CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,083Media and Digital CommunicationInnovative Human-Technology InteractionMedia and Communication Studies

The Affordances of Social Media Platforms

Open access
Bucher, Taina, Helmond, Anne·2018·The SAGE Handbook of Social Media
DOI 10.4135/9781473984066.n14
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This chapter reflects on the concept of affordance as a key term for understanding and analysing social media interfaces and the relations between technology and its users. In outlining its specific intellectual trajectory from psychology, to technology and design studies, sociology, and communication and media studies, our intention is to focus on some of the many–and sometimes conflicting–ways in which affordance has been conceptualized and operationalized across various disciplinary boundaries. Following the renewed debates over affordances in recent scholarship on social, we address some of the new directions in which media and communication scholars have proposed to define and analytically deploy the concept. We first describe five different–but related–ways in which affordance has been conceptualized and subsequently address how it has been employed to analyse social media in particular. We then outline a platform-sensitive approach to affordance as an analytical tool for examining social media based on recent examples of changes to the Twitter platform.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781473984066.n14

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The formation and progression of relationships in the context of digital dating are greatly influenced by the features and tools of dating apps, and the kind and extent of interactions the technology afford to offer its users.

    “The formation and progression of relationships in the context of digital dating are greatly influenced by the features and tools of dating apps, and the kind and extent of interactions the technology afford to offer its users (Bucher & Helmond, 2018).”

    From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Bucher & Helmond, 2018

    In “Platform users and their interfaces” (page unavailable), the paper says platform interfaces enable relations and shape the actions available to users. “Imagined affordances” (page unavailable) mentions the dating app Couple, but the paper does not establish that dating-app features greatly influence the formation or progression of romantic relationships. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Even though dating apps have the same general idea, each platform offers users a different kind of experience and set of possibilities while users purposively choose specific platforms and maximize its affordances.

    “Even though dating apps have the same general idea, each platform offers users a different kind of experience and set of possibilities while users purposively choose specific platforms and maximize its affordances (Bucher & Helmond, 2018; Madianou & Miller in Lorenzana, 2016).”

    From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Bucher & Helmond, 2018

    The sections 'Platform users and their interfaces' and 'The adaptability of platform surfaces' say that platforms and interfaces enable different possibilities for action, supporting the general point about differing affordances. The copy does not establish that dating-app users purposively choose particular apps and maximize their affordances; its mention of the dating app Couple makes a narrower point about experiencing affordances in relation to other tools. Page numbers were not available in the provided copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Features (or lack thereof) of dating apps give rise to new patterns in communication and interaction and idioms of practice.

    “The features (or the lack thereof) of dating apps give rise to new patterns in communication and interaction and idioms of practice (Bucher & Helmond, 2017); Gershon in Marwick, 2013).”

    From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Bucher & Helmond, 2017

    The “Social media research and affordances” section says that platform features afford new communicative practices and social interactions. The “Imagined affordances” section mentions a study of the dating app Couple, but does not establish that dating-app features or their absence give rise to new interaction patterns or idioms of practice specifically. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The same features that enable users also constrain them and prompt new dynamics in communication and human relations.

    “The same features that enable users also constrain them (Hutchby & Barnett as cited in Bucher & Helmond, 2018) and prompt new dynamics in communication and human relations (Bucher & Helmond, 2018).”

    From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Bucher & Helmond, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Baym NK (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. 1 edition. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  2. Boase J (2008) Personal Networks and the Personal Communication System. Information, Communication & Society 11(4): 490-508.
  3. Bodle R (2011) Regimes of Sharing. Information, Communication & Society 14(3): 320-337.
  4. Bogost I and Montfort N (2009) Platform Studies: Frequently Questioned Answers. In: Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, University of California, Irvine. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/01r0k9br.pdf (accessed 2 September 2012).
  5. Brandtzaeg PB and Haugstveit IM (2014) Facebook Likes: A Study of Liking Practices for Humanitarian Causes. International Journal of Web Based Communities 10(3): 258- 279.
  6. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  7. Bruns A and Burgess J (2015) Twitter Hashtags from Ad Hoc to Calculated Publics. In: Rambukkana N (ed.), Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, New York: Peter Lang Pub Inc, pp. 13-28.
  8. Bucher T (2016) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 0(0): 1-15.
  9. Ellison NB and Vitak J (2015) Social Network Site Affordances and Their Relationship to Social Capital Processes. In: Sundar SS (ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 205-227.
  10. Gaver WW (1996) Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology 8(2): 111-129.
  11. Gibson JJ (1982) Notes on affordances. In: Reasons for realism. Selected Essays of James J. Gibson. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 401-418.
  12. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  13. Graves L (2007) The Affordances of Blogging: A Case Study in Culture and Technological Effects. Journal of Communication Inquiry 31(4): 331-346.
  14. Guy I, Ronen I, Zwerdling N, et al. (2016) What is Your Organization 'Like'? A Study of Liking Activity in the Enterprise. In: CHI'16, San Jose, CA: ACM. Available from: https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/imt/papers/Liking.pdf (accessed 24 March 2016).
  15. Helles R (2013) Mobile communication and intermediality. Mobile Media & Communication 1(1): 14-19.
  16. Helmond A (2015) The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready. Social Media + Society 1(2). Available from: http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2056305115603080 (accessed 30 September 2015).
  17. Hookway B (2014) Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  19. Humphreys L (2005) Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society 7(6): 810-833.
  20. Hutchby I (2001a) Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  21. Hutchby I (2001b) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2): 441-456.
  22. Hutchby I and Barnett S (2005) Aspects of the sequential organization of mobile phone conversation. Discourse Studies 7(2): 147-171.
  23. Ilten C (2015) 'Use Your Skills to Solve This Challenge!': The Platform Affordances and Politics of Digital Microvolunteering. Social Media + Society 1(2). Available from: http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2056305115604175 (accessed 11 February 2016).
  24. Katz JE and Aakhus M (2002) Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Langlois G (2014) Meaning in the Age of Social Media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137356611 (accessed 5 June 2016). · DOI
  26. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  27. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  28. Maier JR, Fadel GM and Battisto DG (2009) An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies 30(4): 393-414.
  29. McGrenere J and Ho W (2000) Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montréal, Québec, pp. 179-186. Available from: http://graphicsinterface.org/proceedings/gi2000/attachment/gi2000-24/ (accessed 20 January 2016).
  30. McVeigh-Schultz J and Baym NK (2015) Thinking of You: Vernacular Affordance in the Context of the Microsocial Relationship App, Couple. Social Media + Society 1(2). Available from: http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2056305115604649 (accessed 4 November 2015).
  31. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  32. Nagy P and Neff G (2015) Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory. Social Media + Society 1(2). Available from: http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2056305115603385 (accessed 9 October 2015).
  33. Norman DA (1999b) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3): 38-43.
  34. Paßmann J, Boeschoten T and Schäfer MT (2014) The Gift of the Gab. Retweets cartels and gift economies on Twitter. In: Twitter and Society, New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. 331- 344.
  35. Postigo H (2016) The socio-technical architecture of digital labor: Converting play into YouTube money. New Media & Society 18(2): 332-349.
  36. Schrock AR (2015) Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality. International Journal of Communication 9(0): 1229- 1246.
  37. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  38. Sun H and Hart-Davidson WF (2014) Binding the material and the discursive with a relational approach of affordances. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp. 3533-3542. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2557185 (accessed 20 January 2016).
  39. Van Dijck J (2013) The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press.
  40. Van Dijck J and Poell T (2013) Understanding Social Media Logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2-14.
  41. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  42. Wellman B (2001) Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional research 25(2): 227-252.
  43. Wellman B, Quan-Haase A, Boase J, et al. (2003) The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8(3). Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2003.tb00216.x/abstract (accessed 20 January 2016). · DOI
  44. You H and Chen K (2007) Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies 28(1): 23-38.
  45. Zheng Y and Yu A (2016) Affordances of social media in collective action: the case of Free Lunch for Children in China. Information Systems Journal 26(3): 289-313. Endnotes
  46. Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. "The Affordances of Social Media Platforms." In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, edited by Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bucher, T., & Helmond, A.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
ORCID
Venue
The SAGE Handbook of Social Media
Publisher
SAGE Publications Ltd
Published
2018
Pages
233-253
DOI
10.4135/9781473984066.n14
OpenAlex
W2768764216
Cited by
1,083
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 162 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 11
FWCI
129.52
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Communication Studies
Keywords
affordances, social networking sites, social media interfaces, Twitter, design studies, sociology of technology, media and communication studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review