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?
The ProblemExperienced adults - including early adopters of socialmedia - publishing intimate information in public spaces Non-directed self-disclosure (Stefanone & Jang, 2008 ; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)
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?
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.
QuestionsUsed in the last month Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - TwitterFor each Tool Experience Expertise Frequency # People Tool Intimacy
For Each Tool: How Likely are you to Share? Mood Family Politics HealthScenario IntimacyPsychometrics General Self-disclosure Scale Private Self-consciousness Public Self-consciousness
Demographics Gender Age Education Work Experience Country (current, origin)Thanks!$100 Gift Card?
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
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
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
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
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)
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
Thank you!Javier Velasco M.firstname.lastname@example.orgTwitter @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
Questions? The Problem The Survey Study The Model Future Work Design Implications Javier Velasco M. email@example.com Twitter @mantruc