Several outcomes have been documented on the effect of anonymity on behaviors and norms. However, unlike similar Complete Anonymous Applications (CAPs) that have been discontinued due to their anonymous affordance and associated drawbacks, Jodel has been able to withstand the test of time since its inception. As a result, this study examines how the Jodel platform in Ghana, specifically Accra, constructs its community jointly to ensure positivity by utilizing the social construction framework. Three themes emerge from the data using iterative analysis. It was found that the community’s communal construction was primarily based on user needs, later categorized as social solidarity, which influenced the other constructions: legalism and culture. Using them as a foundation, the community upheld social order through their constructions and Jodel’s predefined affordances. Emphasizing the possibility of social order even on CAPs.
AnabaEABuabengZOkaiGA (2022) Voluntary HIV counselling and testing services: knowledge, attitudes, and correlates of utilisation among young people in the Tema Metropolis, Ghana. Youth2(4): 469–478.
2.
BaymNK (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.
3.
BayneSConnellyLGroverC, et al (2019) The social value of anonymity on campus: a study of the decline of Yik Yak. Learning, Media and Technology44(2): 92–107.
4.
BergBL (2012a) Social sciences, qualitative research. In: GivenLM (ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 827–831.
5.
BergJ (2012b) Surrogate decision making in the internet age. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB12(10): 28–33.
6.
BergerPLuckmannT (2016) The social construction of reality. In: LonghoferWWinchesterD (eds) Social Theory Re-Wired. New York: Routledge, pp. 110–122.
7.
BilligM (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BlackEWMezzinaKThompsonLA (2016) Anonymous social media—understanding the content and context of Yik Yak. Computers in Human Behavior57: 17–22.
9.
BoghossianPA (2001) What is social construction?TLS. Times Literary Supplement5108: 6.
10.
ChangJK (2008) The role of anonymity in deindividuated behavior: a comparison of deindividuation theory and the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE). Available at: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=77099
11.
ChiouW-B (2006) Adolescents’ sexual self-disclosure on the Internet: deindividuation and impression management. Adolescence41: 547.
12.
Choon-LingSTanBCYKwok-KeeW (2002) Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research13(1): 70–90.
13.
ChristophersonKM (2007) The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”Computers in Human Behavior23(6): 3038–3056.
14.
Cojocaru (2010) Appreciative supervision in social work. New opportunities for changing the social work practice. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială29: 72–91.
15.
Coppolino PerfumiSBagnoliFCaudekC, et al (2019) Deindividuation effects on normative and informational social influence within computer-mediated-communication. Computers in Human Behavior92: 230–237.
16.
EdmondsonACMcManusSE (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review32(4): 1246–1264.
17.
EllisonNBBlackwellLLampeC, et al (2016) “The question exists, but you don’t exist with it”: strategic anonymity in the social lives of adolescents. Social Media+ Society2(4): 2056305116670673.
18.
EricksonKVFleurietCA (1991) Presidential anonymity: rhetorical identity management and the mystification of political reality. Communication Quarterly39(3): 272–289.
19.
FinsJJ (2008) Web of care: how will the electronic medical record change medicine?Hastings Center Report38(5): 36–38.
20.
FornasJKleinKLadendorfM, et al (2003) Digital Borderlands: Cultural Studies of Identity and Interactivity on the Internet. Amherst, MA: Peter Lang Publishing
GehlRW (2016) Power/freedom on the dark web: a digital ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network. New Media & Society18(7): 1219–1235.
25.
GergenKJ (1984) Theory of the self: impasse and evolution*1 Preparation of this chapter was facilitated by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NBS 78-09393). Appreciation is also expressed to Marianthi Georgoudi, Mary Gergen, Deborah Kemler, Mansur Lalljee, Morris Rosenberg, Barry Schwartz, and Wolfgang Stroebe for their critical reading of the manuscript in earlier draft. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 49–115.
26.
GibsonJJ (2014) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Classic Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.
27.
GunawardenaCNHermansMBSanchezD, et al (2009) A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International46(1): 3–16.
28.
HackingIHackingJ (1999) The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
29.
HeumanA (2020) Negotiations of language ideology on the Jodel app: language policy in everyday online interaction. Discourse, Context & Media33: 100353.
30.
JaidkaKZhouALelkesY, et al (2021) Beyond anonymity: network affordances, under deindividuation, improve social media discussion quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27: zmab019.
JohnsSKMurphy smithLStrandCA (2003) How culture affects the use of information technology. Accounting Forum27(1): 84–109.
33.
JoinsonAN (2001) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology31(2): 177–192.
34.
JüttnerKNowakPScheibeK, et al (2021) The faceless vicinity: who uses location-based anonymous social networks like Jodel and why? In: MeiselwitzG (ed.) Social Computing and Social Media: Experience Design and Social Network Analysis. Cham: Springer, pp. 54–73.
35.
KasakowskijRFriedrichNFietkiewiczKJ, et al (2018) Anonymous and non-anonymous user behavior on social media: a case study of Jodel and Instagram. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice6:25–36
KleinOSpearsRReicherS (2007) Social identity performance: extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review11(1): 28–45.
38.
KrämerNCSauerVEllisonN (2021) The strength of weak ties revisited: further evidence of the role of strong ties in the provision of online social support. Social Media + Society7(2): 20563051211024958.
39.
LaitinenAPessiAB (2014) Solidarity: theory and practice—an introduction. In: LaitinenAPessiAB (eds) Solidarity: Theory and Practice. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 1–29.
40.
LampeCResnickP (2004) Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, 24–29April, pp. 543–550. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
41.
LaPiereRT (1934) Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces13(2): 230–237.
42.
LarsenMC (2020) Social media insecurities in everyday life among young adults–an ethnography of anonymous Jodel disclosures. Aoir Selected Papers of Internet Research8: 298–313.
43.
LarsenMC (2022) Social media insecurities in everyday life among young adults-an ethnography of anonymous Jodel disclosures. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk8: 298–313.
44.
LeeJ-SYangSMunsonAL, et al (2017) What people do on Yik Yak: analyzing anonymous microblogging user behaviors. In: MeiselwitzG (ed.) Social Computing and Social Media—Applications and Analytics. Cham: Springer, pp. 416–428.
45.
ListerMDoveyJGiddingsS, et al (2008) New Media: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.
46.
MarkweiEDAppiahD (2016) The impact of social media on Ghanaian youth: a case study of the Nima and Maamobi communities in Accra, Ghana. Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults7(2): 1–26.
47.
MayL (1996) The Socially Responsive Self: Social Theory and Professional Ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
MorganDLNicaA (2020) Iterative thematic inquiry: a new method for analyzing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19: 1609406920955118.
NissenbaumH (1999) The meaning of anonymity in an information age. Information Society15(2): 141–144.
52.
NowakPJüttnerKBaranKS (2018) Posting content, collecting points, staying anonymous: an evaluation of Jodel. In: MeiselwitzG (ed.) Social Computing and Social Media: User Experience and Behavior. Cham: Springer, pp. 67–86.
53.
OcanseySKAmetepeWOduroCF (2016) The impact of social media on the youth: the Ghanaian perspective. International Journal of Engineering Technology and Sciences3(2): 90–100.
54.
PapacharissiZ (2002) The virtual sphere: the Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society4(1): 9–27.
55.
PinsonneaultAHeppelN (1997) Anonymity in group support systems research: a new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. Journal of Management Information Systems14(3): 89–108.
PostmesTSpearsRSakhelK, et al (2001) Social influence in computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(10): 1243–1254.
58.
QuarshieHOAmi-NarhJ (2012) The growth and usage of Internet in Ghana. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences3(9): 1302–1308.
ReelfsJHHohlfeldOStrohmaierM, et al (2022b) Characterizing the country-wide adoption and evolution of the Jodel messaging app in Saudi Arabia. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04544
61.
ReicherSDSpearsRPostmesT (1995) A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology6(1): 161–198.
Seigfried-SpellarKCLankfordCM (2018) Personality and online environment factors differ for posters, trolls, lurkers, and confessors on Yik Yak. Personality and Individual Differences124: 54–56.
64.
SpallekHO’DonnellJClaytonM, et al (2010) Paradigm shift or annoying distraction: emerging implications of web 2.0 for clinical practice. Applied Clinical Informatics1(2): 96–115.
65.
SpearsRPostmesTLeaM, et al (2001) A SIDE view of social influence. In: ForgasJPWilliamsKD (eds) Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 331–350.
66.
SrivastavaPHopwoodN (2009) A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods8(1): 76–84.
67.
StarkMFinsJJ (2012) The self, social media, and social construction. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB12(10): 38–39.
68.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–326.
WalkerCA (2015) Social constructionism and qualitative research. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing19(2): 37–38.
71.
WangG (2014) Culture, paradigm, and communication theory: a matter of boundary or commensurability?Communication Theory24(4): 373–393.
72.
WangGWangBWangT, et al (2014) Whispers in the dark: analysis of an anonymous social network. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Internet measurement conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 5–7November, pp. 137–150. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
73.
WilliamsGMahmoudA (2018) Modeling user concerns in the App Store: a case study on the rise and fall of Yik Yak. In:2018 IEEE 26th international requirements engineering conference (RE), Banff, AB, Canada, 20–24August, pp. 64–75. New York: IEEE.
74.
WiseKHammanBThorsonK (2006) Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity: features of online communities and their effects on intent to participate. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12(1): 24–41.
75.
WohnDBoweB (2014) Crystallization: How Social Media Facilitates Social Construction of Reality. New York: Association for Computing Machinery
76.
YinRK (1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
77.
YuZSongX (2021) User intention of anonymous social application “Soul” in China: analysis based on an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research16(7): 2898–2921.
78.
ZhangKKizilcecRF (2014) Anonymity in social media: effects of content controversiality and social endorsement on sharing behavior. Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media8(1): 643–646.
79.
ZimbardoPG (1969) The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation17: 237–307.
