Affordances refer to how interface features of an IT artifact, perceived by its users in terms of their potentials for action, may predict the intensity of usage. This study investigates three social information affordances for expressive information control, privacy information control, and image information control in Facebook. The results show that the three affordances can significantly explain how Facebook's interface designs facilitate users' self-presentation activities. In addition, the findings reveal that males are more engaged in expressing information than females, while females are more involved in privacy control than males. A practical application of our study is to compare and contrast the level of affordances offered by various social network sites (SNS) like Facebook and Twitter, as well as differences in online self-presentations across cultures. Our approach can therefore be useful to investigate how SNS design features can be tailored to specific gender and culture needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithT. The social media revolution. International Journal of Market Research, 2009; 51:559–561.
2.
WhitneyL. 2010. Twitter, Facebook use up 82 percent. CNET.comhttp://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10457480-93.html. 2012 Oct 10.
3.
ZuckerbergM. 2012. One billion people on Facebook. Facebook Newsroom. http://newsroom.fb.com/News/One-Billion-People-on-Facebook-1c9.aspx. 2012 Oct 10.
4.
SenguptaS. 2012. Facebook's prospects may rest on trove of data. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/technology/facebook-needs-to-turn-data-trove-into-investor-gold.html?pagewanted=all. 2012 Oct 10.
5.
Facebook. 2012. Statistics: key facts—Facebook Newsroom. http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22. 2012 Oct 10.
6.
BoydDM, EllisonNB. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 13:210–230.
7.
SteinfieldC, EllisonN, LampeC. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:434–445.
8.
ValkenburgP, PeterJ, SchoutenA. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2006; 9:584–590.
9.
CourtoisC, AllA, VanwynsbergheH. Social network profiles as information sources for adolescents' offline relations. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:290–295.
10.
GibbsJL, EllisonNB, HeinoRD. 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.
11.
EllisonN, SteinfieldC, LampeC. 2006. Spatially bounded online social networks and social capital: the role of Facebook. The Annual Conference of International Communication Associationwww.ucalgary.ca/files/stas341/Facebook_ICA_2006.pdf. 2011 Mar 7.
12.
HaferkampN, EimlerSC, PapadakisA-Met al.Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:91–98.
13.
KimHW, ChanHC, KankanhalliA. What motivates people to purchase digital items on virtual community websites? The desire for online self-presentation. Information Systems Research Articles in Advance, 2012; 1–14.
14.
WaltherJB. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:2538–2557.
15.
BoyleK, JohnsonTJ. MySpace is your space? Examining self-presentation of MySpace users. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:1392–1399.
16.
MehdizadehS. Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 2010; 13:357–364.
17.
KapidzicS, HerringS. Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: have patterns changed?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2011; 17:39–59.
18.
ByrneDN. Public discourse, community concerns, and civic engagement: exploring black social networking traditions on BlackPlanet. com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2008; 13:319–340.
19.
FeasterJ. Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: an information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2010; 16:115–138.
20.
ChristofidesE, MuiseA, DesmaraisS. Information disclosure and control on Facebook: are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes?CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:341–345.
21.
HoughtonDJ, JoinsonAN. Privacy, social network sites, and social relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 2010; 28:74–94.
22.
WatersS, AckermanJ. Exploring privacy management on Facebook: motivations and perceived consequences of voluntary disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2011; 17:101–115.
23.
EllisonN, HeinoR, GibbsJ. Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:415–441.
24.
MorganEM, SnelsonC, Elison-BowersP. Image and video disclosure of substance use on social media websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:1405–1411.
25.
BarghJA, McKennaKYA, FitzsimonsGM. Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 2002; 58:33–48.
26.
O'SullivanB. What you don't know won't hurt me: impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 2000; 26:403–431.
27.
SchauHJ, GillyMC. We are what we post? Self‐presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 2003; 30:385–404.
28.
VasalouA, JoinsonAN. Me, myself and I: the role of interactional context on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 2009; 25:510–520.
29.
WaltherJB. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 1992; 19:52–90.
30.
WaltherJB. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996; 23:3–43.
31.
WaltherJB, BurgoonJK. Relational communication in computer‐mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 1992; 19:50–88.
32.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.
33.
GoffmanE. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
34.
GaverWW. Technology affordances. proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 1991; 79–84.
35.
GaverWW. Situating action II: affordances for interaction: the social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 1996; 8:111–129.
36.
GibsonJJ. 1977. The theory of affordances. Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. ShawR, BransfordJ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
NormanDA. 1988. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
38.
NormanDA. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 1999; 6:38–43.
39.
KreijnsK, KirschnerP. 2001. The social affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. 31th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE Computer Society.
40.
LeonardiPM. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 2011; 35:147–167.
41.
LeeCS. Managing perceived communication failures with affordances of ICTs. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:572–580.
42.
ZhangP. Motivational affordances: the fundamental reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM, 2008; 51:145–147.
43.
GefenD, StraubDW. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 1997; 21:389–400.
44.
VenkateshV, MorrisMG. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 2000; 24:115–139.
45.
BrownP, LevinsonSC. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University: New York.
46.
GoffmanE. 1967. Interaction ritual, chapter on face-work. New York: Pantheon Books.
47.
ParksMR, KnappML, MillerGR. 1985. Interpersonal communication and the quest for personal competence: handbook of interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 171–201.
48.
ParksMR, KnappM, MillerG. 1994. Communicative competence and interpersonal control. Handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 589–618.
49.
GoffmanE. 1963. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Touchstone: New York.
50.
LearyMR, KowalskiRM. Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 1990; 107:34–47.
51.
LearyMR. 1995. Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal behavior. Brown and Benchmark: California, USA.
52.
MuiseA, ChristofidesE, DesmaraisS. More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:441–444.
53.
HendersonS, GildingM. “I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life”: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 2004; 6:487–506.
54.
WaltherJB. 2006. Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or:(and the net:(‘s with you:) and you:) alone. ManusovV, PattersonML. Handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 461–480.
55.
DuthlerKW. The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: support for the hyperpersonal model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:500–521.
56.
SheehanKB. Toward a typology of Internet users and online privacy concerns. The Information Society, 2002; 18:21–32.
57.
LeaM, SpearsR. Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce, 1992; 2:321–341.
58.
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.
59.
WaltherJB. Construction and validation of a quantitative measure of impression development. Southern Journal of Communication, 1993; 59:27–33.
60.
McCullaghK. Blogging: self presentation and privacy. Information & Communications Technology Law, 2008; 17:3–23.
61.
WhittyM. Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest people are in chat rooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 2002; 18:343–352.
62.
WhittyM, GavinJ. Age/sex/location: uncovering the social cues in the development of online relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2001; 4:623–630.
63.
KimJ, LeeJER. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2011; 14:359–364.
64.
YoderC, StutzmanF. 2011. Identifying social capital in the Facebook interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM Press, 585–588.
65.
JoinsonAN. 2008. Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and use of Facebook. Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM Press, 1027–1036.
66.
Burton-JonesA, StraubDWJr. Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 2006; 17:228–246.
67.
Burton-JonesA, GallivanMJ. Toward a deeper understandering of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 2007; 31:657–679.
68.
TaylorS, ToddPA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 1995; 6:144–176.
69.
DeLoneWH, McLeanER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 1992; 3:60–95.
70.
DeLoneWH, McLeanER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2003; 19:9–30.
71.
KimSS. A longitudinal model of continued IS use: an integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Science, 2005; 51:741–755.
72.
KimSS. Two competing perspectives on automatic use: a theoretical and empirical comparison. Information Systems Research, 2005; 16:418–432.
73.
Burton-JonesA, StraubDW. Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 2006; 17:228–246.
74.
DeSanctisG, PooleMS. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 1994; 5:121–147.
75.
PötzschS. Privacy awareness: a means to solve the privacy paradox?The Future of Identity in the Information Society, 2009; 298:226–236.
76.
MonfriesMM, KaferNF. Private self-consciousness and fear of negative evaluation. The Journal of Psychology, 1994; 128:447–454.
77.
ByrneD, McDonaldR, MikawaJ. Approach and avoidance affiliation motives. Journal of Personality, 1963; 31:21–37.
78.
SearsDO. Social anxiety, opinion structure and opinion change. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1967; 7:142–151.
79.
BrandtzægPB, LüdersM, SkjetneJH. Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2010; 26:1006–1030.
80.
ZimbardoPG, RuchFL. 1992. Psychology and life. New York: HarperCollins.
81.
MaM, AgarwalR. Through a glass darkly: Information technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Information Systems Research, 2007; 18:42–67.
82.
NoskoA, WoodE, MolemaS. All about me: disclosure in online social networking profiles: the case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:406–418.
83.
LampeC, EllisonN, SteinfieldC. 2007. A familiar Face(book): profile elements as signals in an online social network. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA: ACM Press, 435–444.
84.
ParkS-B, ChungN. Mediating roles of self-presentation desire in online game community commitment and trust behavior of massive multiplayer online role-playing games. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:2372–2379.
85.
JacksonLA, YongZ, KolenicAIIIet al.Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:437–442.
86.
BimberB. Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 2000; 81:868–876.
87.
PriceL. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: challenging stereotypical views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2006; 22:349–359.
88.
ChyanY, Yi-ChunH, SuyantiT. Predicting the determinants of users' intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2010; 13:141–152.
89.
CorreaT, HinsleyAW, De ZunigaHG. Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:247–253.
90.
LinKY, LuHP. Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:1152–1161.
91.
JacksonLA, ZhaoY, QiuWet al.Culture, gender and information technology use: a comparison of Chinese and US children. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008; 24:2817–2829.
92.
Educause. 2006. 7 Things you should know about Facebook. Educause Learning Initiative. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7017.pdf. 2012 Nov 8.
93.
GolderSA, WilkinsonDM, HubermanBA. 2007. Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Springer: London, UK, 41–66.
94.
StutzmanF. An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. International Digital & Media Arts Journal, 2006; 3:10–18.
95.
BurbaryK. 2011. Facebook demographics revisited—2011 statistics. www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revisited-2011-statistics-2/. 2012 Nov 19.
96.
ArazyO, NovO, PattersonRet al.Information quality in Wikipedia: the effects of group composition and task conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2011; 27:71–98.
97.
RingleCM, WendeS, WillA. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3)www.smartpls.de. 2012 Nov 8.
98.
FornellC. 1982. A second generation of multivariate analysis: measurement and evaluation, 2. Praeger: Westport, CT.
99.
FornellC, LarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981; 18:39–50.
100.
ChinWW, MarcolinBL, NewstedPR. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 2003; 14:189–217.
101.
WinterSJ, SaundersC, HartP. Electronic window dressing: Impression management with websites. European Journal of Information Systems, 2003; 12:309–322.
102.
BukvovaH. 2011. Online impression management for scientists. Sprouts: Working papers on information systems. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/11-140. 2013 Feb 12.
103.
QualmanE. 2010. How social media transforms the way we live and do business?New York: Wiley.
