Redes Sociales Online ¿Por qué compartimos?

Información personal en
redes sociales:
¿Por qué compartimos?
Javier Velasco M., Ph.D.
javier.velasco@usach.cl
Investigador Postdoctoral
CITIAPS, Universidad de Santiago

Centro de Innovación  
en Tecnologías de Información  
para Aplicaciones Sociales
Introducción Contexto
Programa de 
Mejoramiento Institucional

Tecnología
Ciencias de la Información
Personas
Información
Gary Marchionini

School of Information and Library Science  
Principales Áreas de Investigación
Human-Information  
Interaction
IR, interactive IR,  
collaborative IR
Digital Libraries
Digital Curation
Library Services
Information Structure & Metadata
Health Informatics
Social Media
The Many Facets of Information:
Implications for Leadership in I-Schools
Gary Marchionini, 2009

Problema de
Investigación
Adultos experimentados - usuarios regulares de
redes sociales - publicando información íntima en
espacios compartidos
Introducción Problema

Introduction MotivaciónIntroducción

Introducción Motivation
“Someone here smells *exactly* like my
significant ex. Heart, head, emotions
simultaneously titillated and on guard.”
...
“It's odd how that smell still immediately
electrifies my entire being *despite* the
calamitous history that followed.” 
Via Twitter, open account, 337 Followers
Motivación

Research Questions
- RQ1: Do people attribute different levels of intimacy to different CMC
tools?
- RQ2: Do people’s perceptions of tool intimacy relate with their levels of
self-disclosure?
- RQ3: Do people associate different audiences to particular channels?
- RQ4: Does the audience users have in mind when posting to social
media affect the depth of their self-disclosure?
- RQ5: If both audience and tool perceptions affect online self-
disclosure, is there a sequential order to this process?
- RQ6: What other factors may influence online self-disclosure?
Introducción Preguntas

Marco Teórico
Symbolic Interactionism
Media Ecological Perspective
Hyperpersonal Theory
Communication Privacy Management
Introducción Marco Teórico

Symbolic Interactionism
-The formation of social worlds involves  
inter-communicative symbolic interaction (Barnes, 2000).
-Language creates a symbolic or media environment that
shapes the communication exchange (Barnes, 2000).
-The selection of a particular media is a symbolic act, framing
the context of the communication (Trevino, Daft & Lengel, 1987).
-People use their expressions to manage the impressions
others will have of them (Goffman, 1959).

Media Ecological Perspective
-Media form a complex interconnected system that is
best considered in ecological terms: as a media
ecology that has an influence in our society and
culture by means of its shape, independent of the
messages exchanged (Barnes, 2000).
-The impact of media can only be seen once it is part of
normal life (Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, &
Haythornthwaite, 1996).
-This impact will depend on how we use the media
(Barnes, 2008).

Hyperpersonal Theory
- Social Information Processing Model
- Our basic need for social bonding is the same on
CMC than F2F (Walther, 1992).
!
- Hyperpersonal Communication
- CMC can actually be more friendly, social and
intimate than F2F communication: “It surpasses
normal interpersonal levels” (Walther, 1996).

Communication Privacy Management
- People own their private
information.
- When they share, it becomes co-
owned within certain boundary.
- Participants negotiate rules on the
control of shared information.
- Boundaries are used to manage the
balance between participation and
withdrawal.
- When expectations are violated,
boundary turbulence occurs. 
 
(Petronio, 2002; 2009)

Altman & Taylor, 1973; Frattaroli, 2006; Jourard, 1958; Jourard, 1959;
Reeves & Naas, 1997; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984.
Autorrevelación Interpersonal
Introducción Revisión de Literatura
La Autorrevelación (AR) es básica
para el desarrollo de relaciones
interpersonales
La AR es recíproca
La AR puede sanar a las personas
La selección de interlocutor es
clave para la AR
Las personas tratan a la tecnología
y los medios como actores
sociales

boyd, 2008; Frye & Dornisch, 2010; Joinson, 2004; Palen & Dourish,
2003; Rheingold, 1996; Stefanone & Jang, 2008; Walther, 1996.
Autorrevelación Mediatizada
Introducción Revisión de Literatura
Las interfaces computacionales gatillan
mayores niveles de AR que el papel y cara a
cara
Los medios sociales están cambiando los
procesos de manejo de las barreras de
privacidad
Los medios sociales permiten  
AR no-dirigida
En medios sociales, los usuarios se dirigen a
audiencias imaginadas.
La privacidad de la herramienta se correlaciona
con AR sólo para temas íntimos

Personal
SocialTecnológica
Contexto
OSD
Introducción Proto-Modelo

Catharsis (Jourard, 1964; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)
Loneliness (Leung, 2002)
Self-esteem (Joinson, 2004)
Impression Management (De Souza & Nick, 2004)
Gender (Dindia & Alen, 1992)
Personal

Reciprocity (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)
Social

Relative 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)
Technological

Topic of Disclosure (Frye & Dornisch, 2010)
Physical Location (Stefanone, Jang & Claes, 2009)
Time of Day (this research)
Contextual

Experienced Adult Users
-Adults: Lifestyle is more stable than that of teenagers and
college students.
-Experienced users: Have passed the experimental stage of
media use, adopting it into their lives.
Introducción Conceptos Clave

Online Social Networks
-Internet communication platforms
-User profile
-Contacts list
-Incoming stream of social information

Self-Disclosure
-“The act of making yourself manifest,  
showing yourself to others so they can perceive
you.” (Jourard, 1971)
-Self disclosure
-(1) has the self as subject,
-(2) is intentional,
-(3) is directed at another person,
-(4) is honest,
-(5) is revealing,
-(6) contains information generally unavailable from other
sources,
-and (7) gains much of its intimate nature from the context
in which it is expressed (Adler, Rosenfeld & Proctor, 2010. p.
87).

Media Choice
“As individuals communicate they
make choices based on the
technological affordances of the
medium, but also on their own
interactional characteristics, such as
relationship duration, relationship
origin, distance, and communication
content.” (Mesch, 2008)

Imagined Audiences
OSNs do not allow users to know who
will be getting our message.
!
Users still project their thoughts to a
subset of their contacts (boyd, 2007).
!
This imagined audience should have
an effect on disclosure decisions.

Mixed Methods
Study 1 Study 2
Quantitative Qualitative
Exploratory Descriptive
Survey Interviews
Hypothetical Scenarios Past Behavior (CIT)
Statistical Analyses Content Analysis
n=1274 n=21
International Local (RTP)
Email, IM, blogs,  
Facebook, Twitter
Facebook, Twitter
Introducción Enfoque Metodológico

Estudio 1 Methods
Reclutamiento
•Semana 1
•Twitter, dos x día
•Facebook, una x día
•Blog post, una vez
•Listas de correo
•Information Architecture Institute
•Interaction Designers’ Association
•UNC Opt-in Mass Mailing List
•Semana 2
•Twitter, bastante menos
•Facebook, una vez
•“Los Influyentes”
•Link en página final
•Recordatorio a listas
•Information Architecture Institute
•Interaction Designers’ Association

Preguntas
Used in the last month

Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - Twitter

!
For each Tool

Experience

Expertise

Frequency

# People

Tool Intimacy

Audience Groups
Estudio 1 Methods

For Each Tool: How Likely are you to Share?

Mood

Family

Politics

Health

!
For each Audience Type: How close do you feel?

Scenario Intimacy

!
Psychometrics

General Self-disclosure Scale

Private Self-consciousness

Public Self-consciousness

Demographics

Gender

Age

Education

Work Experience

Country (current, origin)

!
!
Thanks!

$100 Gift Card?

Estudio 1 Muestra
País Personas %

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
Países de Origen
N Total =1274
N Limpio =1092
Muestra

Edad
Demografía de los Encuestados
Participantes
Demographic Values
Age mean=33.6, M=31, SD=10.485
Education (yrs.) mean=17.1, M=18, SD=4.567
Work Exp. (yrs.) mean=10, M=7, SD=9.585
Gender 60.7% Female, 39.30% Male
Info. Systems
Work / Study
45% Yes, 55% No
Estudio 1 Muestra

Estudio 1 Muestra
Email IM Blog Facebok Twitter
Uso de Herramientas
Años
Experiencia 14.5 11.1 5.7 4.0 2.5  
Promedio
100% 81% 41% 85% 62%
Participantes

Estudio 1 Resultados
AR Internet
Probabilidaddecompartir
IntimidadIntimidad
Anova for Tool on Tool Intimacy
F=348.89, df=(4, 2903), p < .0001
Anova for Scenario on Scenario Intimacy
F=2093.95, df=(3,3245), p < .0001

Audiencias por Herramienta
Email IM Blogs Facebook Twitter
Spouse / Partner 662 61% 411 46% 78 17% 351 38% 118 17%
Sons & Daugters 425 39% 105 12% 57 13% 267 29% 53 8%
Girlfriend / Boyfriend 574 53% 466 53% 74 17% 401 43% 125 18%
Parents 819 75% 366 41% 104 23% 437 47% 75 11%
Siblings 724 67% 418 47% 100 22% 568 61% 125 18%
Grandparents 377 35% 110 12% 61 14% 173 19% 28 4%
Cousins 610 56% 311 35% 90 20% 618 67% 93 14%
Friends 1019 94% 809 92% 287 64% 891 96% 500 74%
Coworkers 987 91% 523 59% 191 43% 511 55% 346 51%

OSD All Countries Chile / USA
Scenario Intimacy -0.242*** (0.01) -0.272*** (0.01)
Tool Intimacy 0.211*** (0.01) 0.202*** (0.01)
Tool Experience 0.026*** (0.00) 0.031*** (0.00)
Tool Frequency 0.321*** (0.01) 0.316*** (0.02)
Tool Expertise 0.040* (0.02) 0.024 (0.02)
Audience Size 0.001*** (0.00) 0.000*** (0.00)
Audience Closeness 0.093*** (0.02) 0.105*** (0.02)
Sex (F=1) 0.157*** (0.03) 0.197*** (0.03)
Age -0.007*** (0.00) -0.006*** (0.00)
Education -0.002 (0.00) -0.003 (0.00)
GSDS 0.022*** (0.01) 0.016* (0.01)
PrivSC 0.014*** (0.00) 0.020*** (0.00)
PubSC 0.024*** (0.00) 0.024*** (0.00)
USA/Chile (1) 0.175*** (0.04)
Constant 0.538** (0.20) 0.544** (0.21)
t-Statistics in parentheses. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Table 8. Regression Estimates
Regresión Multi-nivel

- Tool intimacy varies
- Tool intimacy affects SD levels, for
sensitive topics
- Closeness to (imagined) audience is
positively related to SD
- Usage levels are positively related to SD
- Some cultures disclose more than others

- Different media fit different purposes
- Intensity of use is associated with levels
of disclosure
- There is evidence for OSD being
influenced by personal, social,
technological and contextual factors
- More research is needed in order to
produce robust explanations
Estudio 1 Discusión

Siguientes Pasos
OSD
Medios
Sociales
Características
Personales
Audiencia
Imaginada

Estudio 2:
Entrevistas
Estudio 2

Técnica del  
Incidente Crítico

Técnica del Incidente Crítico
- Las entrevistas se enfocan en incidentes de
los cuales los sujetos han sido partícipes
(Flanagan, 1954).
- Buena retención de información  
(Luo & Wildemuth, 2009).
- Permite acceder a eventos poco frecuentes
(Luo & Wildemuth, 2009).
- Surgimiento rápido de patrones entre los
participantes (Andersson & Nilsson, 1964).
Estudio 2 Metodología

Reclutamiento
- Se apuntó a profesionales de la información
en RTP de NC (parque tecnlógico)
- Usuarios frecuentes de Facebook y/o Twitter
- Entre 30 y 50 años de edad
- Invitaciones via UXPA Newsletter (agrupación
profesional local) + Social Media Snowball

Procedimiento
- 4 Entrevistas cara a cara de 45 - 60
minutos
- Locación elegida por sujetos
- Grabación de audio
- Incentivo: Sorteo de Gift Card por $50

Cuña
- “From time to time, most people discuss
important personal matters with other people.
Sometimes they will discuss important matters in
online social networks (OSN). Looking back over
the last six months of OSN activity, can you find
or recall two posts in which you discussed
matters that are important to you?”

Preguntas
Personal Social
Tecnológica Contextual
Estado de humor
Ubicación física
Compañía
Móvil/Fijo
Motivación
Dispositivo
Plataforma
Estado del Tiempo
Tema
Profundidad (AR)
Comodidad en compartir
Audiencia imaginada
Cercanía a audiencia imaginada
Privacidad de la herramienta
Experiencia
Frecuencia de uso
Controles de privacidad

Análisis
- Análsis de Contenido
- Enfoque constructivista en “Grounded Theory”
- Notas durante las entrevistas
- Códigos tempranos desde grabaciones
- Esquema de codificación desde transcripciones
- Codificación de Resultados
- Extracción de temas y citas

I was writing about the contract I get with these, what am I getting in
these tools and what are they getting from me using them? And how I might
adjust my usage so that it feels fair. So with Facebook, I'm getting family, my
family wouldn't know me at all, I don't see them and I can't… I've been told not
to tell them about this stuff… So Facebook has given me a family. That is worth
the information that they are getting and using to market (P 03).
Usuarios Reflexivos

After posting it, before people started to
reply, I felt lighter. (…)  
I articulated the thing, the particular
thing that was bothering me, and being
able to identify and express it, made me
feel better. And then after everybody
started replying, I just really felt loved,
and supported, and better, confident (P
16).

I feel like I've gotten a lot more out of being emotionally or
somewhat connected to people than becoming a hermit  
(P 11).
Conexión

Again, it’s more of who I think the audience might be. I'm actually
a little more open in a public forum [Twitter] because it’s almost
anonymous even though you have a username. The audience is so
broad no one really cares. On Facebook I’m more inhibited because I
know it’s going to get personal real fast, my mom might see it or my aunt
might see it, and then there's going to be a thousand questions or follow
up, whereas on twitter sometimes you can just put something out there
and you might not get any responses (P 15).
Anonimato Relativo

Were you feeling
comfortable there?
100% 
YES
It’s my kingdom! I meant it's this nice big office, it's mine, but it
doesn't have closed doors, and I have a cat and two dogs, sometimes I'll
have one of the dogs and the cat, simultaneously, on my lap, helping me
type. So… very cozy, yeah! (P 06).

The phone pretty much flipped my usage patterns
completely. I think that tools are so important... connections
and links and being able to keep up with contacts the way that
I use those two. I put more thought into it, and I think that
Facebook is a much better way of doing a lot of things that I
used to do (P 05).
Tecnología Móvil

Facebook has become such a natural part of my life, it just
seems natural to share the picture, to make the post. It was more
interesting than waking up and complaining about how I didn't
want to exercise. (P 10).
Uso Tecnológico

I don't like Facebook. I would not use it if you know… it
wasn't where everybody was. So I don't have much trust in
either of them. Twitter I see as less evil, I guess, but you
know... (P 02).
Empresas detrás de las Redes Sociales

The people I have in mind make me
select a particular channel.
Sometimes I'll say ‘This is a link I
want to share, where should it go
better, should it go on Twitter or
should it go on Facebook?’ 
P 08
-RQ5: If both audience and tool perceptions affect online self-
disclosure, is there a sequential order to this process?

Resultados
- Las redes sociales están fuertemente
integradas a las vidas de estos usuarios
(MEP).
- Un importante factor en el uso de este medio
es su efectividad en comunicar a muchos
destinatarios con un mensaje único.
- Las plataformas móviles hacen este uso
todavía más fácil, potenciándolo.

Resultados
- La audiencia es central en las comunicaciones
en redes sociales, los sujetos se orientan a
audiencias específicas dado el contexto.
- La audiencia imaginada es frecuentemente un
subconjunto cercano de la audiencia potencial.
- A pesar de ser usuarios expertos, no se hizo
mención a los “mirones”.

Resultados
- Estos usuarios toman decisiones conscientes al
momento de postear en redes sociales.
- Estos usuarios se sienten en control de la distribución de
la información (CPM).
- Los posts íntimos fueron realizados desde lugares, y en
compañía, que ofrecía comodidad a estas personas.
- La opinión que tienen las personas acerca de las
empresas que dan servicios de redes sociales tiene un
importante impacto en su uso de estas herramientas.

Conclusiones
- Personas: mantener contacto.
- Medios son parte de la vida.
- Compartir se vuelve natural.
- Audiencia es clave para el discurso.
- Contexto determina lo apropiado.
General Conclusiones

Conclusiones
- Usuarios experimentados han aprendido
a manejar su privacidad en OSN.
- AR tiene mayoritariamente efectos
positivos: alivio, conexión.
- Reputación de la empresa es clave para
la percepción del medio.
General Conclusiones

¡Gracias!
Javier Velasco M., Ph.D. 
javier.velasco@unc.edu 
Twitter @mantruc
Agradecimientos especiales a:  
Rob Capra,  
Fred Stutzman  
& Gary Marchionini
Survey partially funded by  
- 2009 IA Institute Progress Grant  
- NSF Grant IIS 0812363

Redes Sociales Online ¿Por qué compartimos?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Redes Sociales Online ¿Por qué compartimos?

Similar a Redes Sociales Online ¿Por qué compartimos? (20)

Más de Javier Velasco, PhD

Más de Javier Velasco, PhD (18)

Último

Último (20)

Redes Sociales Online ¿Por qué compartimos?