Facebook has become a widely used online self-representation and communication platform. In this research, we focus on emotional disclosure on Facebook. We conducted two studies, and results from both self-report and observer rating show that individuals are more likely to express positive relative to negative emotions and present better emotional well-being on Facebook than in real life. Our study is the first to demonstrate impression management on Facebook through emotional disclosure. We discuss important theoretical and practical implications of our study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurkeM, MarlowC, LentoT. 2010. Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, 1909–1912.
2.
EllisonN, SteinfieldC. The benefit of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.
3.
ValkenburgP, PeterJ. Online communication and adolescent wellbeing: testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1169–1182.
4.
ValkenburgP, PeterJ. Social consequences of the internet for adolescents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009; 18:875–901.
MorenoMA, JelenchickLA, EganKGet al.Feeling bad on facebook: depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 2011; 28:447–455.
7.
SasC, DixA, HartJet al.2009. Emotional experience on Facebook. Proceedings of CHI 2009 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, 4345–4350.
8.
Facebook Data Team. 2012. What's on your mind. www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-team/whats-on-your-mind/477517358858. 2012 Apr. 15.
9.
FreemanLK. Wall of me: Facebook self-disclosure and partner responsiveness resulting in confirmation or violation of expectations and consequences for intimacy and relationships. Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 2011.
10.
HuY, WoodHF, SmithVet al.Friendships through IM: examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2004; 10article 6.
11.
JoinsonA. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 31:177–192.
12.
LeungL. Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (“I seek you”) use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2002; 5:241–251.
13.
SchianoDJ, ChenCP, IsaacsEet al.2002. Teen use of messaging media. Proceedings of the CHI2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MI, 594–595.
14.
TidwellLC, WaltherJB. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–348.
15.
GibbsJL. Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 2006; 33:152–177.
16.
McKennaKYA, GreenAS, GleasonM. Relationship formation on the Internet: what's the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 2002; 58:9–31.
17.
ValkenburgPM, PeterJ. Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009; 18:1–5.
18.
ValenzuelaS, ParkN, KeeK. Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:875–901.
19.
WaltherJ. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:2538–2557.
20.
WaltherJB. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996; 23:3–43.
21.
EllisonNB, HeinoRD, GibbsJL. Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11article 2.
22.
SiibakA. Constructing the self through the photo selection-visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2009; 3article 1.
23.
StranoM. User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2008; 2article 5.
24.
WaltherJ, van derHeide B, KimSYet al.The role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: are we known by the company we keep?Human Communication Research, 2008; 34:28–49.
25.
ZhaoSY, GrasmuckS, MartinJ. Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008; 24:1816–1836.
26.
TomaC. 2010. Affirming the self through online profiles: beneficial effects of social networking sites. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, 1749–1752.
27.
GonzalesAL, HancockJT. Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2011; 14:79–83.
28.
ChouHT, EdgeN. “They are happier and having better lives than i am”: the impact of using facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:117–121.
29.
GoslingSD, AugustineAA, VazireSet al.Manifestations of personality in online social networks: self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2011; 14:483–488.
30.
BackMD, StopferJM, VazireSet al.Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 2010; 21:372–374.
31.
MatthewsG, DerryIJ. 1998. Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
