‘United Nations International Day of Happiness’ seeking to “spread happiness to millions of people” • information science has investigated leisure information activities • but said little about how people instrumentally use information to make themselves happy

3. introduction • have been conducting small studies into this use of information • information sharing of ‘happy’ information • information seeking of ‘happy’ information • happy information and stress/coping behaviours • focus here much more on first topic, bit on the second and draw some general conclusions/directions from other studies

4. outline of study • sharing ‘happy’ information • central research question addressed in this study was: • what are the factors that motivate and impact upon individuals’ sharing behaviour of happy information? • investigated through the following research questions: • how do individuals share happy information: what do they share or not share; with whom; and by which methods? • why do individuals share/not share this information; share with which people; share by which methods? • how does individuals' happy information sharing behaviour correspond to their affective states?

5. background • previous task- and work-based information sharing has shown that • sharing is often important to maintaining relationships • expectation of reciprocity is important • positive emotions lead to more information sharing • roles such as ‘gift-giving’ and ‘super-sharers’ can be seen in information sharing • but little research has been conducted investigating: • information sharing of non-task-related information within a leisure environment (except within hobby groups) • affective element (as opposed to the cognitive aspects) of individuals’ information behaviour • so we decided to carry out quite an exploratory study to examine behaviours in casual leisure environments

6. participants • exploratory study; not attempting to represent any particular demographic • 30 Participants; recruited via email, Facebook and word of mouth • non-representative sampling, with the following exceptions: • all aged 18+ • required to be frequent internet users, to permit balanced investigation of both offline and online sharing habits • deliberate effort to maintain equal numbers of male and female participants

7. 11 participants (approx. 37%) had moved abroad and were currently living away from their families in a country other than their place of birth • sharing here was seen by these participants as an important way of maintaining social relationships

8. data collection • semi-structured interview around 4 key themes of what leads them to share, what channels do they use, do they feel the need to share, how sharing impacts on them and their happiness • participants were requested prior to interviews to consider examples of their happy information sharing which could be used in discussion • explained to participants that the ‘happy information’ should not be work-related, study-related, or task-based • left to individuals to determine what they considered to be ‘happy information’ • didn’t want to force a definition of what happiness meant on participants • understanding what they perceived as ‘happy’ information was itself interesting

9. data analysis • interviews were transcribed and summarised • data was collated and organised using a bottom-up approach, sorting associated data together into groupings: • motivations for sharing and not sharing • recipients and relationships • choice of channel • sharing and increasing happiness • also (only briefly covering here) • reactions to responses from sharing • how people use happy information to portray representations of themselves • “interesting” or “significant” behaviours were selected for further discussion

10. most participants shared happy information frequently • and a variety of types of information

11. motivations for sharing and not sharing • most common reasons for sharing • perceived interest to recipient • not conscious decision-making, reacting to information that comes to hand • most felt targeting was important rather than general broadcasting • super-sharers were often seen negatively • feeling a need to share • ‘I must tell…’, ‘… will appreciate this’ • shared interests, habitual sharing (in-kind) • validation of experiences, desire to discover more about someone else, provocation • most common reasons for not sharing • perceived lack of interest (no-one to share with), information too trivial (unless becomes relevant in conversation), moment has gone

12. comparisons • like other studies • relevance, known mutual interests and need for validation were important • ‘needing’ to share was new to this study • information here was often trivial and sharing was reactive rather than planned • but there is a cumulative effect of lots of small information sharing in relationship building

13. recipients and relationships • who is information shared with: • family, close friends, partners, social media followers mentioned commonly • close relationships were perceived as better targets • less risk of judgment • less risk of causing offence • there people are more interested in you • trivial information was also seen as a good ‘soft-contact’ • and a maintenance technique to keep relationships going • also a way of testing relationships • how similar are we/have we become • like other studies strong relationships encourage more sharing however our participants felt that more frequent contact (rather than strength of relationship ) encouraged more sharing

14. choice of channels • face-face sharing as common as texting • as were facebook, phones, email, skype, twitter • most participants chose the person to share with then the most appropriate channel to reach that person • but content was important choice as well • important that content fitted the channel and helped recreate the experience of the sharer • other issues such as immediacy and privacy were important

15. choice of channels • face-face was seen as preferred • to gain enhanced emotional experience (esp reactions) • sharing more complex information • when information was seen as ‘big’ and ‘deserved’ to be shared in person • online was preferred when • immediacy was important • information was seen as trivial • danger of forgetting it

16. choice of channel • social norms were also observed • some saw phones (requiring an interruption) or emails (more formal) as more purposeful whereas texting and Facebook were more playful and fitting ‘happy’ information • some would not share information that was too trivial unless it came up in conversation • some would chose to share some information in person because ‘that’s how my friends do it’

17. act of sharing increasing happiness • reasons that sharing happy information can make you happy included • pleasure in others’ reactions, making others happy • gift-giving role • the need for a reaction to the shared information varied widely • ‘if you hadn’t reacted to my panda post I would have thought you had died’ • social element of sharing – act of sharing is a happy act • sharing allows enhanced personal enjoyment (retelling a joke is funny) • serendipitous discovery of shared interests • but also strengthening relationships • having ‘our thing’ was important • but several participants only shared within small groups to retain ownership of their information

18. responses • everyone felt a positive response enhanced the ‘happiness’ of the original post • for some sharing responses are more important • where more emotional investment is made in the post • especially when less used to sharing • where response is expected • and purpose of sharing is not content but sharing itself • where communication has been specific rather than general (validation expectations) • but for general purpose sharing often doesn’t matter is there is a response or not

19. self-portrayal • most felt this kind of information sharing did reflect on them personally so would censor • to avoid judgment • to avoid over-sharing (too much sharing) • to avoid in appropriateness to channel • for work reasons • to avoid undermining professional standing • to portray idealised versions of themselves • level of censoring relates to channel • more public, more censoring • less self-censoring offline than online

20. summary of this part • lots of sharing of happy, trivial information • most decision-making is very quick with lots of variety in how and what is shared • social relationships are critical and this kind of trivial ‘happy’ information was important in their • development, maintenance and discovery • a lot of this information was encountered information • what people deliberately seek to make themselves happy is quite different

21. information seeking • (briefly) a separate study looked at what information objects sought to make themselves happy • lots of visual material (photos, maps, clothes, videos) • lots of personal information (photos, emails) • lots of material to stimulate imagination • ‘I wish I could buy/visit/live there/be close to…’

22. information seeking • and many sites used • from general purpose sites such as YouTube • to very personal sites • used as entry points to get info • or for the pleasure of ‘flow’

23. information seeking • and various reasons for such information interactions • relaxation • distraction • calibration against reality (things are not so bad) • nostalgia (remembering who I used to be) • balance (between life being lived and earlier dreams and ambitions) • attitude (reinforcing the wish to be a more positive person)

24. summary • in these and other studies we have examined information related to happiness • rich area of casual leisure research with lots of interesting behaviours and uses of information for instrumental purposes • very personal decisions • “materials perceived to be trivial or unimportant by some may be extraordinarily important and meaningful for others” (Burnett, 2009) • seen similar trends in other studies not directly related to happiness but where people are using information to change moods, create a sense of contentment or cope with life • coping theories themselves actually say very little about information behaviours • perhaps a form of biblio self-therapy

25. summary • lots of potentially interesting behaviours from very ephemeral information sharing to more deliberate information seeking and ritualistic information use • and potentially interesting solutions form information sciences to support behaviours that people are naturally engaging in