Social Media: Third-Person Perceptions of Architecture

Author: Lino Bianco
Year: 2018 (Urbanism. Arhitectura. Constructii 9(3))
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/bianco-2018-social-media-third-person-perceptions.md

Summary

An empirical study of how the general public perceives architecture through social media. Bianco shared a "provocative" architectural photomontage (a residential unit hanging off a ridge) on his public Facebook page and analyzed the Likes and Comments received within 24 hours (reach ~3,598; 83 likes; 67 comments; 0 shares). It finds that, unlike respondents involved in architecture, the general public fears innovative departure from the "prescriptive" comfort zone and emphasizes the utilitarian over the aesthetic dimension of architecture. It also tests (and largely fails to confirm) the third-person effect among Facebook users.

Key Claims

• Aesthetic vs. utilitarian values: drawing on a classification of architectural design values (Lera 1980; Ukabi 2015), comparative research shows architects emphasize aesthetics/self-expression, while civil society highlights the "experiential utilitarian dimension." The public "is afraid of innovative design, departing from the prescriptive formal and informal norms, the comfort zone."
• An overwhelmingly negative reception: over 95% of respondents refused to live in the house regardless of gender and age. Dominant reactions were acrophobia, concerns about structural stability and live loads, and practical worries ("who is going to clean the glass?"). Those willing to live there were mostly in the architecture profession.
• Insiders vs. outsiders: no lay respondent questioned whether the image was a photomontage; trained eyes read it as self-evident conceptual design. One commenter noted the profession's forgetting of end users: "Architecture is not just about thoughts and concepts ... but about feelings."
• Third-person effect not confirmed: despite Tsay-Vogel's finding that Facebook users report stronger effects on others, the TPE was "not pronounced" among respondents in this study; they voiced opinions freely rather than assuming persuasion of "them."
• Engagement asymmetries: Facebook friends gave ~4× more Likes than non-friends, but the inverse held for Comments (non-friends commented ~4× more). Only about a fifth of respondents were male — a skew toward the traditionally home-based, "housewife" profile.
• Emotional disclosure: social media functioned here as a site of emotional self-revelation (fear, excitement, suspense), not anonymous questionnaire response; respondents are known identities.

Connections

Concepts: Instagrammability · Iconic Architecture · Spectacle
Authors: Lino Bianco
Debates: Spectacle vs. Function
Related source notes: Building the Picture · Visuality Peaks, Function Lasts

Direct Quotes

"Unlike respondents who are involved in architecture, the general public is afraid of innovative design, departing from the prescriptive formal and informal norms, the comfort zone. The emphasis of the public is the utilitarian rather than the aesthetic dimension of architecture." (Abstract)

"The emphasis of the public is on the utilitarian aspect rather than the aesthetic one; it is imperative that the building stands and functions." (Conclusions)

"Architecture is not just about thoughts and concepts ... but about ... feelings." (respondent comment, quoted by Bianco)

"In the view of those trying to evaluate the effects of a communication, its greatest impact will not be on 'me' or 'you', but on 'them' – the third persons." (Davison's third-person effect, as quoted by Bianco)

Open Questions

• Does the public's utilitarian preference found here contradict or complement the picture from iconicity studies (spectacle peaks, function lasts)? Is "function" for lay publics about use, or about the reassurance of conventional form?
• How transferable are findings from a single Facebook post and a Maltese, largely over-50 audience to broader publics?