Twitter is a social medium that allows for fast, and potentially concise, transmission of information. As an evolutionary social psychologist, I am interested in how much influence can be wielded by Twitter. To what part of our psychology does it appeal? Social influence is the change in our attitudes, opinions, values, beliefs, and behaviour through being influenced by other people. We can be influenced because we think that other people are better informed than we are on a particular issue (so we copy a more knowledgeable individual). Alternatively, we can be influenced because we realise that our attitudes, opinions, values, beliefs, and behaviour are not the social norm (so we change our behaviour to fit in with what most people in the group are doing).

As humans we have a strong urge to fit in with the group. There is a Twitter discussion on #conformity at the moment (# on Twitter indicates a discussion thread) where most people are deriding conformity. Conformity is seen as a negative behaviour. But there is also current thread #idothat2 where people are discussing similarities in their behaviour. People want to be part of a group, to be the same as other people, but they do not want to be seen to be copying other people.

People may not want to be seen to conform but are happy to be identified as ‘followers’. A follower on Twitter is someone who has indicated that they want to be kept informed of the activities of the person that they have chosen to follow. Most people choose to have a mixture of friends, business colleagues and some celebrities whom they follow. People can also follow events, developing issues and even brand names. Among the dictionary definitions of follower are; ‘a person who accepts the teachings of another: disciple, adherent’ and ‘an enthusiast or supporter, as of sport or team’. I suspect that the definition of a follower on Twitter falls somewhere between these two definitions.

Do people teach on Twitter? They certainly influence others. Are people disciples or adherents? These terms suggest that there is a religious element involved in the following. Followers, by definition, are accepting the influence of another person. But what about the people who are being followed? They also have to accept that they are being influenced. In the case of celebrities they can use their influence to set good (or bad) examples and to enhance their reputation. This can be seen quite clearly on Twitter. But ‘following’ on Twitter has another dimension as just because you are followed by someone does not mean that you cannot be their follower. In fact, in a lot cases (excluding celebrities) you often follow people who follow you. There are even discussions about the etiquette involved in responding to someone who becomes your follower.

By becoming part of the Twitter community we have agreed to be influenced by other people. We have accepted the influence of many people that we may never meet physically. However as this medium matures I suspect we will begin to find groups to which we adhere. The term follower is interesting as it implies that all the people who follow a particular person are part of the same group. In familial or religious terms, they are brother or sisters. To the best of my knowledge, we have not seen these terms used in the Twitter community yet. Why might we see these terms in use? Kinship terms such as mother, father, sister and brother encourage us to cooperate. Cooperation and conflict can both be encouraged through Twitter. Cooperation is always the preferred form of communication but is sometimes difficult to achieve. Language that can facilitate cooperation will be utilised if people want to create cooperative communities. In the virtual world where body language is (almost) absent, the Twitter community disseminates information in short incremental bursts that make full use of the social influence of symbolic language.