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.

1. Posting our Hearts Out,
Understanding Online Self-Disclosure for Better Designs
Javier Velasco M.
School of Information and Library Science
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

3. Agenda
The Problem
The Survey Study
The Model
Future Work
Design Implications

4. My questions
Are there differences in intimacy for different
computer-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?

5. The Problem
Experienced adults - including early adopters of social
media - publishing intimate information in public spaces
Non-directed self-disclosure
(Stefanone & Jang, 2008 ; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)

6. 181 Followers

7. 2435 Followers

8. 1514 Followers

9. Benefits & Risks of Self-disclosure
Benefits 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

10. The Survey Study

11. Research Questions
For the given population:
Are there differences in perceived intimacy for a set of popular
CMC tools?
Does tool intimacy relate to self-disclosure?
How does this differ between people?

12. Self-Disclosure (SD) is central to interpersonal
relationships
SD is reciprocal
SD can help ill people feel better
Conversational partner is critical for SD
People treat computers & media as social actors
Computer interfaces yield more SD than paper
surveys and face-to-face conversations
Social Media tools are creating changes in privacy
boundary management processes
Social Media support non-directed SD
Privacy of CMC tool is related to SD for intimate
topics 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.

13. Questions
Used in the last month
Email - IM - Blogs - Facebook - Twitter
For each Tool
Experience
Expertise
Frequency
# People
Tool Intimacy

14. For Each Tool: How Likely are you to Share?
Mood
Family
Politics
Health
Scenario Intimacy
Psychometrics
General Self-disclosure Scale
Private Self-consciousness
Public Self-consciousness

15. Demographics
Gender
Age
Education
Work Experience
Country (current, origin)
Thanks!
$100 Gift Card?

16. Oh, wait!
IRB
Institutional Review Board

17. 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

19. The Sample Total N=1274
Analysis N=1092
Countries 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

20. The Sample
Demographics
Education: M = 17.10 Years
Work Experience: M= 9.99 Years
Participants
60.7% = Women
45% = Design or Study of
Information Systems
Age: M =33.56

21. 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

22. Results
Tool Intimacy
Intimacy

23. Results
Scenario Intimacy

24. Results
OSD x Tools / Scenarios
Likely to Share

25. 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)

26. The Model
Personal
Online
Self-disclosure
Technological Social

27. The Model
Personal
Catharsis (Jourard, 1964; Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984)
Loneliness (Leung, 2002)
Self-esteem (Joinson, 2004)
Impression Management (De Souza & Nick, 2004)
Physical Context (Stefanone, Jang & Claes, 2009)
Gender
Work Experience

28. The Model
Social
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)

29. The Model
Technological
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)

30. Future Work
Interviews:
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

31. Design
Implications

32. Thank you!
Javier Velasco M.
jvelasco@unc.edu
Twitter @mantruc
Special thanks to
Rob Capra,
Fred Stutzman
& Gary Marchionini
Also thanks to my team of Pre-testers
Survey funded by
- 2009 IA Institute Progress Grant
- NSF Grant IIS 0812363

33. Questions?
The Problem
The Survey Study
The Model
Future Work
Design Implications
Javier Velasco M.
jvelasco@unc.edu
Twitter @mantruc