<%BANNER%>

Assessing Privacy for the & #34;Me & #34; Generation

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042598/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Privacy for the & #34;Me & #34; Generation Impression Management Behaviors and Privacy Attitudes among Young Adult Users of Social Networking Sites
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gutierrez, Kayla
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adults, college, impression, management, networking, privacy, sites, social, student, young
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: As social networking sites grow in popularity, young people's willingness to freely convey personal information about themselves on these sites seemingly increases. This tendency toward greater information disclosure and personal revelation may lead to unforeseen and negative consequences for young adults who have difficulty deciding whether certain information should be privately withheld or publicly displayed. Does this tendency necessarily mean that young adults are unconcerned about privacy on social networking sites? Do they think differently about privacy than older generations? How do young adults control their digital personas on a medium that facilitates displaying the greatest amount of information possible? This thesis investigated this trio of questions and explored how young adults regulate personal information on social networking sites within the combined context of privacy and impression management theories. Through focus groups, this thesis examined young users' control over information and levels of concern about perceived impressions that may be created by information revealed on social networking profile pages. To highlight the attitudes and perspectives of college students, this thesis contrasted them with the attitudes and perspectives of older adults. After eight focus group sessions with 73 participants, the researcher found that users exercised a moderate amount of control over their content, particularly content that third parties shared about them. The most common form of control among both groups was untagging or deletion. The majority of users invested minimal effort in managing their profile pages. They were also slightly concerned about the impressions others might form about them. This concern was fueled significantly by a desire to avoid secondary impressions. Age may be a factor in how social network users regulate their content and manage their privacy, but the significance of age in impression management is still unclear. Impression management, as it currently exists, might not fully explain online behaviors of adult social network users. Future researchers should conduct detailed surveys to determine the relationship between age and impression management on social networking sites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kayla Gutierrez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Walsh-Childers, Kim B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042598:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042598/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Privacy for the & #34;Me & #34; Generation Impression Management Behaviors and Privacy Attitudes among Young Adult Users of Social Networking Sites
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Gutierrez, Kayla
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adults, college, impression, management, networking, privacy, sites, social, student, young
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: As social networking sites grow in popularity, young people's willingness to freely convey personal information about themselves on these sites seemingly increases. This tendency toward greater information disclosure and personal revelation may lead to unforeseen and negative consequences for young adults who have difficulty deciding whether certain information should be privately withheld or publicly displayed. Does this tendency necessarily mean that young adults are unconcerned about privacy on social networking sites? Do they think differently about privacy than older generations? How do young adults control their digital personas on a medium that facilitates displaying the greatest amount of information possible? This thesis investigated this trio of questions and explored how young adults regulate personal information on social networking sites within the combined context of privacy and impression management theories. Through focus groups, this thesis examined young users' control over information and levels of concern about perceived impressions that may be created by information revealed on social networking profile pages. To highlight the attitudes and perspectives of college students, this thesis contrasted them with the attitudes and perspectives of older adults. After eight focus group sessions with 73 participants, the researcher found that users exercised a moderate amount of control over their content, particularly content that third parties shared about them. The most common form of control among both groups was untagging or deletion. The majority of users invested minimal effort in managing their profile pages. They were also slightly concerned about the impressions others might form about them. This concern was fueled significantly by a desire to avoid secondary impressions. Age may be a factor in how social network users regulate their content and manage their privacy, but the significance of age in impression management is still unclear. Impression management, as it currently exists, might not fully explain online behaviors of adult social network users. Future researchers should conduct detailed surveys to determine the relationship between age and impression management on social networking sites.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kayla Gutierrez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Walsh-Childers, Kim B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042598:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS AND PRIVACY ATTITUDES AMONG YOUNG ADULT USERS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES By KAYLA GUTIERREZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERS ITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Kayla Gutierrez

PAGE 3

3 To my parents and my sister

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my comm ittee members Dr. Calvert and Dr. Elias for their expertise and invaluable feedback and my chair Dr. Walsh Childers for her wisdom, commitment and guidance throughout my graduate career. I am indebted to business owner Nam Diep for his generosity and am es pecially grateful for the unwavering support from my family, friends and boyfriend.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 1 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 1.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 1.2 The Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 1.2.1 The Blurring of Lines ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 1.2.2 An End All, Inadequate Answer ................................ ................................ ............ 14 1.3 The Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 1.4 The Support ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 1.5 The Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 1.6 Intr oduction of Social Networking Sites ................................ ................................ .......... 16 1.6.1 Definition ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16 1.6.2 General Function ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 1.6.3 Content ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 1.7 History of Social Networking Sites ................................ ................................ .................. 18 1.7.1 MySpace TM ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 1.7.1.1 Content. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19 1.7.1.2 Teens and privacy. ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 1.7.2 Facebook TM ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 21 1.7.2.1 Content. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 21 1.7.2.2 Structural changes. ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 1.7.2.3 Greater information disclosu re: pull v. push. ................................ ............... 24 1.8 Commonalities of Social Networking Sites ................................ ................................ ...... 25 1.8.1 Information Revelation ................................ ................................ ........................... 25 1.8.2 Networked Publics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 1.9 The Uses of Social Networking Sites ................................ ................................ ............... 29 1.9.1 Intended Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 29 1.9.2 Unintended Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 30 1.10 The Privacy Debate on Social Networking Sites ................................ ............................ 33 1.10.1 Privacy ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 33 1.10.1.1 Definition. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 33 1.10.1.2 Disclosure of information. ................................ ................................ .......... 34 1.10.1.3 Unwanted gaze. ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 1.10.1.4 Impressions. ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 1.10.2 Three Views Regarding Unintended Au diences ................................ .................. 35 1.10.2.1 Little or no concern. ................................ ................................ ................... 36 1.10.2.2 Some concern. ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 1.10.2.3 High concern. ................................ ................................ ............................. 36

PAGE 6

6 1.10.3 Paradox of Privacy ................................ ................................ ............................... 38 1.10.3.1 Site structure. ................................ ................................ .............................. 38 1.10.3.2 User control. ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 1.10.3.3 Implications. ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 1.10.3.4 Dimensions of privacy. ................................ ................................ .............. 42 1.10.3.5 The audience. ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ .......................... 45 2.1 Impressions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 45 2.2 Impression Management Theory ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 2.2.1 Definition ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 46 2.2.1.1 Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46 2.2.1.2 Perception. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 47 2.2.1.3 Audience. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 2.2.2 Mechanics of Impression Management ................................ ................................ .. 48 2.2.2.1 Who uses impression management? ................................ ............................ 48 2.2.2.2 When is impression management used? ................................ ....................... 48 2.2.2.3 How is impression management used? ................................ ........................ 49 2.2.2.4 Why do people engage in impression management? ................................ ... 50 2.2.2.5 When is impression management successful? ................................ .............. 51 2.2.3 Theoretical Roots of Impression Management Theory ................................ .......... 52 2.2.3.1 Symbolic Interaction. ................................ ................................ ................... 52 2.2.3.2 Self Presentation. ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 2.2.3.3 Defining points of impression management. ................................ ................ 53 2.3 Impression Management Theory on Social Networking Sites ................................ ......... 54 2.4 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 56 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 57 3.1 Defining the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 57 3.2 The Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 3.3 The Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 57 3.4 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 59 3.4.1 Active Users ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 59 3.4.2 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 60 3.4.3 Other Segmentation Considerations ................................ ................................ ....... 60 3.5 Planning Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 61 3.5.1 Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 61 3.5.1.1 Moderator. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 61 3.5.1.2 Other personnel. ................................ ................................ ........................... 61 3.5.2 Location ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 62 3.5.3 Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 62 3.6 Recruitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 62 3.7 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 62 3.8 Analysis and Reporting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 63 3.9 Cultural Categories ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63

PAGE 7

7 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 66 4.1 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 66 4.1.1 Information Disclosure ................................ ................................ ........................... 66 4.1.1.1 Benefits. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 67 4.1.1.2 Risks. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 68 4.1.1.3 Concern. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 69 4.1.2 Ways of Exercising Control ................................ ................................ ................... 70 4.1.2.1 Untagging or deletion. ................................ ................................ .................. 70 4.1.2.2 P rivacy settings. ................................ ................................ ........................... 70 4.1.2.3 Self control. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 71 4.1.2.4 Two accounts. ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 4.1.3 Audiences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 71 4.1.3.1 Unwanted gaze. ................................ ................................ ............................ 73 4.2 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 74 4.2.1 Impressions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 74 4.2.1.1 Audiences. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 74 4.2.1.2 Secondary Impressions. ................................ ................................ ................ 75 4.2.2 Impression Management ................................ ................................ ........................ 75 4.3 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ .................. 79 5.1 Control of Content ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 79 5.1.1 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 79 5.1.2 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 79 5.2 Concern about Impressions ................................ ................................ ............................... 81 5.2.1 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 81 5.2.2 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 81 5.3 The Influence of Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 86 5.3.1 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 86 5.3.2 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 87 5.4 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 88 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............ 89 5 .6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 92 practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 93 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIR E ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 94 B INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 96 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SK ETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 110

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication ASSESSING PRIVACY IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS AND PRIVACY ATTITUDES AMONG YOUNG ADULT USERS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES By Kayla Gutierrez December 2010 Chair: Kim Walsh Childers Maj or: Mass Communication As social networking sites grow in p convey personal information about themselves on these sites seemingly increases. This tendency toward greater information disclosure and personal revelation may lead to unforeseen and negative consequences fo r young adults who have difficulty deciding whether certain information should be privately withheld or publicly displayed. Does this tendency necessarily mean that young adults are unconcerned about privacy on social networking sites? Do they thin k differ ently about privacy than older generations? How do young adults control their digital personas on a medium that facilitates displaying the greatest amount of information possible? This thesis investigated this trio of questions and explored how young adult s regulate personal information on social networking sites within the combined context of privacy and impression information and levels of concern about perceived imp ressions that may be created by information revealed on social networking profile pages. To highlight the attitudes and perspectives of college students, this thesis contrasted them with the attitudes and perspectives of older adults.

PAGE 9

9 After eight focus gro up sessions with 73 participants, the researcher found that users exercised a moderate amount of control over their content, particularly content that third parties shared about them. The most common form of control among both groups was untagging or delet ion. The majority of users invested minimal effort in managing their profile pages. They were also slightly concerned about the impressions others might form about them. This concern was fueled significantly by a desire to avoid secondary impressions. Ag e may be a factor in how social network users regulate their content and manage their privacy, but the significance of age in impression management is still unclear. Impression management, as it currently exists, might not fully explain o nline behaviors of a dult social network users. Future researchers should conduct detailed surveys to determine the relationship between age and impression management on social networking sites.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 SOCIAL NETWORKING SI TES 1.1 Introduction Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against Theconnor the alias of a newly hired Cisco employee, posted this comment to his Twitter TM account in March 2009. The tweet caught the attenti (Popkin, 2009, para. 5). Even though theconnor tightened his privacy settings and removed i nformation from his personal website, the recruitment office at Cisco already had been notified, and within days of theconnor was searching for a new job (Popkin, 2009). In July 2007, Jessica Ceponis was working at the pick up window of a Taco Bell TM in Merritt Island, Florida. After she handed a soda to the 16 year old driver of one vehicle, he at her before speeding away. The passenger, a 15 year old boy, recorded the prank, and both boys posted it on YouTube TM and MySpace TM (Celizic, 2008). After Ceponis tracked their identities online and contacted authorities, the boys were required to perform community service and to film, edit and post a reenactment and apology video on YouT ube TM Brevard Circuit Court Judge Morgan Reinman doled out this 2008). Both situations illustrate that social networking sites, such as Twitter TM YouTube TM and MySp ace TM are capable of disseminating content to broad audiences. In many cases, individuals who were not part of the intended audience for certain content may nonetheless receive it. This unintended viewing of materials, in turn, can have une xpected consequ ences for social network

PAGE 11

11 sometimes has severe repercussions. the Nation MySpace TM photos of a nude 14 y ear ffice made an arrest for possession and distribution of child pornography, but was shocked to discov er that the girl in Clifton girl must register The charges were dropped three months later and the Clifton girl was As the first case in which child pornography charges may have resulted from a teen's posting to a social networking 9), this situation, although perhaps an extreme example, is indicative of a larger trend in which minors freely reveal personal information on social networking sites, leading to unforeseen and negative conflicts. 1.2 The Problem These examples highlight the latest twist for privacy concerns in that many of the phenomenon ha s been well reported in the media (Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Tufekci, 2008a). In sharing and self revelation likely will continue as they age (Anderson & Rainie, 2010). On a broader scale, the current problems surround ing social networking sites continue to challenge legal conceptions of privacy ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). The exa mples above illustrate that young adults may not understand effective impression management or privacy management online. Because social networkin g sites are relatively new

PAGE 12

12 forms of computer mediated communication, many users do not fully understand them (Melber, whether certain information should be privatel y withheld or publicly displayed. 1.2.1 The Blurring of Lines Arguably, the judgment to decide what information should be kept private or made public is a learned skill, one that typically accrues with age and life experience. It thus should come as no su rprise that teenagers and young adults, such as college students, have difficulty making this judgment. There is an interesting parallel between their behavior online and their tendencies to indulge in outward self nce, public displays of affection are particularly common among young people, especially high school students, often in settings where older adults would consider such displays inappropriate (Muir, 2006). It is somewhat easy as technology continues to shape human communication, the increasingly frequent intersections social norms that separate acceptable behavior on the Internet from acceptable behavior in person. This ambiguity, when coupled with a young population that has difficulty exercising judgment online and offline (Livingstone, 2008), has already damaged and affected the lives of people like theconnor the fire in the hole pranksters and the Clifton girl There is some support for the notion of a muddled boundary that separates what is perceived to be acceptable information for disclosure on the Internet from what is seen as acceptable information for disclosure in person. This inability to delineate appropriate disclosure 2007, p. 197), rather than a simple lack of matu rity. In fact, social media experts and researchers

PAGE 13

13 also known as Millennials born after 1980 (Millennials, 2010), actually believe that the benefits of personal disc losure outweigh concerns about privacy (Anderson & Rainie, 2010). The e vague guidelines about managing their information on social networking sites and in the broader online world (Livingstone, 2008). Few studies have measured how widespread this problem is among young adults. A question posed by Hoofnagle, King, Li & Turow (2010) approaches the idea that inappropriate usage online has some effect on Internet users. They asked adults who were more concerned about privacy now than th ey were five years ago to explain why they were more concerned. About 17% of all adults said they were mor e concerned because they had experience d a prior event that changed their attitude toward privacy. Further research revealed that more than one fifth (22%) of young adults ages 18 24 years and about one quarter (23%) of adults 35 44 felt the same way. Having privacy attitude changing experiences does not necessarily mean that all of these people had experienced negative consequences from behaving irresp onsibly like theconnor the fire in the hole pranksters and the Clifton girl Because quantitative data concerning this behavior are hard to measure, summary data on the frequency of negative repercu ssions networ k behavior may neve r be known (D. B oyd, personal communication, May 1 4, 2010). For now, however, intermittent news reports about

PAGE 14

14 these and similar incidents 1 suggest that social network users have at least some difficulty understanding when and how to regulate their behavior online. 1.2.2 An End All, Inadequate Answer A general, simplistic recommendation for young Internet users is to employ common reviewing what [users themselves] post, or in periodically reviewing what is available online young people are not assu ming control to the degree they should. To address these conc erns, this study attempt s to discover why. 1.3 The Purpose This study examines how college students regulate information about themselves that they make publicly available via social net working sites. By incorporating privacy theories and impression management theory both of which were developed separately but recently have been examined together in the narrow context of social networking sites (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007; Dwyer, Pool e, Gubner, Hennig, Osswald, Schlieblberger & Warth, 2010; Krmer & Winter, 2008) this study explores the relationship between privacy concerns and impression man agement behaviors among college age users of social networking sites. Through focus groups, it investigates how privacy concerns and impression management behaviors affect 1 Duarte, J. (2008, November 10). Egg on His Facebook. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6105699.html Gatewood, D. (2010 May 9 ). Is Facebook Really a Good Thing For College Football? Bleacher Repor t. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/389987 is facebook really a good thing for college football Networking Activity. Missourian.

PAGE 15

15 that may be created by online information about them. It highlights the views and be haviors of college students by contrasting them with the views and behaviors of older adult social network users. 1.4 The Support Social networking sites provide useful areas for academic research, enabling both ethnographic and survey studies (Tufekci, 20 08a) not widely attempted until 2006 (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007). Because they supply Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 220) and greater user control over self presentational behavior (Krmer & Winter, 2008), soc ial networking sites present researchers with an ideal opportunity to study impression management. provide insights that spark even more questions about the formation of imp ressions (Walther, van der Heide, Hamel & Shulman, 2009, p. 230). This study addresses a less frequently studied angle of impression management and audiences, namely information disclosure and privacy derstand the development of 1.5 The Format Chapter 1 continues with an overview of social networking sites that examines their history, implications and the impact of the two largest sites, Facebook TM and MySpace TM This chapter describes site characteristics, illustrates intended and unintended uses, explains the on going privacy debate and exami nes the extent to which privacy and impression related problems affect the current enviro nment. It concludes with a discussion about how social networking site audiences, real or imagined, can influence user behavior online.

PAGE 16

16 Chapter 2 then introduces the theory of impression management and describes how privacy decisions are made on social ne tworking sites in the context of impression management. Chapter 3 proposes the research methods for this study while Chapter 4 interprets results. Finally, Chapter 5 addresses the significance of the findings and study limitations and concludes with recomm endations for future research. 1.6 Introduction of Social Networking Sites 1.6.1 Definition 2008, p. 13). Social network theory is defined by norms that determine information sharing within certain groups (Solove, 2007). Social networks are also essential to human survival (Solove, 2007). The Internet enables social networks to exist online as social networking sites. Social networking sites are web based ser vices that allow individuals to public or semi public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211). These sites develop into a virtual community, comprised of members through different networks (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007) who can interact with one another (Coyle & Vaughn, 2008). Social networking sites can easily become participatory cultures, or cultures that strongly support the creation and sharing of content among members who consider themselves to be socially connected (J enkins, 2009). The popular social networking site Facebook TM for instance, is an example of a participatory culture (Jenkins, 2009).

PAGE 17

17 1.6.2 General Function Social networking sites have two general functions relating to information and networks. First, the y facilitate the sharing of personal information (Livingstone, 2008) by providing they help to establish a network of connections (Acar, 2008) made visible to e veryone with whom users communicate ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). 1.6.3 Content Every social networking site contains a profile page that displays a variety of personal information, such as a real name, pseudonym, birthday, hometown, religion, ethnicity and per sonal interests (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007). Most profile pages contain status updates, online links, pictures, videos and educational and work information (B uffardi & Campbell, 2008). on a social networking site is anyone who has approved or given approval to a request to establish a connection ( Boyd 2006). By becoming a friend, users gain access to the pages of other friends and provide them with access to their own pages (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007). Social networking sites provide many optional features to enhance user identity or keep members entertained. These personalize their profiles and perform other tasks, such as compare movie preferences and chart Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 218). Some popular examples on Facebook TM include t he Family Tree TM application, which displays how members are related to each other, and the Bookshelf TM application, which allows users to write book reviews. Popular MySpace TM applications include music players, which enable users to build playlists of so ngs that can be

PAGE 18

18 automatically played upon opening a page, and blogs, which are digital journal entries that can be accessed by other members on a network. Both sites are capable of displaying links from other websites and video sharing sites like YouTube TM Games like Farmville TM and Mafia Wars TM are also popular applications on these sites. These applications give members additional access to personal information and content. From 2009 to 2010, Internet users were three times more likely to be visiting a s ocial networking site than engaging in any other Internet activity (Nielsen Company, 2009a). Social networking sites now are the fourth most popular sector on the Internet, even surpassing e mail (Nielsen Company, 2009a). Despite their exponential growth, social networking sites may breed as many problems as benefits for Internet users (Hoadley, Xu, Lee & Rosson, 2009). Examining their history elucidates why so much has changed within the thirteen years since the introduction of the first social networking site, SixDegrees.com TM ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). 1.7 History of Social Networking Sites Introduced in 1997, the earliest social networking sites featured personal, professional, and dating profiles that attracted primarily niche groups. Some sites were used for particular purposes; LiveJournal TM allowed users to post journal entries and Friendster TM enabled users to meet friends of friends ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). The popularity of Friendster TM in 2002 spawned the development of newer social networking sites t hat also targeted niche groups. Working professionals gravitated to LinkedIn TM while photo sharers and video sharers frequented Flickr TM and YouTube TM The birth of MySpace TM in 2003 launched social networking sites into the world of mainstream online com munication ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). 1.7.1 MySpace TM TM initially

PAGE 19

19 and medium for self ex pression for younger demographics (Nielsen Company, 2009a), MySpace TM provided a place for everyone, including corporations, celebrities, film companies, politicians and musicians ( Boyd 20 06 ). 1.7.1.1 Content. MySpace TM profile pages are customizable, either through application of existing themes or HTML coding. Like other social networking sites, MySpace TM pages provide identifying and biographical information, videos, links, blogs, phot os and friends. Users can even create musical playlists and add images to the main welcome screen ( Boyd 2008). Because of this customizability, MySpace TM ically synonymous with self promotion continually garners a strong following of teenagers ( Boyd identity i n MySpace TM 1.7.1.2 Teens and privacy. When teens began joining MySpace TM in 2004, the site updated its policy to include minors age Boyd 2007, p. 3). MySpace TM is criticized continually for not en acting tighter privacy settings. By default, the profile pages of users 18 and up are accessible to everyone ( Boyd 2008). The age restrictions are not enforceable, making it possible for any user to have complete freedom over the presentation of personal profile pages and chosen networks (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). This freedom created acute privacy concerns among adults who feared the potential for sexual predators to communicate with MySpace TM

PAGE 20

20 people (Tufekci, 2008a). Those conce rns were raised in Doe v. MySpace a 2008 case in which a 19 year old man arranged a meeting with and sexually assaulted a 14 year old Texas g irl who had pretended to be 18 years old on her MySpace TM profile ( Doe v. MySpace 2008). As a general response to its many privacy concerns, MySpace TM released a new version in December 2009 ). Because of its reputation for failing to sufficiently TM is a topic of interest to researchers studying information disclosure. In 2006, Hinduja and Patchin (2008) analyzed 2,423 publicly viewable My Space TM profiles of teens who revealed personal information and displayed content of an adult nature, like posing in undergarments or swimsuits, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana or cursing. In 2007, Patchin and Hinduja (2010) conducted a follow up study of the same profiles to detect any changes in information disclosure and exercising discretion in posting personal information on MySpace TM y settings to limit access (p. 197). The trend toward tighter user control may be due to either greater user familiarity with site features or an overall maturity of the population; two thirds of teens had turned 18 years old at the time of the second stud y. There was additional speculation that cultural changes had affected disclosure on MySpace TM These shifts could range from salience of privacy issues to movement to other social networking sites. Although the study does not explain why profiles changed (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010), it suggests that teens still widely use MySpace TM but they use it differently than they had one year ago.

PAGE 21

21 1.7.2 Facebook TM Although MySpace TM attracts 100 million active members worldwide (Nielsen Company, 2009), Facebook TM supersedes MySpace TM as the number one social networking site in the United States (Nielsen Company, 2009b). Founded by Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, Facebook TM was established 2010), connecting members to each other offline and online (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006). This exclusivity immediately made Facebook TM unique because it was organized around real world physical communities (Lenhart & Madden, 2007) within an ostensibl y bounded domain (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). The long term effect on the earliest Facebook TM users was the perception that the site was an intimate and private community ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008); this perception contributed largely to its growth and niche appe al (Urista, Dong & Day, 2008). Eventually, Facebook TM expanded its networks to include high schools, employers, geographic regions, corporations and, by 2006, everyone ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). 1.7.2.1 Content. Facebook TM provides users with many types of content sharing features that allow for great amounts of information disclosure. In September 2006, Facebook TM launched NewsFeed an updated, time from friends ( Zuckerberg, 2006). NewsFeed coincided with the introduction of MiniFeed, a NewsFeed version of changes and updates that come from a particular user. NewsFeeds appear their entire social network; MiniFeeds appear on made information more accessible and more visible to members on a given network ( Boyd 2008). For example, i

PAGE 22

22 coul comment. These added features did not publish new information. Before NewsFeed and MiniFeed, pages. But when the new features were implemented, friends automatically received notifications of any changes that users made themselves (Hoadley et al., 2009). In essence, Facebook TM distributed information that users already had revealed (Melber, 2008) This disclosure is voluntary, and NewsFeed and Boyd 2008, p. 15). NewsFeed and MiniFeed received immens e criticism from Facebook TM users, who details that previously existed in a social context, limited by visitors' interest in a person and shattered any sense of conc ( Melber, 2008). Because users perceived they had less control, they became more uncomfortable sharing information (Hoadley et al., 2009 ) and were alerted to the extensiveness of their exposure online. Their heightened awareness, however, may not necessarily have translated into is widely exposed, response, Facebook TM implemented settings that allowed users to choose what can and cannot be published.

PAGE 23

23 In September 2007, Facebook TM offered its users the option to be searched via Google, a 2007 ). This feature enabled non Facebook TM members to view personal profiles. Like NewsFeed, this generated significant privacy concerns, whi ch grew when Facebook TM launched Beacon in November 2007. Beacon is a social advertising program that used profile pictures and purchasing activity to promote products and services. This Marc purchased an item from Fandango.com TM Overstock.com TM NYTimes.com TM or any of TM as a personal ad endorsing that company. Beacon was originally desig to be used through Beacon, he would need to manually change his default settings to disable Beacon. Predictably, Beac on raised significant privacy concerns over its violation of laws would have to manually select Beacon to activate it (Catone, 2007). 1.7.2.2 Structural changes. Over time, Facebook TM altered its infrastructure toward greater disclosure. In March 2009, users could make any profile section viewable to everyone, signaling a departure from its previous accessibility that was limited to network members and friends (Sl ee, 2009). The site became global when it abolished its regional networks in July 2009 (Kelly, 2009) and offered less control to users when it rescinded the option to restrict any publications on NewsFeed in December 2009 (Sanghvi, 2009). Facebook TM st data collection service is changing how Facebook TM and other TM users can click a New York Times article, a song on Pandora Radio TM

PAGE 24

24 or a photo on Flickr TM that sends this information back to Facebook TM The end result is two fold; Facebook TM users who are still logged in are welcomed by personalized New York Times Pando ra Radio TM or Flickr TM 2010), Open Graph consolidates online behavior on non Face book TM sites. As with Beacon, critics are calling Facebook TM United States senators are at the forefront of this movement (Swartz, 2010). 1.7.2.3 Greater information disclosure: pull v. pus h. Through these expanding features, Facebook TM continually contributes to greater information disclosure. Before the introduction of NewsFeed and MiniFeed, information was After the introduction, Facebook TM available on Facebook TM than on MySpace TM users share mo re truthful information on Facebook TM than on other social networking site (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009; Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006; Tufekci, 2008b). Social norms on Facebook TM dictate more truthful disclosure because information is verifiable (Lampe, Elli son & Steinfield, 2006) and because Facebook TM Facebook TM challenges current privacy attitudes. At the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2010, Facebook TM founder and CEO Mark Zuckerbe toward greater information disclosure reflects what users want: "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are" ( Paul, 2010 ). The problem with this statement is that Facebook TM does more

PAGE 25

25 than react to current social norms; it plays a pivotal role in determining those s ocial norms. By reducing the amount of user control and increasing the number and variety of information sharing mechanisms (Bankston, 2009), Facebook TM encourages some would even say it forces users to share more information and contributes to an evolving or arguably, a devolving idea of privacy. These characteristics of information disclosure should make Facebook TM a prominent cause for concern among the majority of users. However, this is not the case. One explanation may be that Facebook TM and other s Potential harms to privacy have not deterred members from using Facebook TM many criticisms, Fac ebook TM sharing site (Putnam, 2009), the most popular social networking site for college students (Tufekci, 2008b) and the most popular social networking site in the United States (Nielsen Company, 2009b). 1.8 Commonalities of Social Networking Sites 1.8.1 Information Revelation that have 2010, p. 1). Indeed, they reveal a significant amount of information in three ways: Identifiability Content Visibility First, social network developers encourage members to use their full name; this approach stems from the ide a that offline acquaintances should be able to search for and find one another easily before they request to be online friends. Second, social networking sites prominently display

PAGE 26

26 nd links. Without this user generated content, members would have nothing to share or display. Third, social networking sites have varying degrees of visibility. Visibility on a social networking site is characterized by the extent to which other people ca n see profile pages, content and information. Visibility varies by site. For example, Marc can adjust his privacy settings on Facebook TM to allow only his immediate family to view his photo albums; Marc cannot do this on MySpace TM because MySpace TM was des igned to make content more visible to a greater number of friends. Users have fewer options to control visibility on MySpace TM compared to Facebook TM This is especially true on MySpace TM known layout that wa s the center of MySpace TM and offers greater control over photo sharing and privacy, but still falls short of matching the controls that Facebook TM offers. Visibility is also subject to indi vidual preference. Marc may want his friends to know the identity of his girlfriend by revealing his relationship status on his page, but Klara might be uncomfortable with sharing the id entity of her boyfriend; social networking tools allow Klara to limit this information to only her page by changing the visibility of this category through her privacy settings. These three characteristics may seem neutral, but they leave open the possibility for greater data gathering. Users who disclose their real names co uld be re identified by birthdates, display his or her birthday, favorit facts are used to answer common security questions. If a hacker comes across these facts on a social networking site, it is possible that they may use this information to commit fraud, open

PAGE 27

27 accou nts and steal funds (Ibrahim, 2008). Lastly, users are finding it more difficult to control the visibility of their profile pages because these sites thrive on their capability they give users to uisti, 2005). 1.8.2 Networked Publics Boyd 2007, p. 8). Networked publics have four attributes: Persistence Searchability Replicability Invisible Audiences On networked publics, information persists because it is digitally stored. Statements and comments on a social ne tworking site, unless deleted by the user, can be retrieved. Because this information persists, content can be sifted and searched, making it more likely that specific information can be discovered through search engines (Rosenblum, 2007). For example, if Klara wanted to identify Marc on Netflix TM she could view his profile and movie list as long as she could provide his gender, zip code and birthday information that can be found through a profile page ( Klein, 2010). Networked publics also enable replication. For example, perhaps Marc was identified in an embarrassing photo on Facebook TM If Klara had bad intentions, she could copy this photo and paste it on her Facebook TM page. Even if Marc has barred his co workers from seeing his (Greenwood, 2009). An incident in San Bernandino, California, in April 2010 highlights the i mplications associated with replication. When a group of eight teenage girls had sent nude and

PAGE 28

28 semi nude photos to friends via cell phone voluntarily in a practice commonly known as sexting, four teenage boys who had received the photos reposted them to th The breadth of potential audiences on the Internet makes it is impossible to predict who extra curricular activities after a photo depicting them dressed in lingerie and pretending to lick a penis shaped lollipop surfaced from their MySpace TM pages. The two girls intended to only share the photos with friends as a joke, but when an unknown individual had accessed these photos, he Invisible and unknown audiences are viewing content that users had not intended for them to see. Openbook, a website launched in May 2010 by independent web developers, is an example of unintended audiences. Openbook aggregates Facebook TM status updates and displays them through search queries, but only status updates from public profile pages are shown; content from users who activated privacy settings to make status updates a vailable to selected friends do not appear on Openbook. However, because many users are still unfamiliar with Facebook TM TM users with picture, a working link to their profile page and the actual statement that included the phrase TM account holders; in other words, any individual who visits the site and types a word or phrase can read the results. To summarize, Openbook

PAGE 29

29 invisible audiences can access content on social networking sites is the primary focus of this study. Several recent studies have arrived at varying conclusions when attempti ng to assess how young adults and college students manage their privacy and impressions online (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007; Dwyer et al., 2010; Fogel & Nehmad, 2008; Foulger et al., 2009; Hoadley et al., 2009; Hoofnagle et al., 2010; Lenhart, 2009; Liv ingstone, 2008; Madden & Smith, 2010; Morris & Millen, 2007; Patchin and Hinduja, 2010; Tufekci, 2008a). These varying conclusions reveal the intricacy of this area of study and the evolution of privacy and impression management on social networking sites and, to a broader extent, on the Internet in general. 1.9 The Uses of Social Networking Sites 1.9.1 Intended Uses Researchers have identified several intended uses of social networking sites. Main uses include communicating (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007 ), keeping in touch with friends (Coyle & Vaughn, 2008; Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007; Hoadley et al., 2009; Rosenblum, 2007) and engaging in chatty, short conversation as a supplementary form of communication (Coyle & Vaughn, 2008). Other intended uses i nclude providing fun and entertainment, viewing and posting photos, avoiding boredom (Coyle & Vaughn, 2008; Shi, Lee, Cheung & Chen, 2010), updating activities and presenting an idealized persona (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007). These uses are shaped in p art by the presence of particular audiences. Social network users expect their peer groups to witness their activities on these sites. However, many profiles can be accessed easily by outsiders. This can create a situation in which users perceive themselve s to be communicating to an imagined audience made up of peer group members while the real audience Boyd 2007, p. 4).

PAGE 30

30 T he lack of control users have over the expansion of their networks further reduces the will be used in ways that are approved by the user. In the previous e unacceptable behavior toward Marc would be an example of audiences not always acting in predictable ways. Tufekci (2008a) epitomized this idea through the following example: day party, but the photograph taken by someone with a cell phone camera and uploaded to Myspace TM is not appropriate for a job interview, nor is it necessarily representative of that person. Yet that picture and that job interview may now intersect (p. 22) the social representations and interactions of activities that straddle the border between public and private communication (Tufekci, 2008a). The classifica tion of social networking sites as a visibility and boundary settings and practicing audience management. Although the public tends to scrutinize social networking sites for privacy concerns, researchers instead seek answers to unint ended uses. 1.9.2 Unintended Uses The unintended uses of social networking sites articulate the potential for certain audiences to monitor individuals through surveillance on profile pages (Hearn, 2008). Some college admission committees practice this type of surveillance (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009). In a study of 50 colleges whose adm issions offices screened so cial network profiles, more than one third (38%) discovered information about at least one applicant that led them to decide not to admit him or her (Hechinger, 2008). Employers

PAGE 31

31 are following suit. Almost half of employers surveyed in 2009 (45%) reported that they had used Facebook TM and Twitter TM to screen candidates a 23% increase from 2008 (Grasz, 2009). Similar to the use of social networking sites by college admissions offices, one third of employers reported that they had found content on social networking sites that led them to decide not to hire an individual they were considering (Grasz, 2009). Other instituti ons utilize content on social networking sites to provide grounds for discipline or legal action. Recently, high schools have begun extending their reach into the online non school related contexts (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969, p. 504). Employers are following suit. A 2009 Marketwire study revealed that 8% of companies in the United States had fired employees for inappropriate behavior on Facebook TM (Marketwire, 2009) and LinkedIn TM a career oriented Some law enforcement bodies have used Facebook TM and MySpace TM photos to charge individuals in connection with illegal activity like hazing (Bar nes, 2006) and underage drinking (Findlay, 2008; Stewart, 2009). For civil cases since 2006, Texas has allowed evidence obtained from social networking sites to be used as evidence in court. Texas Associate Judge Kathryn Lanan has said this change of law h elps her; she befriends juveniles in her jurisdiction on social networking sites in order to monitor their postings (Rozen, 2009). An incident in July 2008 illustrated the repercussions that may result from law enforcement agencies accessing profile pages. In July 2008, Rhode Island prosecutor Jay Sullivan used a picture he found on Facebook TM in support of harsher sentencing for a defendant in a drunk driving case. The defendant, Joshua Lipton, had been photographed at a Halloween party wearing an orange j

PAGE 32

32 Sullivan used the Lipton to two years in prison. Although this pra ctice is not widespread, this case indicates that prosecutors have used social networking sites when they have found incriminating pictures online (Tucker, 2008). Some institutions consider these surveillance methods acceptable. Companies justify these me they hire, train and invest their time and money (Rosenblum, 2007). While these unintended uses do exist, not every college admissions committee or lawyer is actively monitoring the social networking environment. Colleges such as Princeton University, University of Virginia and Ohio State University do not screen applicants this way because it takes too much time. To avoid a double standard, some lawyers recommend that colleges avoid this practice unless they have a der Werf, 2007) or will use the social networking site to verify information on resums. Some companies ar e taking an active role to address the ethical arguments concerning the presence of social media in the workplace. The auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers instituted an official ate worke rs about the tenuous line that separates their personal and professional lives online (Singh, 2010). Some institutions continue to peruse social networking profiles, however, and businesses, schools and other institutions are gravitating in this d irection (Greenwood, 2009).

PAGE 33

33 The overarching idea in these examples reiterates the potential to track individuals through social networking sites. Several recent cases illustrate the potential for stalking on social networking sites. Convicted several times of stalking young men and women, 28 year old Robert Slye from New Hampshire had set up fake Facebook TM profiles in order to solicit photos from his stalking victims (Kimble, 2009). In May 2010, police arrested a 14 year old Virginia girl for stalking anot her girl for two years on Facebook TM The girls had maintained an online relationship, but after meeting in person several times, the stalker girl sent provocative messages and wall posts of a suggestive nature (Chavez, 2010). Two months earlier, in March 2010, Paul Bristol, an IT technician for the Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of Administration, saw a photo of his ex girlfriend with another man on Facebook TM Plagued with jealousy, he flew from Trinidad to London and stabbed accountant Camille Mathurasingh twenty times whom Judge Pontius said had done nothing to provoke Bristol The jury convicted Bristol of murder in one hour The potential for stalking is a real concern, given the magnitude and sensitivity of information on these sites (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). The structure of online social networks as a unintended audiences to search through and discover archived information anonym ously (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007; Rosenblum, 2007). The unintended uses discussed here illuminate the large scale and on going privacy debate surrounding social networking sites. 1.10 The Privacy Debate on Social Networking Sites 1.10.1 Privacy 1.10. 1.1 Definition. Boyd 2008, p. 18). It is a means of exerting control over how

PAGE 34

34 our information is used, revealed and spread (Sol ove, 2007). Although there is no universally agreed definition, the concept of privacy can be broken down into a variety of privacy concerns, which are multidimensional, depend on context and vary with life experience (Dinev, Xu & Smith, 2009). These priva cy concerns are made up of degrees and dimensions, not absolutes expe ctations of organizational privacy practices determine individual privacy attitudes (Dinev, Xu & Smith, 2009). These determining factors produce a concept of privacy, which, on its own, is a set of norms that influence how individuals interact and share in formation with each other (Solove, 2007). Researchers have inspected privacy concerns on social networking sites in the context of trust (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007), risk taking (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009), student teacher relationships (Foulger et al., 20 09), attitudes among adults (Lenhart, 2009) and legal boundaries ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). The following section examines three other aspects of privacy on these sites. 1.10.1.2 Disclosure of information. As previously mentioned, social networking sites enc ourage the disclosure of large amounts of information (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). This information may contain semi public information (e.g. previous schools and employers), private information (e.g. drinking, drug usage, sexual orientation) or open ended in formation (e.g. varied content found on blogs) (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). Individuals weigh these types of disclosures differently (Tufekci, 2008a). For example, Klara may be more inclined to reveal her favorite books and educational background than her pho ne number or her sexual orientation. Information disclosure is shaped in part by an

PAGE 35

35 1.10.1.3 Unwanted gaze. Unwanted gaze is defined as concern over the possibility that people, who are not meant to view a profile p age, actually view it (Tufekci, 2008a). Instances of unwanted gaze occur when and content (Ibrahim, 2008). Levels of concern for unwanted gaze differ among soc ial networking sites. For example, students are less likely to use their real names on MySpace TM than on Facebook TM because they perceive Facebook TM as having tighter restrictions and less unwanted gaze than MySpace TM (Tufekci, 2008a). 1.10.1.4 Impressions Influenced by the previous two aspects of privacy, perceived impressions matter to individuals when they are behaving and interacting in front of an audience. Users assign varying levels of concern based on who they think their audience is. Commenting o n the discrepancy of the effect of real concern over unspecified undesirable audiences with the lack of concern about government, corporate, or employer surveill concerns for unwanted audiences tend to be limited to those direct authority figures (i.e. parents, coaches, professors) who play a role in their present lives, rather than those who may have an impact on thei r future lives (i.e. employers, admissions committees). The vague and fluctuating nature of audiences mak es it very difficult for social network users to manage their impressions appropriately. 1.10.2 Three Views Regarding Unintended Audiences A review of the literature suggests that individuals adopt one of three different views or levels of concern regarding unintended audiences. Individuals exhibit little or no concern, some concern or high concern.

PAGE 36

36 1.10.2.1 Little or no concern. Some users have no or only have a modicum of concern for the possibility of unintended audiences finding and using their profile pages. For these individuals, the audience that caused the most concern was a potential romantic partner, rather than a future employer, the governme nt or school institutions (Tufecki, 2008a). 1.10.2.2 Some concern. Members of the second group of users are somewhat concerned about unintended audiences. These concerns vary according to age groups (Tufekci, 2008a) and the features of different sites (H oadley et al., 2009). The introduction of NewsFeed and MiniFeed on Facebook TM in 2006 decreased slowly after the Facebook TM team tweaked the new features and added privacy control settings ( Boyd 2008; Zuckerberg, 2006). Users can mitigate these concerns by activating privacy regulation mechanisms, such as using nicknames and tightening visibility preferences (Lenhart, 2009; Tufekci, 2008a). Although users are somew hat aware of the privacy implications that exist on social networking sites, the majority do not utilize privacy settings (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). 1.10.2.3 High concern. This viewpoint represents users who are extremely concerned about unintended audie nces. The less control a user perceives he has over his information, the higher his or her concern for privacy (Dinev et al., 2009). High general privacy concerns are the number one reason some individuals refuse to join social networking sites (Tufekci, 2 008a). These users are cognizant that the wide scope of audiences on these sites negates any sense of privacy (Rosenblum, 2007) and that a reduction in privacy is the price users pay to use those sites (Moloney & Bannister, 2009).

PAGE 37

37 Users who have some or hi gh levels of privacy concern approach social networking sites by limiting access to unintended audiences. This is achieved by restricting the visibility of profiles to friends (Tufekci, 2008a). For example, Foulger et al. (2009) found that participants vie disclosed large amounts of information, but they found it less likely that the information would be accessed by unintended audiences if they simply limit who se more concerned about what personal information is likely to be accessed than what personal widely practice this approach. Both grou ps view privacy restrictions as an opportunity to assert at least some control over their content and information while being able to freely express themselves. Unfortunately, the boundaries on social networking sites are not absolute ( Boyd 2007), and so privacy settings on these sites cannot wholly guarantee limited access for unintended audiences. In surveying the various implications regarding these sites, this author concludes that privacy settings are not adequate remedies for the protection and mana gement of profiles and impressions against unintended audiences. Unintended audiences can circumvent privacy settings, transforming data perceived to be private into public data (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). Even if an audience is meant to view something, it wisely or expectedly (Livingstone, 2008). Despite these realities, users continued to believe in a right to privacy over their information, claiming that because unintended audiences were not meant to view content, t hey should not view it (Foulger et al., 2009). The following analogy captures this thinking. A person undresses in front of his or her hotel window without intending other hotel guests to see this display. Several hotel guests see this display. Because thi s person

PAGE 38

38 did not intend for them to see it, he or she believes that the guests should look away, despite the fact that the undressing was performed in a prominent place for display. This mentality captures the paradox of privacy on social networking sites. 1.10.3 Paradox of Privacy 1.10.3.1 Site structure. The structure of social networking sites requires continuous negotiation between informat ion disclosure and relationship building. These sites encourage the disclosure of large amounts of information (Gr oss & Acquisti, 2005) over time (Hoofnagle et al., 2010). Facebook TM alone has had a profound effect on the timeliness of disclosing information ( Boyd 2008; Hoadley et al y being able to access their information and content. This benefit even extends to users who have not had any or have had very little face to face communication. Incoming freshmen at the University of Florida and other Florida schools have used Facebook TM to find potential roommates, learn about randomly selected dorm roommates, build relationships and seek advice on professors, classes and majors (Coleman, 2010). The ability to prepare and find information about others is a defining feature of social netwo rking sites. 2010, p. 8). The customizability of MySpace TM and plethora of appl ications for self branding on Facebook TM encapsulate this idea (Hearn, 2008). According to Mary Madden, senior research specialist at the Pew Research Center's Internet and & American Life Project, sharing information helps users build relationships. "By p osting a photo or an update about what you did at a bar last night, you are sharing with friends to initiate an exchange and continue a friendship" (Klein, 2010). As a result, a new form of intimacy becomes widespread

PAGE 39

39 personal information w ith large and potentially unknown numbers of friends and strangers thereby breed greater intimacy among members. 1.10.3.2 User control. At the same time, the openness of information on these sites is in direct conflict with Boyd t hat other members will use content in predictable ways (Tufekci, 2008a). Most importantly, users also cannot control their audiences because the nature of the audiences on social networking sites is obscured ( Boyd 2007; Tufekci, 2008a). The amorphous audi ences on these sites make it difficult for users to begin to know how they should regulate themselves online. In willingly disclose information in social networking si 2). Conceptually, this conflict is defined as the paradox of privacy on social networking sites. 1.10.3.3 Implications. This paradox provides some underlying evidence that explains why young people encounter so ma ny privacy and impression related problems on social networking sites. Young users disclose content and behave in ways that suggest that they view these sites as intimate spheres of communication with limited and known set of peers ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008) or that the information posted to the site is irrelevant to other contexts in the offline world (Morris & teenagers, who often think their lives are private as long as their parents are not reading their sites can arguably be considered public information ( Boyd 2007). In April 2010, a Facebook TM

PAGE 40

40 employee tweeted that Faceboo k TM founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg does not believe in actual amount of privacy on these sites (van Buskirk, 2010). Some users possess an expectation of pri vacy on social networking sites that is arguably contradictory to the actual amount of privacy that these sites afford. On one hand, the developers of these sites have designed them in ways that display the greatest amount of information possible. Users ca n choose to control the flow of their information by adjusting privacy settings or by regulating their behavior (i.e. deleting unsavory pictures, not disclosing phone numbers, etc.). Many times, users may not know how to effectively self regulate, how to c ontrol their information, or how to distinguish between information that should be made public and that which should be kept private. These dichotomous ingredients, which are information disclosure enabling site structure and privacy ambiguous member usage create a paradox that perpetuates uncertainty and blurs the line that separates acceptable offline and online behavior. As a result, 2007, p. 41). This paradox, however, does not imply that all social network users are behaving naively on social networking sites. The paradox of privacy simply points out that the structure and usage of these sites contribute to a certain degree of conf lict between information sharing, relationship building and user control over privacy and self presentations. ad ult Americans have an aspiration for increased privacy even while they participate in an online reality that is optimized to increase

PAGE 41

41 attitudes of 532 Internet users of various age groups and asked their most important reason for being more concerned about privacy now than they were five years ago. Respondents chose from three options. The first option greater knowledge about privacy risks was most often (42%) se lected by young adults 18 24. The second option severe consequences if privacy violations were to occur was selected by a third (32%) of young adults. The third option occurrence of a past experience that changed privacy attitudes was selected by only 22% of this group. The overall findings suggest that this group is more concerned with potential privacy violations and previous privacy experiences than actual knowledge of online privacy risks. This author argues that the first and second options relate to a wareness and knowledge of privacy implications online, while the third option relates to life experience and the previous occurrence of problems. The third option is particularly important to this study because it is ences with posting questionable content on a social networking site. Some research suggests that young adults and college students encounter more privacy and impression related problems than any other age group (Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Tufekci, 2008a), ye t this study reveals that almost as many adults 35 44 (23%) as young adult s (22%) had encountered privacy attitude changing experiences. There is some evidence to suggest that privacy and impression related problems are not limited to the younger populati on. e digital world in a Madden and Smith (2010) reported that young adults, spec ifically adults 18 to 29 years old, are the most active reputation managers. Compared to older adult users on social networking sites,

PAGE 42

42 this group assumed a more active role in limiting the amount of available personal information, The findings of this study (Madden & Smith, 2010) and the earlier study (Hoofnagle et al., 2010) may provide some evidence to suggest that young people are assuming greater control in regulating their behavior online. Does this increased control extend to their behavior on soc ial networking sites? Does this control vary among particular types of users? Although these questions remain unanswered, social networking sites continue to affect privacy attitudes toward lower or higher expectations of privacy. 1.10.3.4 Dimensions of p rivacy. The diversity of social networking studies highlights the multi dimensional nature of studying privacy. Privacy attitudes can be examined through site structure; site structure enables information disclosure, unwanted gaze and impressions, all of which can vary in degree by social networking site. Privacy attitudes also vary greatly among people who have different levels of privacy awareness, life experience and the tendency to engage in public self exhibition. This literature review has examined t hese facets; this study now focuses on one specific aspect, the role of the audience. 1.10.3.5 The audience. The role of the audience as an impression forming party is an intriguing aspect of study. Among social network users, audiences form impressions of users based on their profile pages, but in some cases, users misunderstand the context of online interaction ( Boyd 2007). This position makes it possible that individuals misinterpret impressions and cues on these sites (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 20 09) and form judgments rooted in only partial understanding of information (Solove, 2007, p. 67).

PAGE 43

43 Most literature suggests that college students and recent graduates are the most affected by poor impression management. About 72% of this group, specifically those ages 18 24, use social networking sites on a daily basis (Klein, 2010). Traditionally, these groups are skilled at establishing spatial boundaries on social networking sites (i.e. these groups can navigate the technical nature of privacy settings), but they fall short in establishing temporal or time related boundaries. For example, young people may believe that content posted in the past is no longer of their personal information, may become so as they enter sensitive and delicate jobs a few years from now 2005, p. 9). To summarize, the varying degrees of concern for online pri vacy among college students, the preferred approach of limiting access rather than limiting information, the lack of awareness of unintended audiences forming undesired impressions and the public nature of social networking sites make college students a fa scinating population in which to study online impression management. The paradox of privacy allows for many possibilities for exactly how the perceived audience (intended and unintended) affects the amount of control and concern users have over their infor (Hoadley et al 2009, p. 9). The aspect of the audience is the primary focus of this explor atory study. By definition, the audience plays a central role in the study of impression management. Much pre existing research has examined privacy theories and impression management theories separately, but an emphasis on the role of the audience in a so cial networking environment is lacking. The

PAGE 44

44 following section discusses the basics of impression management theory. A section on the application of this theory to social networking sites follows. The study of audiences, as an extension of both privacy theo ry and impression management theory, will elucidate how college students are managing or failing to manage online social environment.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWOR K 2.1 Impressions 248). They represent the means for people to guide responses and reactions and are the symbols, signals and cues that lead to forming a view of person. Impressions involve actors and audiences. Act ors are the individual persons who put on performances which audiences witness. Audiences can be real or imagined (Goffman, 1959). There are two types of impressions. Calculated impressions are a combination of inferences that an actor wishes an audience t o draw about him or herself. Conversely, secondary impressions are a combination of inferences that an actor did not intend or wish for an audience to draw about him or herself (Schneider, 1981). Both calculated and secondary impressions can be truthful concept (Schlenker, 1980). Actors approach these impressions differently. For an actor to convey a calculated impression, he or she should know what behaviors lead audiences to draw particular inferences. Conveyi ng calculated impressions is more difficult than conveying secondary impressions. For misinterpret her cues and form a secondary impression that she is aloof and disinteres ted. Because actors have less control over the inferences and interpretation that audiences make about a specific behavior (Goffman, 1959), audiences can form undesirable secondary impressions that 1981, p. 33). The nature of impressions is essential to understanding the theory of impression management.

PAGE 46

46 2.2 Impression Management Theory 2.2.1 Definition directed activity of cont rolling information about theory involves actors who control, manipulate and influence their self images among particular audiences (Goffman, 1959). When actors at tempt to convey impressions, they also attempt to convey preselected personality traits and images (Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). For example, a be seen as profe ssional and competent; making eye contact, donning a crisp suit, having a firm handshake and being well spoken are all traits and images he believes will form a desirable impression to secure the job. These images are managed consciously or unconsciously d uring real or imagined social interactions (Schlenker, 1980). 2.2.1.1 Control. Impression management is characterized by attempts at control. Actors seek to control the impressions audiences form about themselves as the acting party and the meanings of th ose impressions, thereby controlling the outcomes of social interactions (Schlenker, 1980). This control can take the form of self regulation or self monitoring. Self regulation occurs when an corrects h is or her behavior to produce a specific impression (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Self monitoring occurs when an actor can synchronize verbal and non verbal actions to convey intended impressions (Schlenker, 1980). For example, people who are skilled at sel f monitoring may be able to cry on cue or to maintain the appearance of being calm in frightening situations.

PAGE 47

47 2.2.1.2 Perception. Impression management is also characterized by perception. By exercising control over self associated images, actors attempt (Schneider, 1981). In other words, actors will consider the viewpoints of others and adjust he views his ow him or herself or to avoid negative or secondary impressions, he is engaging in impr ession management (Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). The importance of perception in impression management glass self, which states that individuals develop 1902). 2.2.1.3 Audience. imagined (Goffman, 1959) and even generalized. Schlenker (1980) referred to audiences as the generalized other that represents so (Schlenker, 1980, p. 69). The audience affects the self regulating behavior of actors in the followin g ways. First, actors monitor themselves and shift their behaviors in order to receive more rewards than costs in social interactions. Marc may be aware that by admitting to speeding and acting respectfully to the police officer who just pulled him over, h e is less likely to receive a ticket. By shifting his behavior, Marc increases his chances of receiving a reward (i.e. a warning) and decreases his chances of receiving a cost (i.e. a speeding ticket). Second, audiences activate different identity images, goals and scripts. The representation of an actor will depend partly on who his or her

PAGE 48

48 audience is. Suppose that Klara is a substitute teacher. When teaching math to a group of unruly high school juniors, she acts strict and authoritarian, gives problem st udents detention and raises her voice to restore order. But when Klara teaches a well behaved art class of 3 rd graders, she acts lively and warm, encourages their creativity and gives them animal crackers as a reward for scripts and roles change when her audiences change. Third, audiences influence how an actor packages and tailors information (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). may sp eak more openly about his assertive views in front of like minded guests. If his guests had opposing views, Marc might still express his opinions, but he may be more likely to tone them down. Overall, the presence of the audience affects how actors communi cate themselves to others. 2.2.2 Mechanics of Impression Management 2.2.2.1 Who uses impression management? People with sufficient cognitive skills who are conscious of a separation of oneself from l people control, more or less, 1980, p. 7). 2.2.2.2 When is impression management used? Impression management is used in front of different audiences. The faces that actors represent not gross inconsistencies in personality, but simply different aspects of our identities iences (Schlenker, 1980, p. 36). For instance, students are more inclined to wear business casual dress when attending academic meetings and conferences, but prefer casual wear, jeans and T shirts when attending regular classes. Similarly,

PAGE 49

49 of language changes when situations change; students are more likely to speak properly and refrain from cursing when communicating with parents and professors than when communicating with friends. Impression management aids actors during problems and predi caments. For example, if an audience witnesses an actor conveying conflicting impressions, the actor will engage in impression management to regain control of the situation (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000; Tedeschi & Riorda, 1981). Often times, in order to appe al to a wide variety of voters, political candidates attempt to show support to many different groups of people. For example, a candidate who speaks in favor of and against the death penalty in front of two separate audiences is likely to convey conflictin g impressions to voters. Impression management may provide this candidate with the means to justifying his or her statements in order to regain control among voters who are sensitive to a particular issue. The perceived presence of an audience is amplifie be great in situations where important consequences for the performer will occur as a result of objective self awarene ss. In this state, actors are conscious about how they might be viewed by real or imagined audiences. This is a conscious use of impression management (Schlenker, 1980). 2.2.2.3 How is impression management used? To manage their impressions, actors utiliz e impression management tactics (Schlenker, 1980). These are maneuvers that adapt to present situations for the purpose of conveying positive impressions (Hass, 1981). Actors also use cues, signals and symbols to lead an audience to calculated impressions (Goffman, 1959). These cues vary according to different situations and contexts (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000).

PAGE 50

50 Actors take on roles of the audience to manage their own impressions. Role playing requires putting oneself in another perso playing is a crucial part of impression management because actors playing creates social identitie s for actors and determines what types of interactions are perceived to be appropriate (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Lastly, actors use props and scenery to buttress their rcut, an furnished and attractive but seldom used kitchen, a teenage boy who borrows implementation of these props and scenery are designed to en hance impressions and add the 2.2.2.4 Why do people engage in impression management? Some theorists believe that impression management is used to gain social status and rewards (Felson, 1981), wh ile others believe that actors desire to be liked (Reis, 1981). Researchers have identified a dominant reason why actors manage their impressions; actors achiev impression to audiences, they are attempting to reach their goals, some of which are derived earchers are most presentation rather than simply self Some goals are more important than others. Schlenker and Pontari (2000) report that actors devote different amounts of attention to goals depending on whether these goals exist in the foreground agenda or the background agenda. A specific goal that has been widely studied in

PAGE 51

51 impression management is the desire f or approval (Arkin, 1981). Approval could mean being well liked by others (Reis, 1981) or being perceived to possess particular traits and skills (Schneider, 1981). Overall, the driving force of impression management theory is that the actor gauges an audi her goal to convey desired impressions (Schneider, 1981). 2.2.2.5 When is impression management successful? Actors convey their desired impressions when they reorient th eir frame of reference (Goffman, 1959). The observed (i.e. an actor) can influence the observer (i.e. the audience). In audience to convey certain impressions. F or example, Klara receives an invitation to dinner at a restaurant. When choosing between a cocktail dress and comfortable jeans, she decides on the outfit she believes most closely matches what others will wear to the restaurant. Actors convey desired im pressions when they package information that has a desired impact on an audience. Schlenker and Pontari (2000) refer to this as effective communication to into account their perspective, including their competencies, interests, and attitudes; gauge how they are likely to interpret and react to alternative message possibilities; and then edit, package, and transmit the information in a way that leads the audience (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000, p. 211). In this w ay, audiences receive specially tailored information based on who they are. about their character. This requires performance and cognitive skills of a good actor in knowing how various behavioral cues will be interpreted and translated to become a calculated impression (Schneider, 1981, p. 38). Impression management is difficult to study bec ause it requires so

PAGE 52

52 many different social skills (Schneider, 1981) and because it derives from other studies of self concept, relationship between persons and society, and social identity (Schlenker, 1980). To fully understand impression management, a shor t review of its parent theories is required. 2.2.3 Theoretical Roots of Impression Management Theory 2.2.3.1 Symbolic Interaction. Impression management theory has roots in symbolic interaction theory. Symbolic ce of symbols in understanding the relationship The connection to impression management is that impression management focuses on the reminds actors that certain social rules exist between actor and audience during communicat ion (Schlenker, 1980). Symbolic interaction theory differs from impression management because symbolic interaction theory focuses on the internalized self and center around private behavior (Felson, 1981). In symbolic interaction, three entities respond to an actor and influence his perspective. group makes up a theory, whereas symbolic interactionism emphasizes the other two sources of influence (Felson, 1981). 2.2.3.2 Self Presentation. Symbolic in theory presentation theory. Self

PAGE 53

53 p. 311). Actors base their b important part (Goffman, 1959, p. 242). Self concept is the reason actors desire to manage their impressions in the first place. Actors engage in self presentation when they extend their self concept to an audience. For instance, when you project yourself, you are concerned with who you think you are (the images that reflect your identity). Consequently, you present yourself in different ways to meet that definition of who you think you are (Sc hlenker & Pontari, 2000, p. 204). This is called self focuses on influ encing the audience. For instance, when you project yourself, you are concerned with whom your audience thinks you are (the impressions that reflect your identity). Consequently, you present yourself in different ways to meet your perceived definition of w ho you think the audience thinks you are. When an actor steers these impressions in a certain direction, he or she is engaging in impression management (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000) 2.2.3.3 Defining points of impression management. There are three significa nt points that are crucial to analyzing impression management in different communications environments. Impression management relays information about an actor Impression management is neutral Impression management is not always deliberately done

PAGE 54

54 First, w hen an actor behaves and manages his impressions, he is relaying some information about himself (Schneider, 1981; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Second, impression management is neutral (Schlenker, 1980). It does not inherently imply deception, self management is not always deliberately done (Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Some cognitive processes are automatic and operate naturally, making some impression management behaviors unnoticeable to even the actor (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). The next section discusses how impression management theory is applied to so cial networking sites. 2.3 Impression Management Theory on Social Networking Sites By creating profiles on social networking sites, users engage in self presentation (Dwyer, r & The ability to construct and maintain a profile affords users greater control over messages than in face to face communication (Krmer & Winter, 2008). Self presentation and impression managing behaviors on social networking sites are apparent, considering that these sites encourage self branding and self promo ting behavior (Hearn, 2008). Social network users manage their impressions in several ways. They assume certain roles and thereby become characters in a story (Dwyer et al., 2007). They maneuver through social context cues, which influence how others form im pressions and impact how social network members understand and reply to messages (Dwyer et al., 2007). Users sometimes use social networking sites as a vehicle to relay certain traits about themselves, such as extraversion

PAGE 55

55 and high self esteem (Krmer & Winter, 2008), thereby engaging in active impression management. Calculated impressions on social networking sites are best achieved when they appear to be natural (Dwyer et al., 2007). Like other modes of communication, there is a possibility to convey s econdary impressions. For instance, when forming impressions of others, users may be more influenced by third descriptions, profile pict ures) (Walther et al., 2009). Although these secondary impressions are outside their control, users consciously or unconsciously try to manage their impressions on these sites. Research pertaining to impression management behaviors on Web 2.0 sites is sti ll in its infancy (Krmer & Winter, 2008), and related research geared to college students and young adults is limited. Morris and Millen (2007) concluded that young adults in the workforce are inept at effectively managing their impressions on social netw orking sites. Although this topic is in its exploratory stages, the intersection between privacy and impression management on social networking sites is worth a closer look. Using a Technology Mediated Interaction Framework to examine the relationships be tween user attitudes, site features and social interaction, Dwyer et al. (2007) concluded that users view privacy as the byproduct of taking efforts to control willingly disclosed information. The amount of control that users exert is influenced by their n eed to create and manage good impressions, just from viewing their profile. Dwyer and colleagues extend this thought process by suggesting that the need to control information is one aspect of privacy management (Dwyer et al 2010). The intersection of im pression management and privacy, within the context of the role of the audience, is the focus of this study.

PAGE 56

56 2.4 Research Questions Chapter 1 reviewed privacy in the context of user control, specifically control over information and content. Users control these aspects through privacy settings, self regulation and role playing. But how much control do college students in particular exercise? What factors affect their level of control? R Q1: How much control do social network users exercise over the conten t in their social networking site profile pages? Chapter 2 reviewed impression management in the context of audiences, both intended and unintended. Audiences on social networking sites receive packaged information that steers users to adopt certain impre about managing their impressions? RQ2: How concerned are SNS users about the impressions they convey to others from their profile pages? A recent study reported that young adults and college students do not view privacy very differently than older Americans (Hoofnagle et al., 2010). Another study repo rted that social network users of all ages are less concerned about the availability of personal information online (Madden & Smith, 2010 ). Is this true in the context of impression management and privacy management on social networking sites? How are these two groups similar and different? RQ3: To what extent does age influence levels of control and concern related to disclosure of privat e information on social networking sites? The following chapter describes how this researcher will answer these questions.

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Defining the Problem ngness to broadcast personal information about themselves on these sites has increased; this tendency toward greater information disclosure may lead to unforeseen conflicts. Young adults may not understand effective impression management and privacy manage ment on social networking sites. This lack of understanding may stem from their questionable ability to decide whether certain information should be privately withheld or publicly displayed. Also, young adults may think about privacy differently than older adults, making it difficult to educate young adults on the importance of impression and privacy management online. 3.2 The Purpose This study explored the relationship between privacy concerns and impression management behaviors among college students who use social networking sites. Through focus groups of college students, this study investigated how privacy concerns and impression management behaviors affect the amount of control over content and the level of concern over perceived impressions. This stu dy also highlighted the views of college students by contrasting it with focus groups of older adults who use social networking sites. 3.3 The Method The academic study of social networking sites is still developing. These sites first appeared in 1997 and began attracting massive numbers of users only in 2003 ( Boyd & Ellison, 2008). They have been the subject of academic study for only a short period of time and began attracting more researchers only four years ago, in 2006 (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007)

PAGE 58

58 Because this study investigated such an exploratory topic, the researcher gathered data through focus groups. Focus groups were an appropriate method of data gathering for this study because results of previous studies have been somewhat dissimilar. On o ne hand, several studies have suggested that young adults act in ways that imply they were unperturbed about privacy and impression management concerns. In addition to caring very little about privacy concerns (Tufekci, 2008a), most young users revealed a lot of personal information (Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Tufekci, 2008a), took bigger risks when providing information (Fogel & Nehmad, 2008) and did not utilize privacy settings (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). Young users also acted very differently from older gene rations online (Livingstone, 2008), managed their impressions poorly (Morris & Millen, 2007) and lacked knowledge about the potential for unintended audiences to view their content (Foulger et al., 2009). On the other hand, some studies suggested that youn g adults had acted in ways that imply they were concerned about privacy and impression management. Young adults customized their privacy settings and limited unintended audiences more than any other age group (Madden & Smith, 2010). Not only were the major ity of adult users (Lenhart, 2009) and young users (Dwyer, Hiltz & Passerini, 2007) found to be privacy conscious, but both groups also shared al., 2010). User s, however, exercised this concern for privacy on some social networking sites and not others (Dwyer et al., 2010). Some researchers argued that a shift in attitudes had occurred after the introduction of NewsFeed and MiniFeed to Facebook TM ( Boyd 2008; Ho adley et al., 2009), while others credited age as a contributing factor to shifting attitudes (Morris &

PAGE 59

59 Millen, 2007; Patchin and Hinduja, 2010). Because the results of these studies vary so much, focus groups are necessary to sort through the diversity of viewpoints (Morgan, 1998). This study contributed to this evolving body of research by pinpointing various dimensions of privacy and setting parameters through focus groups; survey research methods could not achieve the same goal. Because these dimensions are not yet set and hypotheses do not exist, the survey method of data gathering would prove highly ineffective before preliminary research laid any groundwork (Morgan, 1997; Morgan, 1998). 3.4 Participants 3.4.1 Active Users Le nhart (2009) categorized s ocial those who visited social networking sites several times a day, about once a day, every few days, once a week and less often. Although Lenhart did not explicitly say how much usage makes an individua following definition for active users. An individual is an active user of a social networking site if that individual: has a profile page on at least one social networking site, and visits that profile page or the profile pages of other members at least once each week, on average. An individual is not an active user if that individual visits a social network ing site every few weeks or less often than every few weeks. Becaus e active users more frequently engage with social networking sites than non active users, active users are more familiar with the implications of privacy and impression management. This qualification allowed the researcher to amass a large number of insigh tful viewpoints to explain impression and privacy related behavior in this group.

PAGE 60

60 Participants were able to discuss social networking sites easily and actively. Because social networking sites are not considered a typical topic of heated discussion, the majority of participants did not find this discussion problematic to contribute. 3.4.2 Age Participants were comprised of two groups of people: University of Florida undergraduates, ages 18 to 22 years old, and Gainesville, Florida adults in their 30s, 40 s and 50s. The researcher segmented participants by age to create homogeneity among groups. Because these age groups are in very different life stages, this researcher predicted that they would have a greater willingness to talk and relate to others if clu stered with their own peer age group. 3.4.3 Other Segmentation Considerations The researcher did not segment users by gender. Although there are gender differences in levels of information disclosure (Fogel & Nehmad, 2008; Gross & Acquisti, 2005) and priva cy concerns (Fogel & Nehmad, 2008; Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006), these attributes may not be wholly determined by gender. The evolving nature of social networking sites in the direction of greater disclosure and less user control affects all users, m ale and female. Instead, an research can support that gender is a greater influence. Participants were not segmented by their preference for Facebook TM MySpace TM or any other social networking site. Although users gravitate toward each site for different reasons, many social networking sites are capable of disclosing large amounts of information to impression forming audiences. Furthermore, previously m entioned real world incidents involving young people who had borne consequences as a result of their social networking behavior occurred on a variety of sites, specifically Facebook TM MySpace TM LinkedIn TM

PAGE 61

61 Twitter TM and YouTube TM Nevertheless, the quest ionnaire ask ed participants to list the specific social networking sites they use d Lastly, participants were not segmented by activity level. Active usage of social networking site is a qualifying factor that already yields a knowledgeable group to study. Mixing participants who represent different activity levels ensured a synergy of different attitudes, values and perspectives. 3.5 Planning Phase 3.5.1 Groups The number of group sessions was not yet determined because this number depended upon the point at which saturation is reached; that is, new groups will continue to be conducted in each overall category (college students versus older adults) until additional groups do not contribute any new information. However, at least three focus group sessions w ere conducted with each age segment, for a total of at least six focus group sessions. 3.5.1.1 Moderator. This researcher assumed the role of moderator to oversee group sessions. To ensure that all participants are heard and to prevent certain participant s from dominating the discussion, the moderator exercised a moderate amount of control over questions and responses by following a semi structured interview guide. For example, the moderator allocated less time to less important questions and more time to more important questions. The moderator also probed participants when they contributed unexpected answers. 3.5.1.2 Other personnel. A colleague, Jonathon DelRosario, an Electrical Engineering major at the University of Florida, recorded group sessions wit h a personal digital video camera. Shivani Jaipershad, who

PAGE 62

62 Florida, helped transcribed sessions. Only the moderator and these two individuals had access to the record ings, which were deleted according to procedural rules. 3.5.2 Location Group sessions were held at the Tivoli Apartments Clubhouse, located on 2841 SW 13 th campus. Th is location provided comfortable couches that are arranged in a circle and conducive to group discussion, ample counter space to set out food and a quiet atmosphere. The researcher reserved the clubhouse after office hours to ensure a quiet discussion. 3. 5.3 Costs The videographer used his personal digital video camera, so there were no recording costs. Printing of pre complimentary printing account with the university. Participan t compensation in the form of special coupons with local businesses was free. The researcher paid $15 to $25 per session for food and refreshments. 3.6 Recruitment The researcher recruited participants through Twitter TM and Facebook TM messages, flyers on campus and through word o f mouth to local businesses, co workers and friends in the Gainesville area. To increase the likelihood of attending, the researcher sent e mails and text messages the day before scheduled sessions and the day that sessions took pla ce. She also sent thank you e mails and texts the day after individuals participated. 3.7 Focus Groups Before the focus groups began, each participant completed a Focus Group Participant Consent form and a questionnaire to collect background information a bout user demographics

PAGE 63

63 and frequency of social networking site usage. This questionnaire is listed in Appendix A. Frequency of usage will be categorized according to the categories set forth by Lenhart (2009). During the focus groups, the moderator took b rief field notes to segue into further discussion, probe participants and list significant points. The questions on the interview guide were designed to give participants a chance to discuss privacy and impression management concerns on social networking sites freely. The interview guide is reproduced in Appendix B. 3.8 Analysis and Reporting The researcher and assistant transcriber typed the dialogue from group sessions using Microsoft Word. Transcripts were categorized by concepts that answered each rese arch question. Attentive to commonalities and differences in reasons, attitudes and perspectives within privacy management and impression management, the researcher grouped common patterns under the constant comparative method manually (Boeije, 2002). To a nswer RQ1, the researcher looked for themes that specifically addressed how much and what types of actual control users exercised over information disclosure. To answer RQ2, she scanned for themes that specifically addressed user level of concern over impr essions. To answer RQ3, she compared the prevalence of these personal experience and history with social networking sites, as well as her attitudes on privacy and i mpression management. 3.9 Cultural Categories TM profile page. I was intent on finding full time employment shortly after graduation and had been applying vigorously to companies. Know ing that job s were scarce in this recession battered economy and that more employers had begun checking Facebook TM profiles of applicants, I untagged or deleted any information that might raise questions about my ability to work in a professional

PAGE 64

64 setting. I sorted through 2,000 tagged photos, 20 tagged videos, 50 photo albums, 15 the Bahamas affiliation, deleted third party posts that had contained cursing, and changed my profile picture to a modest headshot in business casual wear. I recount ed my intense Facebook TM purge to my 18 year old freshma n cousin who joked that I had stripped my page of any personality. I smiled, lightly disagreed and explained to her that these changes were driven primarily by my need to manage my digital identity an d impressions in ways that increased my chances of obtaining a that people should control their behavior online as diligently as they would in real life. H owever, I was not always aligned with these notions of privacy and impression management. Since 2001, I have held social network ing accounts on Asian Avenue TM Xanga TM MySpace TM Fotki TM Friendster TM Facebook TM YouTube TM and Twitter TM While I seldom visited Asian Avenue TM Friendster TM Fotki TM or MySpace TM I used Xanga TM YouTube TM Facebook TM and Twitter TM on an almost daily basis. On those sites, I became more concerned about particular aspects of social networking sites. My first experience with unintended audiences and unwanted gaze was with Xanga TM in 2006. I had written about an upsetting experience with a friend, used her full name, and received an unexpected call the next day; my friend Googled herself sporadically and had read my entry. The experience that heightened my sense of privacy and need to control my information was with Facebook TM in 2007. After Facebook TM had broadened its networks beyond the collegiate population, I received friend requests from my 15 year old cousin and my mother On one hand, I thoroughly enjoyed

PAGE 65

65 communicating with both the young and the older, but on the other hand, I now had to consider how new groups might interpret (or rather, misinterpret) my actions and information online. Like other young adults, I regula te my information by granting greater access to some individuals and less access to others through lists. But over time, the more aggressively social networking sites shared information and the closer I became to entering the workforce, I revealed less inf ormation and consciously managed my impressions. Social networking sites have changed dramatically since I joined and I will continue to adapt and change with them.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS From July 19, 2010, to July 28, 2010, the researcher conducted fiv e focus group sessions among 45 college students and three sessions among 28 adults. Moderating only one focus group a day, the researcher reached saturation, i.e. the point at which additional groups do not contribute any new information, after eight sess ions, with 73 total participants. Each group session contained a minimum of six participants and a maximum of thirteen participants. The average age was 20.86 for college students and 34.14 for adults. There were slightly more females than males in both groups; 53% of college students and 57% of adults were females. College students were heavier users of social networking sites than adults. About 89% of college students used these sites several times a day, compared to 61% of adults. Approximately 18% of adults visited their pages once a day and 14% visited their pages every few days, compared to the 9% of college students who visited their pages once a day and the 1% who visited their page every few days. All participants used Facebook TM About a quarter of users used Twitter TM while a few used YouTube TM LinkedIn TM Formspring TM Friendster TM LiveJournal TM and Xanga TM The following section reviews the results of this study. Findings are organized by research question and corresponding relevant concepts. 4.1 Research Question 1 R Q1: How much control do social network users exercise over the content in their profile pages? 4.1.1 Information Disclosure Participants exercised a moderate amount of control over their content ; in other words, they expressed a fair amount of diligence in monitoring third party content, disassociating themselves from undesirable content regularly and maintaining privacy settings. T hey posted

PAGE 67

67 photos, videos, links, status updates and comments on their profile pages and their f profile pages. Those who hesitated to post content were influenced by two factors: audiences and impressions. In general, the wide scope of possible audiences caused participants to think twice about discl osing information. One recently graduated j ournalism student noted that he sometimes audiences perceive th em. For instance, a 30 year old physical therapy graduate student who was continually checked her page after an event with friends: After a weekend of having fun or partying with my friends, one of them wou ld post something about that weekend. I take the wall post off or I untag photos. My to see me differently. 4.1.1.1 Benefits. Many participants withheld their cell phone num bers to avoid unwanted contacts but several recognized the convenience when other people disclosed their contact information. A 20 year TM is sometimes really handy. in order throu gh e mail and all they have is the Facebook TM More adults than students acknowledged that information disclosure might strengthen relationships. One lawyer was able to learn new aspects about his co workers

PAGE 68

68 Facebook TM but that never comes across in the work setting. It added a new dimen sion to our relationship old retail operations manager bonded with other managers who post work really good because I know who I can vent to and who feels the same way I do. benefits brought some adult s closer to their friends or co workers, the majority of students were more vocal about the risks of disclosure. 4.1.1.2 Risks. Both groups were concerned about unintended uses of their information, but college s tudents were more concerned than adults about the possibility of companies harvesting their information and targeting them with advertisements. One international relations student was very opinionated and knowledgeable about this particular risk. Of 45 col lege age participants, he was the only individual who said he has read the terms of use for every networking site he uses: A lot of applica tions have become phishing scam s. They try to get your e mail and phone number. They hack your page and make you post advertisements all Facebook TM approved applications. The risks of revealing information were often mentioned alongside a lack of user control. Many participants were trouble d about the possibility of people using their information in ways they had not intended. For example, a freshman health science major hid her birthday for my n ame. Now they have my birthday too? You can find a lot of things from those two pieces of o social networking sites. A 22 year u put it on

PAGE 69

69 one clicked and saved it and could put it up The accessibility of personal information to site programmers and social networking site support employees posed a signi ficant risk for one adult, a 34 year someone working for Facebook TM really wanted to screw everyone over, they could easily write a program that puts everything ou savvy and all the info rmation old electrical engineering major expressed an uncommon view, sh ared by five other participants, about the correct way to eliminate all risks of information disclosure: that TM or any social 4.1.1.3 Concern. Knowledge of risks did not always translate into concern over personal information. Both groups showed very little concern about what personal information they provided ; in other words, they were minimally concerned ab out the risks or possible consequences resulting from disclosure. Students and adults however, differed in their reasoning. Most adults considered their informat ion risk free. A 30 year old stay at much open. gets off of Facebook TM other hand, heavily relied on their privacy settings to m itigate concern abou t risks. A senior architecture major captured this idea: As long as you adjust your privacy settings for your phone number, address, e mail and everything else, those things would only be shown to people you have ngs are for. They give you that control and make it not a big deal.

PAGE 70

70 4.1.2 Ways of Exercising Control 4.1.2.1 Untagging or deletion. Participants asserted control over their information in several ways. The most common form of control among both groups was untagging or deleting undesired content. A public ege students were more likely than adults to ask original content owners to delete the photos or videos even after using site specific tools to untag themselves; the majority felt that certain content w as inappropriate to share. A 22 year old telecommunica tion major untagged himself, but only in photos with certain subject matter: other people tagging me. I have no way of defending myself because there are pictures, so I ask people to take it off. 4.1.2.2 Privacy settings. Both groups utilized privacy settings, but college students laboriously customized their settings more than adults. A 22 year old pre me dical student explained how she customized the different sett audiences, several were discouraged by the investment of time that customization req uired. A 36 year ure it would take

PAGE 71

71 4.1.2.3 Self control. Despite the various ways that users could control information, the majority of participants clai med to exercise self control and often withheld posting particular content. This was a recu rring theme in all groups. A 22 year ut it u old on my internal privacy setting, perhaps suggesting the subjectivity of privacy. 4.1.2.4 Two accounts. The least common form of control was the creation of tw o accounts. Ten users in the 18 22 age group set up two accounts to hide some of their information from their parents or family members. One account displayed their full name and contained only family approved photos or statuses. The second account, which was made unsearchable, displayed a nickname and allowed users to be less stringent in their postings. Among the adult group, only three users created separate account s, one for acquaintances and co workers and another for friends and f amily. 4.1.3 Audiences All participants distinguish ed between various types of audiences. Both age groups were especially conscious about the vast audience presence on soci al networking sites. An 18 year old omething on my page, I know that everyone about audiences accessing their pages. College students were unconcerned, mainly bec ause they wanted an audience. A Students did not expand on why they desired an audienc e.

PAGE 72

72 Adults, however, felt a greater need to hi de from certain audiences. A 33 year old graphic designer wa nted to avoid being found by co workers: TM but they found me and friended me. Darn! I d A 45 year old public relations doctoral student found it difficult to hide from high school and college acquaintances: My Facebook TM chat College students showed moderate to high levels of concern about audiences whom they have not accepted as friends. Their concern ranged from a decent amount of wariness to considerable distrust. A 19 year old business administration student explained: A 19 year everything from creepy boys to protect my friends. If they see a girl commenting on my page a college students used privacy settings to limit profile page visibility to friends only. These observations were uncommon among adults, who were mainly concerned about co workers and bosses. It is likely that college students used social networking sites to connect with present friends and audiences they deem trustworthy, whereas adults used s ocial networking sites to reconnect with old friends with whom they once had strong relationships but with whom they had lost touch.

PAGE 73

73 Participants exercised control over audiences by removing people from their friends lists in an act called unfriending. A 20 year old sociology sophomore described her process: I used to have 1,900 friends. A year ago, I reduced it to the 100 something friends comfortable with whatever I post. More ad ults reported categorizing their friends into lists, which one adult described as being accordi ng to the type of friends. A 34 year old dental assistant explain ed the elaborate set up of her lists: I have five different lists and they each have different privacy settings. The group with my close friends is the only group that could write on my wall. Some lists idnight, I specifically post their NewsFeed. These measures were unique to only three adult users. 4.1.3.1 Unwanted gaze. Although participants were minimally concerned abo ut risks, prior experiences with unwanted gaze (i.e. instances when unintended audiences view their content) led users to pay greater attention to the repercussions of di sclosure. A 19 year old nursing major recalled a distressing experience with her paren ts: got upset because I only said I was thinking about it. I never said I was going to get it. It turned into this big mess that was completely unnecessary. While parents were the most common unwanted gaze audiences for students, co workers and bosses caused the great est concern for adults. A 31 year old human resources recruiter recounted her experien ce with unwanted gaze: I used a list to block my co work one time. Whenever the Orlando Magic basketball team wins a game,

PAGE 74

74 Dunkin Donuts gives out a free donut. They won the night before so I made my sta HR manager saw it and thought I was giving her my notice that I was going to be late to work. I was mortified! Only one participant, a first year law student, had experienced a pos itive outcome from unwanted gaze: TM I list that I was a lifeguard and a swimmer on my page and a local company messaged me and asked me to be a le and found me, even though my page is on private. It was a really good job that paid very well. 4.2 Research Question 2 RQ2: How concerned are SNS users about the impressions they convey to others from their profile pages? 4.2.1 Impressions Most parti cipants invested minimal effort in managing their profile pages. They made occasional changes to their biographical information or checked their notifications and messages. rried, but inspected photos, biographical information, mutual friends and wall postings. 4.2.1.1 Audiences. Users in both groups were slightly concerned about the impressions that certain audiences might form about them. Participants ages 18 22 were more heavily influenced by the presence of younger audiences and family members, l ike one 20 year old biology student: These little girls that I used to teach dance are all growing up and trying to add me on Facebook TM

PAGE 75

75 Adults, like one 3 2 year old engineer, were mainly influenced by the presence of employers: 4.2 .1.2 Secondary Impressions. Some users, like a 20 year old political science major, mentioned their inclination to judge and form secondary impressions about other people: I looked up my new roommate on Facebook TM only has 40 friends. Her profile picture is of her making a funny face and an awkward pose. My friends are all so worried. They think I should switch her out. I feel so bad Both groups imagined that other people might form second ary impressions about them ba sed on their site content. A 32 year old real estate manager explained: and I thought that after my friends posted pictures on Facebook TM that show me A 21 year old physiology student recounted how his frien people the wrong impression about himself: I accidentally left my Facebook TM getting a nose jo 4.2.2 Impression Management To reduce the likelihood of audiences forming negative secondary impressions, col lege students were more likely to activate privacy settings. A 22 year old English major explained: TM They might see me differently and would eventually tell my paren ts. It would just be faster to

PAGE 76

76 children felt he had to make lists because his former students have friended him on Facebook TM : Adults showed varying levels of concern for how others might perceive them. One adult, a 32 year old project manager, was very concerned about controlling how others might perceive things because I want a response and I want people to have a certain impress adult, a 37 year old psychology doctoral student, was concerned mainly because of who her audience wa s: I have 260 friends on Facebook TM really know them. perceived by somebod Both adults and students frequently cited the difficulty of controlling impressions. According to a 45 year old medical technician: cou ld come up with two very different perceptions, depending on their own views. There are limitations as to how much you can control. A 30 year old sports management doctoral student stressed that things could easily be taken out of context, making impressi ons hard to control: birthday parties. Everybody goes somewhere where a picture could be taken out of context. Everybody has fun in some way or another. Most people have that social a wareness, but there are some things that some of the older generation might frown upon. avoid secondary impressions. 4.3 Research Question 3 RQ3: To what exten t does age influence levels of control and concern related to disclosure of private information on social networking sites?

PAGE 77

77 The results suggest that age is a factor. The 18 22 age group took greater measures to control their content. They were more knowled geable than adults on customizing their privacy settings and activating lists to separate audiences. They also adapted and adjusted faster than adults when social networking sites altered the format of privacy settings. Like students, the adult group knew how to disassociate themselves from undesirable content, but they were less likely to customize their settings. Many adults cited a lack of knowledge, patience or time to heavily regulate their content. Adults, on the other hand, were more selective than students with their audience composition. Many of them expressed a desire to hide from their employers or co workers. Consequently, they were faced with the dilemma of accepting their employer s or co workers as friends when sent friend requests. Several attr ibuted this dilemma and awkwardness to a desire to separate their personal lives (on a social networking site) from their professional lives (in the workplace). Students were more likely to block family members and parents from their pages, but often felt a significan t obligation to accept friend requests from peers even those whom they have met only once For example, many were more open to being friends with a rarely seen acquaintance than their own parents or relatives. Age may not be a factor in conce rn about impressions. Both groups, espe cially college students, express ed a need to control how others perceived them. They stated that they were influenced by the negative impressions that younger audiences might form of them. College students and adults were both minimally concerned about the need to manage impressions. There was a minor difference that motivated their concern. Adults were more concerned about current co workers and employers accessing their content, whereas students were worried about par ents

PAGE 78

78 and relatives accessing their content. Only a few worried about future employers and graduate school committees viewing their pages. Participants believed they exercised better control and judgment on social networking sites than age groups younger t han them. For example, adults believed they possessed better judgment and impression management skills than college students. Similarly, college students believed they were better impression managers than high school and middle school students. When probed on why they felt this way, participants gave several reasons. The majority said that younger users had inadequate life experience to improve the ir judgment and awareness. A 32 year old nurse offered the following analogy: think the way you think, but Others explained that they had had no awareness when they w ere younger. One student, an 18 year old microbiology major, explained how differently she used to act when she first started on social networking sites: When I was younger, I was nave and stupid. I just put up everything up, including all my pictures. I thought I was so cool. Now that I r ealize that was really stupid of me. My mom had a talk with me. And I deleted those especially p eople younger than you. Another student, a 21 year old business major, explained that his desire for an audience contributed to his display on social networking sites: Younger kids in middle school too much about privacy, unless their parents intervene. When I first got a MySpace TM I

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISC USSION 5.1 Control of Content 5.1.1 Summary RQ1 asked a bout th e extent to which social network users exercised control over page content. It examined two aspects of information disclosure: how audiences and how impressi ons may or may not affect the sharing of content. While adults recognized the benefits of sharing information, college students highlighted its risks. Why this discrepancy? It is possible that adults refrain from posting content that they believe would cau se others to form negative impressions about them. Many adults stated that they are not as likely as younger individuals to be engaging in wild activities (i.e. extreme intoxication, lascivious dancing in nightclubs and at parties, suggestive poses with pr ops or other people etc.) and if they do, they have no desire to share their activities with people who were not present for the activity. Although both age groups showed little concern over controlling their content, users exercised at least some control over their information, such as deleting undesirable content, adjusting privacy settings, forming two accounts, being selective about whom they accepted as friends and exercising self control in what they post. 5.1.2 Implications Users who participated in this study exercised little control over the content they voluntarily shared about themselves. To judge what content is appropriate and inappropriate to post, a majority relied on their own self control, which according to Schlenker (1980) is a form of se lf regulation. Students were most comfortable with posting their e mails, birthdays, student organizations, extracurricular involvement, and approved photos, but they were uncomfortable with having unflattering or embarrassing pictures (i.e. pictures that capture them in a displeasing

PAGE 80

80 light or at an angle that they perceive make s them look undesirable, overweight, etc.) or inappropriate party or night clubbing pictures (i.e. pictures that indicate alcohol or drug usage or imply loose behavior etc.) of them selves posted. Adults were comfortable with posting pictures of their family, especially if they used Facebook TM to reconnect with old friends and family members, but they were uncomfortable with posting their birthday and address because of the risks asso ciated with unknown audiences and unintended uses. Users also exercised a moderate amount of control over the content that third parties shared about them. For example, these users frequently monitored their notifications. Although many participants allud ed to the difficulty of predicting what other people might post, several stressed that users can control whether third party postings remain on their pages. They regain control by disassociating themselves from undesirable content. These observations suppo rt some of the literature pertaining to information disclosure and control. In line wit h Hoadley et a l. (2009), social network users grew more uncomfortable with sharing information when they perceived they had less control, which, in this study, occurred (2007) surrounding the paradox of privacy. The paradox of privacy refers to t he juxtaposition of y with a form of media designed to maximize information sharing and networking. Many users who felt they had less control in third party postings regained control by deleting content or asking the origi nal owners to remove content. They handled the contradiction described by the paradox of privacy by limiting the sharing capabilities of social networking sites.

PAGE 81

81 In addition, participants frequently stressed user responsibility and accountability when user s faced instances of unwanted gaze. College students spoke strongly about the idea that users have control over what is on their pages and who is allowed to look at their pages. In other words, they felt that an individual is still publicly accountable for what he or she says or what others say about him or her, regardless of privacy settings. This observation suggests that adults and college students assigned a substantial weight of responsibility to the individual whom they perceive to be essentially in control of the information he or she shares or allows to be shared. This differs slightly from previous studies in which college students and young adults assumed the greatest risks when providing information (Fogel & Nehmad, 2008) and cared very little ab out privacy concerns (Tufekci, 2008a). 5.2 Concern about Impressions 5.2.1 Summary ht form of them based on social network site information, focusing on the role of the audience in impression m anagement. Participants often cited the balancing act that occurs when they weigh the benefits of sharing information with the risks of having less control over the impressions others might form based on that shared information. Participants balanced the b enefits and risks differently for certain audiences, such as family, young friends and employers or co workers. Users associated greater risk with unintended audiences, including strangers (for college students) and employers (for adults). Over all, users w ere primarily concerned with being misunderstood in a negative way. 5.2.2 Implications College students and adults exhibited low levels of concern about audience access ; in other words, they were not considerably influenced by the fact that audiences could forage through the information on their pages. On the other hand, they were at least somewhat

PAGE 82

82 concerned about conveying secondary impressions. To reduce the likelihood of secondary impressions, users reasserted control by customizing privacy settings, inc luding limited profiles and lists, and by controlling audiences, including unfriending people and deleting content. How does this affect the usefulness of impression management theory among college students on social networking sites? First, this study sup skilled at establishing spatial boundaries on social networking sites and navigating the technical nature of privacy settings. Students in this study were more proficient adjusters of privacy settings than the adults. Many of them pointed out that they had l earned to adjust privacy settings as a result of frequent site changes in privacy settings. Several mentioned seeking help from their friends. Only a few students mentioned having difficult y in adjusting their settings. Second, it contradicts results reported by Morris and Millen (2007). Recall that influence how audiences perceive him. The literature r eview also examined calculated how he or she wants to be perceived. A secondary impression is an undesired image, a perception of an individual that does not accura tely reflect that individual. Morris and Millen (2007) reported that college students managed their impressions poorly, but is their conclusion impressions, or as 2) attempts to prevent secondary impressions? If poor impression management is defined by the former, then this study would conclude that young and adult users were poor impression managers, mainly because very few users mentioned a desire to relay calculated impressions. A majority of college students, however,

PAGE 83

83 were very vocal about wanting to prevent audiences from forming negative secondary impressions about them. No participant not ed having learned about positive secondary impressions. This researcher argu es that the latter interpretation of impression management is equally important as the first. Attempting to avoid being misunderstood or misperceived is one way social network users manage their impressions online. In this situation, users still acted on a impression management. Morris and Millen (2007) may be mistaken in concluding that college students were poor impression managers. Third, it challenges what F attitudes on social networking sites. Foulger et al. (2009) found that their college age participants still asserted privacy rights over information posted on publicly open social networking p rofiles, study believed they had very little to no privacy on their pages and that they were ultimately accountable for content, even if they had enacted pr ivacy settings. These users seemed to accept Fu ture sections address the issues and recommendations of study th at this mentality raises. What factors may explain the incongruity? Perhaps college students in this study were study. In fact, about a quarter of college st udents in this study relied greatly on secondhand stories about other people experiencing negative consequences as a result of them posting inappropriate content or personal information on a networking site. At least two college students in every session c

PAGE 84

84 news stories and shared online links. It is possible that knowledge about consequences and risk ences. It is possible that the significance of audiences might have caused the difference in results. Foulger et al. (2009) did not focus on the presence of audiences; instead, researchers used and non moral concerns by asking scenario questions about privacy rights and risks. In this study, the researcher used an impression management approach and gathered data through focus groups for the purpose of inspecting the role of the audience in socia l networking behavior. It remains unclear why such different conclusions were reached. e settings or became very selective about their audiences to control content access by specific audiences: ex boyfriends or ex girlfriends, groups of estranged friends, professors, older relatives and especially parents. Perhaps college students felt that those groups, especially family members, might not approve of their activities, but peers might approve because they were likely to engage in the same activities as wel l. The 18 22 group channeled significant effort into controlling what those audiences were allowed to see; these efforts included the creation of two accounts, routine unfriending of certain individuals, constant monitoring of their sites and frequent unta gging of content. The few students who held part time jobs showed minimal concern if their current bosses were to access their pages. The researcher noted a difference in concern among colle ge students. Users who were 22 years old were more concerned abou t future employers or future schools checking their pages

PAGE 85

85 than users wh o were 18 21 years old. Most 22 year olds attributed their concern to the fact that they were nearing graduation, the workforce or graduate school. As a result, the audiences of greates Did users who showed concern about their impressions actually engage in impression management on social networking sites? A deeper analysis highlights some interesting points for discussion Recall that individuals engage in impression management when they adjust their behavior toward an audience in an attempt to control the impressions that audience may form. Impression management behavior is characterized by perception, (Schneider, 1981), audiences (Goffman, 1959) and control (Schlenker, 1980). All three components were present in participant comments and anecdotes, but further inspection revealed that users may emphasize certain facets of impression management more than others. First, rat her than desiring to convey calculated impressions, users primarily wanted to avoid secondary impressions. Almost all users expressed a goal of not being misunderstood or having their words misconstrued. They rarely ever mentioned wanting to convey calcula ted impressions. Of all 73 participants, only three adults and six college students shared a desire to convey calculated impressions. Second, rather than controlling their behaviors, they controlled their privacy settings. Participants did not actually cha nge their behavior; they simply changed what certain audiences could see. This may suggest that college students do engage in impression management on social networking sites, but that they are motivated by different goals than those previously studied. B ased on the data of this study, the researcher discovered that college students do manage management might not be as clearly defined as they have been in previous studies Among adults

PAGE 86

86 and the 18 22 age group, there was significantly less prevalence of wanting to convey certain traits or particular skills, two goals that have become firmly placed constructs in the study of impression management (Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981; Sch neider, 1981). Instead, students expressed a goal of not wanting to be perceived in an inaccurate way that differed from who they really are. Why might this shift in goals exist? Perhaps social network users were deterred from conveying calculated impressi ons because of the difficulty of controlling how others think. Expanding on reasons why users do not consciously manage calculated impressions, several cited the unpredictability of knowing how audiences might perceive them, due to prejudices, grudges or s nap judgments. Only a handful of users claimed to actively and consciously manage their calculated impressions. The majority of participants who managed their impressions shared a goal of not wanting to be misrepresented or misperceived. In addition, they felt they had more control when they presented themselves as they really were (i.e. self presentation theory), instead of trying to convey calculated impressions. How does this affect how researchers study impression management theory on social networking sites? It might mean that social networking sites are conducive to self presentation goals but more difficult to use for calculated impression management goals. The conclusion that college students are poor impression managers might overlook the complexity of social network behavior and the influences of privacy, information disclosure and impression management attitudes. 5.3 The Influence of Age 5.3.1 Summary Both college students and adults exercised at least some control over their content and their aud iences. In line with Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini (2007), who explored the various

PAGE 87

87 medium designed to maximize information sharing and networking, the researcher ob served that college students tended to rely on privacy settings more than adults to control personal content. When assessing audiences, college students were more concerned about parents and relatives visiting their pages and viewing their content while ad ults were more concerned about employers and undesirable friends. Both groups were uncomfortable with strangers c ontacting them, but the college age group was noticeably more territorial when unintended audiences visited their pages than the adult group. P articipants did not explain why they were more defensive about their pages. ( See T able 5 .6. 1 for a comparison of student s and adult practices ). 5.3.2 Implications This study questions the conclusions of Hoofnagle et al. (2010,) who reported that usage of these sites had encouraged greater disclosure of information over time. Based on many adult that site usage made them more selective about what th ey disclosed and, in some cases, less likely to share content. Is ag e really a factor in how soc ial network users control their content and manage their impressions? The researcher discovered some minor differences in content control between age groups. The results of this study seem to support the findings of Madden and Smith (2010), who reported that young adults customized their privacy settings and limited unintended audiences more than any other age group. Many adults carried out the same functions, but not as regularly and with less complicated customization. It is possible that age may be a factor in how users control information disclosure. For example, college students may engage in activities that would be considered inappropriate if shared with others, so they have a greater need to customize privacy settings and monitor information about them shared by others. The fact that college

PAGE 88

88 students and adults exist in different life stages might explain why both age groups differ in their concern for im pressions and audiences. The significance of age in impression management is still unclear. Both age groups shared the same goal of avoiding secondary impressions, so age may not make a difference. There was, however, an interesting repetition of attitudes from both groups. Adults believed they were better impression managers than college students; college students believed they were better impression managers than high school and middle school students. Not one participant believed that younger groups migh t understand or exercise proper judgment when posting content on social networking sites. In this case, age might play a minor part in how social network users perceive the behavior of other age groups. 5.4 Limitations The similarity of backgrounds among participants may be a limitation in this study. The 18 22 group comprised university students residing in the same college town. This was a limitation because the college students in this study were representative of only a narrow group of young adult use rs ages 18 to 22. Furthermore, the majority of adults in this study were highly educated. Approximately 40% had obtained graduate degrees, 54% had obtained bachelor degrees, and 7% had completed some college. The high education level among older particip ants might account for tech savvy characteristics that might not be present in the wider group of adult social network users. Their backgrounds, however, were more varied. Some had children, some were working, some were originally from other towns and some were still in school. The size of the focus groups may have created another limitation. The smallest session contained six participants and the largest sessions contained thirteen participants. The researcher was not able to divide larger sessions into t in those sessions. The average size of the groups was nine participants. Sessions were as short as

PAGE 89

89 one hour and as long as one and a half hours. Students were more reluctant to speak in larger sessions, but adults were still very opinionated in sessions of all sizes. These limitations were not severely problematic, however, mainly because participants offered very similar ideas, regardless of the size of their session. The smaller groups were able to ela borate more, but many users shared similar views. 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research Future researchers should conduct detailed surveys to determine the relationship between age and impression management on social networking sites. One useful approach might be to examine how fluctuating audiences for young adults may affect their impression and privacy management over time. Fluctuating audiences refers to frequently changing peer groups, such as peers in middle school, high school, college and the work place. Researchers could use what has been discovered about audiences and content from this study to see how young adults change their self presentation and impression management behaviors as they grow older. Morris and Millen (2007) already have conducted a preliminary study on participants who recently had graduated from college and entered the workforce. Future researchers may learn more about how young adults regulate information and impressions online while they undergo social change in the real world. This study more clearly defined the relationship between knowledge of risks and concern over information disclosure and impression management. The fact that risks were so frequently mentioned in this study seems to support the findings by Hoofnagle et al (2010), who found that 42% of young adults 18 24 were more concerned about privacy currently than they had been five years earlier because they knew more about the risks. A future study should investigate why knowledge of risks seems to be increasing amo ng younger age groups, contrary to earlier studies. It could be that social network users are becoming more sophisticated in their judgment and

PAGE 90

90 understanding of consequences. It is also possible that users are growing more cautious as they learn from their mistakes and gain experience using social networking sites. The 18 to 22 age group expressed interesting attitudes about certain audiences. For example, the majority of students cared very deeply about their professors forming negative impressions of them This concern carried onto social networking sites, which would explain why so many students enacted stricter privacy settings for professors who were their friends on ee, which comprised three professors, were surprised that students would express a great degree of concern defensive or limiting toward certain audiences. This st udy highlighted several situations in which young social network users had posted content that backfired and caused them to have to deal with unforeseen consequences (e.g. theconnor An interesting study for future resea rchers should examine the personal characteristics of Internet users who post risky content. Risky content may range from statements that result in school suspension or job dismissal to photos or videos that attract investigation from police or legal auth orities, to any content that instigate s drama or bickering with other individuals Among middle school children, high school teens, college students and young professionals, are certain groups more likely to post risky content? Are risky content posters si mply impulsive? Or do differences in personality traits and risk aversion exist among different age groups? A study that addresses these questions would be both compelling and timely This study uncovered an important observation about perceived self effi cacy. Self or perceived

PAGE 91

91 ability to control privacy For example, it is likely that college students perceive themselves to be savvy social media connoisseurs; as a result, the y believe they have more self efficacy using social networking sites. On the other hand, older adults perceive themselves to be novices when using new technology; consequently, they believe they have less self efficacy when using these sites. Recall that c ollege students greatly emphasized accountability and personal responsibility when posting content. This emphasis was absent in the adult group. Perhaps, this tendency to stress accountability may be linked to self efficacy. College studen ts who we re confident in their ability to use social networking s ites may believe the y have greater control over their content and how it can be used As a result, they echo the idea that a n individual is at fault if he or she post s inappropriate content o n social networking sites. Adults, on the other hand, may not have reached the same comfort level using social networking sites as students. Less perceived self efficacy may account for greater hesitat ion and self censorship among this age group. This link would explain why the 18 to 22 group stressed accountability if peers posted content that led to negative consequences. The more acco untability he or she assigns to him or herself. Future studies should examine perceived self efficacy among social network users. How do they feel about their ability to control their content and audiences ? How do they feel about their ability to control or manage their privacy? How much control do they feel they have on social networking sites? How comfortable are they using technology? In the same way that this study revealed slight differences between college students and adults, t he researcher imagine s that future social scientists would discover different mechanisms among social network users of

PAGE 92

92 various ages and perhaps between more novice or more experienced social network users regardless of age 5.6 Conclusion The results suggest that at least some users reference a desire to manage their impressions, but the extent to which impression management is a highly important aspect of the social networking world is uncertain. Impression management, as it currently exists, might not fully explain o nline beh aviors of adult social inappropriate postings on social networking sites, it seems media scholars ought to be less worried than other authors have suggest ed. Social network users have at least some knowledge and co ncern about the risks of posting questionable content that might be accessed by unintended audiences. Many users, especially college students, have had negative experiences and accepted them as learning experiences to improve their judgment. The younger ge neration is, in fact, taking steps to exert as much control as they deem fit on their content and audiences. The importance they place on impression management, however, is still unknown.

PAGE 93

93 Table 5.6. 1. Differences between college students and s and practices Information Disclosure Content Control Tools Audiences of Concern Impression Management Tools Students Risk of unintended uses Privacy settings Parents, families, professors, children, non friends Tighter p rivacy settings Adults Benefit of stronger relationships Self censorship Employers, coworkers undesir able acquaintances Looser privacy settings

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What is your name? ____________________________________ 2. What is your gender? ___ Male ___ Fe male 3. What year were you born? _______ 4. Please select the highest education level completed: ___ High School ___ Some College ___ College / University ___ Graduate School 5. What is your occupation/major? _____________________________________ 6. How often do you use social networking sites? ___ Several times a day ___ Once a day ___ Every other day ___ Every few days ___ Once a week 7. How often do you use Facebook TM ? ___ Several times a day ___ Once a day ___ Every other day ___ Every few days ___ Once a week ___ Never

PAGE 95

95 8. How often do you use MySpace TM ? ___ Several times a day ___ Once a day ___ Every other day ___ Every few days ___ Once a week ___ Never 9. Besides Facebook TM and MySpace TM what other social networking sites do you use? _____________________________ ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 10. How often do you use these other sites? ___ Several times a day ___ Once a day ___ Every other day ___ Every few days ___ Once a we ek

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE Introduction of Florida. This is my videographer, Jonathon. Thank you all for coming. Today we are having a relaxed discussion about how you share information and approach privacy on social networking perceptions are what matter. There is no right or wrong answer; you can disagree with each ot her, and you can change your mind. I want you to feel comfortable saying what you really think. Discuss Procedure you know, everything you say here is confidential. N o one will see this discussion except me, not share with any one outside this group anything that someone says here. Does everyone So everyone has agreed not to tell anyone else specific things that were said in this discussion. I need to remi want people outside of this group to know. I want this to be a group discussion, so feel free to respond to me and to other members in the group without waiting to be called on. However, please try to make sure that only one person

PAGE 97

97 speaks at a time. Af to type of word for word EXACTLY what everyone said. That will be a lot harder to do if several people are talking at the same time. The discussion will last approximately an ho ur and a half. Please silence your cell phones. There is a lot I want to discuss, so at times I may move us along a bit. There are restrooms in the back and food on the table. Feel free to go to the restroom or help yourself to food, but I ask that you be as quiet as possible so the discussion can continue. Questioning Route Question Type Question Concept Opening Tell us your name, your major/what you do for a living, and the last movie you watched. Introduction Introductory What is your favorite social networking site? Social Networking Sites, General Transition Tell us why you started using Facebook TM /MySpace TM /social networking sites. Social Networking Sites, General Transition How often do you browse or look at others pages and posts? How often do y ou yourself post content? Social Networking Sites, General Key What kinds of things do you usually post or say on these sites? Information Disclosure Key How many of you have had the experience where you ook for nods, ask those people). Could you tell us about that experience? (M: Ask if not mentioned) What Information Disclosure Key Now I want to ask about a different kind of experience. Has anyone had an experience in which someone else posted? (M: Look for nods, ask those people). Could you tell us about what happened? (M: Ask if not mentioned) RQ1

PAGE 98

98 What made you uncomfortable about that posting? What did you do about it? How important is it to you that you control the information that is said or shared about you? Does anyone else have an experience of this kind? Transition Of all the information that could be shared about you on a social networking si te, what kinds of information are you comfortable with other people seeing? What kinds of information are you most uncomfortable with other else to post abou t you? Information Disclosure & Audiences Key Who do you think visits your profile page the most? Who else do you think visits your profile page, at least occasionally? Audiences Key I want to talk more about the people who visit your profile page. Has a nyone had an experience in which saw your page? (M: Look for nods, ask those people). Could you tell us about what happened? Anyone else? Audiences Key Do you care who visits your page? How important is it to you to be able to control who visits your page? Audiences Transition Some of you have already talked about privacy as an important issue in how you use social networking sites. few have answered), does anyone have any other different definitions of privacy that you want to offer? Privacy Key There are lots of different groups of people now using social networking sites. How similar or different do you think other groups might be from you in terms of the way you manage your privacy? Privacy, RQ3

PAGE 99

99 Transition Suppose that you were meeting someone for the very first time. You did some digging and you were able to view their entire profile page. To learn more about them, where do you look firs t? Impressions Key Profile pages can say a lot about a person. How much effort do you put into managing your profile page? Impression Management, RQ2 Key When you make changes to your page, who are you thinking about as the audience for that page? How important is the audience when you manage your page? Impression Management, Audiences, RQ2 Key Have you had any experiences in which someone got the wrong impression about you from something you posted on your profile page, or maybe something that a friend posted about you, such as a comment or a tagged photo or video? (M: Look for nods, ask those people). Could you tell us about what happened? How did you respond? Impression Management, Audiences Key In recent years, more schools and employers have been think they might have for looking up prospective students or employees on social networking sites? What do you think about this practice? Should orga nizations continue this practice? Why or why not? Impression Management, Audiences, RQ1, RQ2 Key How much privacy do you think you ought to have on social networking sites? How much privacy do you think you actually have on social networking sites? Privac y Key How important is it that people who learn things about you through social networking sites form the kinds of impressions that you want them to? In other words, how much of a problem do you think it is if people develop an inaccurate or negative impr ession of you based on what they see on a social networking site? Impression Management

PAGE 100

100 Transition (M: Give a summary of what we talked about and the purpose of this session) What else should we have discussed about social networking sites and privacy iss ues? Did I cover everything? Ending groups. Do you have any advice on how I can improve the process or the questions for later groups?

PAGE 101

101 LIST OF REFERENCES About Us. (2008). LinkedIn.com Retrieved fro m http://press.linkedin.com/ Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and Consequences of Online Social Networking Behavior: The Case of Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion 3(1 2). doi: 10.1080/15533610802052654 Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2010, July 9). Millennials will make online sharing in networks a lifelong habit. Pew Internet and American Life Project Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Future of Millennials.aspx Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self Presentation Styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 311 334). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Retrieved from http://131.193.153.231/www/issues /issue11_9/barnes/index.html The Ugly. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Message posted to http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks new privacy changes good bad and ugly Boeije, H. (2002). A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews. Qua lity & Quantity 36, 391 409. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5w2772328h02033/fulltext.pdf Boyd D. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsFriendsterTop8.pdf Boyd D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf Boyd Convergence: The International Journal of R esearch into New Media Technologies 14(1), 13 20. doi: 10.1177/1354856507084416. Boyd D., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13, 210 230. doi:10.1 111/j.1083 6101.2007.00393.x

PAGE 102

102 Take It and Like It. San Francisco Chronicle p. A8. Retrieved from http://www .sfgate.com/cgi bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/02/ EDH51D6734.DTL Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34. doi: 10.1177/0146167208320061 Catone, J (2007, December 5). Beacon Saga Comes to an End: Facebook Adds Global Opt Out, Apologizes. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/fa cebook_beacon_apology.php TODAY. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25073090/#ixzz 0ndNybN4N Company Timeline. (2010, September). Facebook.com. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?timeline Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons. Court Makes Pranksters Apologize On YouTube as Punishment. (2008, June 9). WKMG Orlando Retrieved from http://www.clickorlando.com /news/16549356/detail.html Coyle, C. L. & Vaughn, H. (2008). Social Networking: Communication Revolution or Evolution? Bell Labs Technical Journal, (13)2, 13 18. doi: 10.1002/bltj.20298 Dinev, T., Xu, H., & Smith, H. J. (2009). Proceedings of the 42 nd Hawaii International Empirical Analysis of Web 2.0 Privacy. Waikoloa, Big Island, HI. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2009.770 Doe v. MySpace (2008, May 16). Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Retrieved from http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C07/07 50345 CV0.wpd.pdf Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas n within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace Keystone, CO. Retrieved from http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., Poole, M. S., Gubner, J., Hennig, F., Osswald, S., Schlieblberger, S., & Warth, B. (2010). Proceedings of the 43 rd Hawaii International Conference on System Developing Reliable Measures of Privacy Management within Social Networking Sites Koloa, Kauai, HI. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2010.146

PAGE 103

103 Facebook Opens Profiles to Pub lic. (2007, September 6). BBC News Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6980454.stm Fact Sheet (2009, January 13). MySpace.com. Retrieved from http://www.myspace.com/pressroom?url=/fact+sheet/ Felson, R. B. (1981). An Interactionist Approach to Aggression. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Re search (pp. 181 199). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Mean for the Fourth Amendment. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 10(1), 171 202. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet Social Network Communities: Risk Taking, Trust, and Privacy Concerns. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 153 160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006 Foulger, T. S., Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A., Popp, S. O., & Carter, H. L. (2009). Moral Spaces in Journal of Research on Techn ology in Education 42(1), 1 28. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=44228004&site=ehost live Founder Bio s (2010, January 13). Facebook.com. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet#/press/info.php?founderbios KTLA Retrieved from http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla yucaipa sexting,0,314120.story Frequently Ask ed Questi ons (2009, December 11). MySpace.com. Retrieved from http://faq.myspace.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/241/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL 0lWQ3pfdV Rq Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books. Grasz, J. (2009, August 24). 45% Employers Use Facebook Twitter to Screen Job Candidates. Oregon Business Report Retrieved from http://oregonbusinessreport.com/2009/08/45 employers use facebook twitter to screen job candidates/ Greenwood, B. (2009). Facebook: The Nex t Great Vetting Tool? Information Today: The Newspaper for Users and Producers of Electronic Information Services 26(8), 1, 17, 46. Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/ sep09/Greenwood.shtml

PAGE 104

104 Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society Facebook case). Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy facebook gross acquisti.pdf Hass, R. G. (1981). Presentational Strategies and the Social Expressi on of Attitudes: Impression Management within Limits. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 127 146). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Hearn, A. (2008). Meat, Mask, Burden: Probin g the Contours of the Branded Self. Journal of Consumer Culture 8 197 217. doi: 10.1177/1469540508090086 Heussner, K. M. (2010, May 18). New Site Exposes Embarrassing Facebook Updates. ABC News. Retrieved fro m http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/site exposes embarrassing facebook updates/story?id=10669091 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Personal Information of Adolescents on the Internet: A Quan tita tive Content Analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence 31(1), 125 46. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.004 Hoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee. J. J., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). Privacy as Information Access and Illusory Control: The Case of the Fa cebook News Feed Privacy Outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 50 60. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.05.001 Hoofnagle, C., King, J., Li, S., & Turow, J. (2010, April 14). How Different Are Young Adults from Older Adults W hen I t Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes & Policies? Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589864 Ibrahim, Y. (2008). The New Risk Communities: S ocial Networking Sites and Risk. Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 4(2), 245 253. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Ind. Teens Punished for Racy MySpace Photos Sue High School. (2009, November 3). First Amendment Center. Retrieved fro m http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx? id=22270&SearchString=social_networking_sites Jealous Lover Flew 4,000 Miles to Stab Ex gi rlfriend to Death after Seeing Her on Facebook with Another Man. (2010, March 10). Daily Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.daily mail .c o.uk/news/article 1256552/Facebook stalker Paul Bristol killed Cami lle Mathurasingh seeing new man.html Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21 st Century Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal Perception New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

PAGE 105

105 Krmer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression Management 2.0: The Relationship of Self Esteem, Extraversion, Self Efficacy, and Self Presentation Within Social Networking Sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 1 06 116. Doi: 10.1027/1864 1105.20.3.106 Kelly, C. (2009, July 1). Improving Sharing Through Control, Simplicity and Connection. Facebook.com. Message posted to http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=101470352130 Kimble, J. A. (2009, November 4). D anville Man Charged Again with Stalking. UnionLeader.com Retrieved from http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline= Danville+man+charged+ag ain +with+stalking&articleId=dc993bcc 1191 43c5 8add 616e27831800 Klein, A. (2010, March 17). 18 to 24 year olds Most at Risk for ID Theft, Survey Finds. Washington Post. Retrieved fro m http:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn /content/ article/2010/03/16/AR2010031604209 .html Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2006). Proceedings of the Conference on Human ents as Signals in an Online Social Network. San Jose, CA. Retrieved from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/ 1250000/1240695/p435 lampe.pdf?key1=1240695&key2=8562883621& coll=&dl=&CFID= 73649615&CFTOKEN=35255416 Leading Websites Offer Fac ebook Beacon for Social Distribution. (2007, November 6). Facebook.com. Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=9166 Lenhart, A. (2009, January 14). Adults and Social Network Websites. Pew Internet & American Life Proj ect Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults and Social Network Websites.aspx Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, January 3). Social Networking Website and Teens: An Overview. Pew Internet & American Life Project Retrieve d from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Social Networking Websites and Teens.aspx Lindskold, S., & Propst, L. R. (1981). Deindividuation, Self Awareness, and Impression Management. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 201 221). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Use of Social Networking Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and S elf expression. New Media & Society 10, 393 411. doi: 10.1177/1461444808089415 Madden, M., & Smith, A. (2010). Reputation Management and Social Media: How People Monitor and Maintain Their Identity through Search and Social Media. Pew Inte rnet & American Life Project Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Reputation Management.aspx

PAGE 106

106 Marketwire. (2009, August 10). Proofpoint Survey Says: State of Econom y Leads to Increased Data Loss Risk for Large Companies Sunnyvale, CA. Retrieved from http://www.marketwire.com/press release/Proofpoint Inc 1027877.html Mega http://www.meganslaw.com/ Melber, A. (2008, January 16). Facebook: The New Look of Surveillance. The Nation Retrieved from http:// www.alternet.org/story/72556/ Millennials: Confident. Connected Open to Change. (2010, February 24). Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1501/%20millennials new survey generational personal ity upb eat open new ideas technology bound Moloney, M., & Bannister, F. (2009). Proceedings of the 42 nd Hawaii International Conference Big Island, HI. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=4755313 Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (Vol. 16). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Morgan, D. (1998). The Focus Group Kit (Vols. 1 6). Thousan d Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Morris, J., & Millen, D. R. (2007). Identity Management: Multiple Presentations of Self in Facebook. Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Supporting Group Work, 383 386. Retr ieved from http://www.joandimicco.com/pubs/dimicco millen group07.pdf Muir, M. (2006, April 3). Research Brief: Public Displays of Affection. Partnership Retrieved from http://www.principalspartnership.com/affection.pdf National A ssociation for College Admission Counseling. (2009, April 29). Report Finds Use of Social Networking Tools on the Rise in College Admission Offices Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/PressRoom/2009/Pages/Social Networking.aspx New Jersey Girl Posts Nude Photos of Herself, Gets Probation. (2009, June 23). Associated Press Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/new jersey girl posts nud_n_219896.html New Site, Openbook, Allows Users to See Facebook Status Updates. (2010, June 16). One.com Retr ieved from http://www.one.com/en/web hosting news/website/new site openbook allows users to see facebook status updates$19842061.htm News Corp in $580m Internet Buy. (2005, July 19). BBC News Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/busine ss/4695495.stm

PAGE 107

107 Nielsen Company (2009a). Global Faces and Networked Places: A Nielsen Report on Social Retrieved from http://server uk.imrworldwide.com/ pdcim ages/ Global_Faces_and_Networked_Plac es A_Nielsen_Report_on_Social_ Networkings_New_Global_Footprint.pdf Nielsen Company (2009b). Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp content/uploa ds/2009/06/nielsen_pr_090619.pdf N.J. Girl, 14, Arrested after Posting Nude Pictures on MySpace. (2009, March 27). First Amendment Center Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ news.aspx?id =21406 Openbook. (2010). Retrieved from http://youropenbook.org/ Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Trends in Online Social Networking: Adolescent Use of MySpace over Time. New Media & Society 12(2), 197 216. doi: 10.1177/146144480934185 7 Paul, I. (2010, January 11). Facebook CEO Challenges the Social Norm of Privacy. PCWorld. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/186584/facebook_ceo_challenges _the_ social_norm_of_privacy.html Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Age Differences in Online Social Networking: A Study of User Profiles and the Social Capital Divide among Teenagers and Older Users in MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 643 654. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.015 Popkin, H. (2009, March 23). Twitter Gets You Fired in 140 Characters or Less. MSNBC Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29796962/ Putnam, C. (2009, May 19). Share More Memories with Larger Photo Albums. Facebook.com Message posted to http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=87157517130 Reis, H. T. ( 1981). Self Presentation and Distributive Justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 269 291). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Rosenblum, D. (2007). What Anyone Can Know: Th e Privacy Risks of Social Networking Sites. IEEE Security & Privacy. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MSP.2007.75 Rozen, M. (2009, August 25). Few Rules Guide Judges Who Want to Use Facebook. The Reco rder Retrieved from General OneFile database (1539 7505). Sanghvi, R. (2009, December 9). New Tools to Control Your Experience. Facebook.com. Message posted to http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=196629387130

PAGE 108

108 Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical Self Presentations: Toward a Broader Conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 23 40). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management: Th e Self Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Schlenker, B. R., & Pontari, B. A. (2000). The Strategic Control of Information: Impression Management and Self presentation in Dail y Life. In A. Tesser, R. B. Felson & J. M. Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Self and Identity (pp. 199 to 232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Shi, N., Lee, M., Cheung, C., Chen, H. (2010). Proceedings of the 43 nd Hawaii International The Continuance of Online Social Networks: How to Keep People Using Facebook. Big Island, HI. Retrieved from csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2010/3869/00/07 08 11.pdf on Ethics? Vault.com Message posted to http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/blogs/entry detail/?blog_id=1462&entry_id=11176 Slee, M. (2009, March 1 6). Opening More Control For Everyone. Facebook.com. Message posted to http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=60186587130 Solove, D. J. (2007). The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet Yale New Haven, London: Uni versity Press. Stewart, B. (2009, Fall). Profiles Cause Crackdown. Student Press Law Center 3, 34. Retrieved from http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=1525&edition=50 Swartz, J. (2010, April 27). Senators Ask Facebook to Alter Feature That Sh ares Info. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010 04 28 facebook28_ST_N.htm Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. (1981). Identities, the Phenomenal Self, and Labor atory Research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 3 22). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Tedeschi, J. T., & Riordan, C. A. (1981). Impression Management and Prosocial Behavi or Following Transgression. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 223 244). New York, NY: Academic Press Publishers. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (1969, February 24). 393 U.S. 503. Supreme Court of the United States Retrieved from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/ html/ historics/USSC_CR_0393_0503_ZS.html

PAGE 109

109 Tucker, E. (2008, July 16). Facebook Used as Character Evidence, La nds Some in Jail. USAToday Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2008 07 19 facebook trials_N.htm Tufekci, Z. (2008a). Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sit es. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28, 20 36. doi: 10.1177/0270467607311484 Tufekci, Z. (2008b). Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and MySpace: What Can We Learn About Information, Communicat ion & Society 11(4), 544 564. doi: 10.1080/13691180801999050 Urista, M. A., Dong, Q., & Day, K. D. (2008). Explaining Why Young Adults Use MySpace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Theory. Human Communication 12(2), 215 229. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/ 2/5/6/7/1/p256719_index.html van Buskirk, E. (2010, April 28). Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuc Privacy. Wired.com Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/report facebook ceo mark zuckerberg doesnt believe in privacy/?utm_source=feedbu rner& utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+ Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher van der Werf, M. (2007, March 2). Beware of Using Social Networking Sites to Monitor Students, Lawyers Say. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Beware of Using/28063/ Walther, J. B., van der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self Generated Versus Other Generated Statements and Impres sions in Computer Mediated Communication: A test of warranting theory using facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229 253. doi: 10.1177/0093650208330251 Zuckerberg, M. (2006, September 6). Calm Down. Breathe. We Hear You. Facebook.com Message posted to http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208197130

PAGE 110

110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kayla Gutierrez was born in 1986 and raised in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. She completed her Bachelor of Science degree in Telecommunication at the University of Florida, graduating cum laude in 2008. Gutierrez continued her education and obtained a Master of Arts in Mass Communication from the University of Florida in 2010. Having published articles in law journals and presented papers at academic conferences, Gu tierrez also interned at the Federal Communications Commission and Mobilize.org, a non profit organization. Gutierrez enjoys reading, visiting museums, attending sporting events and being spontaneous. She intends to relocate to Washington, D.C. to start he r career.