• Save
Posting Our Hearts Out
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Posting Our Hearts Out

  • 5,010 views
Uploaded 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.

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.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
5,010
On Slideshare
3,648
From Embeds
1,362
Number of Embeds
7

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
5

Embeds 1,362

http://www.uxmatters.com 1,320
http://uxmatters.com 20
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 7
http://www.linkedin.com 7
url_unknown 5
https://twitter.com 2
http://twitter.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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. AgendaThe ProblemThe Survey StudyThe ModelFuture WorkDesign Implications
  • 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. 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. 181 Followers
  • 6. 2435 Followers
  • 7. 1514 Followers
  • 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. The Survey Study
  • 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. 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. QuestionsUsed in the last month Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - TwitterFor each Tool Experience Expertise Frequency # People Tool Intimacy
  • 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. Demographics Gender Age Education Work Experience Country (current, origin)Thanks!$100 Gift Card?
  • 15. Oh, wait! IRBInstitutional Review Board
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. Results Tool IntimacyIntimacy
  • 21. ResultsScenario Intimacy
  • 22. Results OSD x Tools / ScenariosLikely to Share
  • 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. The Model Personal Online Self-disclosureTechnological Social
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. DesignImplications
  • 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. Questions? The Problem The Survey Study The Model Future Work Design Implications Javier Velasco M. jvelasco@unc.edu Twitter @mantruc