Posting our Hearts Out,    Understanding Online Self-Disclosure for Better DesignsJavier Velasco M.School of Information a...
AgendaThe ProblemThe Survey StudyThe ModelFuture WorkDesign Implications
My questionsAre there differences in intimacy for differentcomputer-mediated communication tools?Does this reflect on our ...
The ProblemExperienced adults - including early adopters of socialmedia - publishing intimate information in public spaces...
181 Followers
2435 Followers
1514 Followers
Benefits & Risks of Self-disclosureBenefits                                 Risks Catharsis                               Re...
The Survey Study
Research QuestionsFor the given population:Are there differences in perceived intimacy for a set of popularCMC tools?Does ...
Self-Disclosure (SD) is central to interpersonalrelationshipsSD is reciprocalSD can help ill people feel betterConversatio...
QuestionsUsed in the last month        Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - TwitterFor each Tool        Experience        Exper...
For Each Tool: How Likely are you to Share?        Mood        Family        Politics        HealthScenario IntimacyPsycho...
Demographics           Gender           Age           Education           Work Experience           Country (current, orig...
Oh, wait!       IRBInstitutional Review Board
Recruitment   Week 1      Twitter, 2x day      Facebook, 1x day      Blog post, 1      Email invite            Information...
The Sample            Total N=1274                      Analysis N=1092Countries of origin                           Count...
The Sample               Demographics                                      Education: M = 17.10 Years                     ...
The Sample   Tool Usage          Participants                         100% 81%       41%    85%    62%                    ...
Results           Tool IntimacyIntimacy
ResultsScenario Intimacy
Results            OSD x Tools / ScenariosLikely to Share
Results: OSD Regression  Tool
Intimacy













0.212***
(0.01)
  Scenario
Intimacy








‐0.266***
(0.01)
  Tool
Ex...
The Model                 Personal                     Online                Self-disclosureTechnological                 ...
The ModelPersonalCatharsis (Jourard, 1964; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)Loneliness (Leung, 2002)Self-esteem (Joinson, 2004)I...
The ModelSocialReciprocity (Boyd, 2008; Joinson, 2001; Moon, 2000)Intended Audience (Gibbs, Ellison & Heino, 2006;Stefanon...
The ModelTechnologicalRelative Anonymity (Rheingold, 1993; Joinson, 2001b; Christopherson, 2006; Tanis &Postmes, 2007; Bar...
Future WorkInterviews:       Why are people doing this?       Whom are they thinking of?       How does it make them feel?...
DesignImplications
Thank you!Javier Velasco M.jvelasco@unc.eduTwitter @mantrucSpecial thanks toRob Capra,Fred Stutzman& Gary MarchioniniAlso ...
Questions?   The Problem   The Survey Study   The Model   Future Work   Design Implications                         Javier...
Posting Our Hearts Out
Posting Our Hearts Out
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Posting Our Hearts Out

4,859
-1

Published on

Slides for my IA Summit 2011 presentation. This basically presents the research problem for my dissertation and shows the first survey study I've done on this, plus my future plans.

Published in: Education

Posting Our Hearts Out

  1. 1. Posting our Hearts Out, Understanding Online Self-Disclosure for Better DesignsJavier Velasco M.School of Information and Library ScienceThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  2. 2. AgendaThe ProblemThe Survey StudyThe ModelFuture WorkDesign Implications
  3. 3. My questionsAre there differences in intimacy for differentcomputer-mediated communication tools?Does this reflect on our communication behavior?What drives people’s online self-disclosure?Does design have a role on this? Can we influence this behavior with our designs?
  4. 4. The ProblemExperienced adults - including early adopters of socialmedia - publishing intimate information in public spaces Non-directed self-disclosure (Stefanone & Jang, 2008 ; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)
  5. 5. 181 Followers
  6. 6. 2435 Followers
  7. 7. 1514 Followers
  8. 8. Benefits & Risks of Self-disclosureBenefits Risks Catharsis Rejection Self-clarification Negative impression Self-validation Loss of control Reciprocity Hurting others Impression formation Relationship maintenance & formation Moral obligation Social Influence Self-defense Adler, Rosenfeld & Proctor, 2010
  9. 9. The Survey Study
  10. 10. Research QuestionsFor the given population:Are there differences in perceived intimacy for a set of popularCMC tools?Does tool intimacy relate to self-disclosure?How does this differ between people?
  11. 11. Self-Disclosure (SD) is central to interpersonalrelationshipsSD is reciprocalSD can help ill people feel betterConversational partner is critical for SDPeople treat computers & media as social actorsComputer interfaces yield more SD than papersurveys and face-to-face conversationsSocial Media tools are creating changes in privacyboundary management processesSocial Media support non-directed SDPrivacy of CMC tool is related to SD for intimatetopics only Altman & Taylor, 1973; Frattaroli, 2006; Frye & Dornisch, 2010; Joinson, 2004; Jourard, 1958; Jourard, 1959; Palen & Dourish, 2003; Reeves & Naas, 1997; Rheingold, 1996; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984; Stefanone & Jang, 2008; Walther, 1996.
  12. 12. QuestionsUsed in the last month Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - TwitterFor each Tool Experience Expertise Frequency # People Tool Intimacy
  13. 13. For Each Tool: How Likely are you to Share? Mood Family Politics HealthScenario IntimacyPsychometrics General Self-disclosure Scale Private Self-consciousness Public Self-consciousness
  14. 14. Demographics Gender Age Education Work Experience Country (current, origin)Thanks!$100 Gift Card?
  15. 15. Oh, wait! IRBInstitutional Review Board
  16. 16. Recruitment Week 1 Twitter, 2x day Facebook, 1x day Blog post, 1 Email invite Information Architecture Institute Interaction Design Association UNC Opt-in Mass Mailing List Week 2 Twitter, lot less Facebook, about once “Influentials” “Share the link” on final page Email reminder Information Architecture Institute Interaction Design Association
  17. 17. The Sample Total N=1274 Analysis N=1092Countries of origin County People Percent USA 617 57.08% Chile 246 22.76% Argentina 23 2.13% Canada 22 2.04% Mexico 21 1.94% Australia 15 1.39% India 15 1.39% Colombia 11 1.02% China 10 0.93% Brazil 9 0.83% Top 10 of 53 represented countries
  18. 18. The Sample Demographics Education: M = 17.10 Years Work Experience: M= 9.99 YearsParticipants 60.7% = Women 45% = Design or Study of Information Systems Age: M =33.56
  19. 19. The Sample Tool Usage Participants 100% 81% 41% 85% 62% Email IM Blog Facebok Twitter Mean Years 14.5 11.1 5.7 4.0 2.5 Experience
  20. 20. Results Tool IntimacyIntimacy
  21. 21. ResultsScenario Intimacy
  22. 22. Results OSD x Tools / ScenariosLikely to Share
  23. 23. Results: OSD Regression Tool
Intimacy













0.212***
(0.01)
 Scenario
Intimacy








‐0.266***
(0.01)
 Tool
Experience











0.028***
(0.00)
 Tool
Frequency












0.325***
(0.01)
 Tool
Expertise












0.037



(0.02)
 Tool
Audience













0.000**

(0.00)
 
 Gen.
Self‐Disc.











0.015*


(0.01)
 Private
Self‐Cons.








0.021***
(0.00)
 Public
Self‐Cons.









0.021***
(0.00)
 Sex
(1=F)

















0.225***
(0.03)
 Age























0.005



(0.00)
 Education
















‐0.004



(0.00)
 Work
Experience










‐0.015***
(0.00)
 USA
or
Chile
(1)










0.175***
(0.05)
 Constant


















0.672***
(0.20)
 *
p<0.05,
**
p<0.01,
***
p<0.001,
(std
dev)
  24. 24. The Model Personal Online Self-disclosureTechnological Social
  25. 25. The ModelPersonalCatharsis (Jourard, 1964; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)Loneliness (Leung, 2002)Self-esteem (Joinson, 2004)Impression Management (De Souza & Nick, 2004)Physical Context (Stefanone, Jang & Claes, 2009)GenderWork Experience
  26. 26. The ModelSocialReciprocity (Boyd, 2008; Joinson, 2001; Moon, 2000)Intended Audience (Gibbs, Ellison & Heino, 2006;Stefanone & Jang, 2008)Relationship Maintenance (Boyd, 2006; Stefanone &Jang, 2008; Krasnova et al., 2010)Environment Norms (Boyd, 2008)Cultural Norms (Diaz-Peralta, 2003)
  27. 27. The ModelTechnologicalRelative Anonymity (Rheingold, 1993; Joinson, 2001b; Christopherson, 2006; Tanis &Postmes, 2007; Bargh, McKenna & Fitzimons, 2002, Mesch & Becker, 2010)Social Response (Reeves & Nass, 1996)Frequency of Use (Rau et al, 2008; Frye & Dornisch, 2010; Mesch & Becker, 2010, my study)Tool Privacy (Krasnova et al., 2010; Stutzman, Capra & Thompson 2011)Interface Design (Sagolla, 2009)
  28. 28. Future WorkInterviews: Why are people doing this? Whom are they thinking of? How does it make them feel?Experience Sampling: Why are people doing this? Whom are they thinking of? How does it make them feel?Experiment: Role of interface on (heuristic/reflective) behavior
  29. 29. DesignImplications
  30. 30. Thank you!Javier Velasco M.jvelasco@unc.eduTwitter @mantrucSpecial thanks toRob Capra,Fred Stutzman& Gary MarchioniniAlso thanks to my team of Pre-testersSurvey funded by- 2009 IA Institute Progress Grant- NSF Grant IIS 0812363
  31. 31. Questions? The Problem The Survey Study The Model Future Work Design Implications Javier Velasco M. jvelasco@unc.edu Twitter @mantruc

×