Social media users are able to read, share, and discuss news online with other people coming from diverse contexts in their lives, including family members, co-workers, and friends. Past research has indicated that “context collapse” occurs when people must imagine and negotiate interacting with a large and diverse online audience. Using survey data from 771 US Internet users, we find that more context collapse in people’s Facebook friends is positively related to both sharing and reading news. Furthermore, reading news on Facebook mediates the relationship between context collapse and news sharing. Finally, privacy management moderates the relationship between reading and sharing news on Facebook, where people who are more open in their privacy management practices share more news.
AnsolabehereSSchaffnerBF (2014) Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis22(3): 285–303.
3.
ArceneauxKJohnsonM (2013) Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348: 1130–1132.
5.
BeamMA (2014) Automating the news: how personalized news recommender system design choices impact news reception. Communication Research41(8): 1019–1041.
6.
BeamMAKosickiGM (2014) Personalized news portals: filtering systems and increased news exposure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(1): 59–77.
7.
BeamMAHutchensMJHmielowskiJD (2016) Clicking vs. sharing: the relationship between online news behaviors and political knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior59: 215–220.
8.
BernsteinMBakshyEBurkeM. (2013) Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paris, 27 April–2 May, pp. 21–30. New York: ACM.
9.
BinderHHowesASutcliffeA (2009) The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April, pp. 965–974. New York: ACM.
10.
BrunsA (2005) Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. New York: Peter Lang.
11.
CarrCTHayesRA (2015) Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication23: 46–65.
12.
ChildJT (2015) Opening closed doors: managing identity and privacy with social media. In: BraithwaiteDOWoodJT (eds) Casing Interpersonal Communication: Case Studies in Personal and Social Relationships. 2nd ed.Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, pp. 75–80.
13.
ChildJTPetronioS (2011) Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: the challenges of blogging and relational communication on the internet. In: WrightKBWebbLM (eds) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 21–40.
14.
ChildJTPetronioS (2015) Privacy management matters in digital family communication. In: BruessCJ (ed.) Family Communication in the Age of Digital and Social Media. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 32–54.
15.
ChildJTStaracherSC (2016) Fuzzy Facebook privacy boundaries: exploring mediated lurking, vague-booking, and Facebook privacy management. Computers in Human Behavior54: 483–490.
16.
ChildJTWestermannDA (2013) Let’s be Facebook friends: exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication13: 46–59.
17.
ChildJTDuckARAndrewsLA. (2015) Family members’ management of privacy on Facebook. Journal of Family Communication15: 349–367.
18.
ChildJTHaridakisPMPetronioS (2012) Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content deletion practices: the variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior28: 1859–1872.
19.
ChildJTPearsonJCPetronioS (2009) Blogging, communication, and privacy management: development of the blogging privacy management measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60: 2079–2094.
20.
DasSKramerA (2013) Self-censorship on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Cambridge, MA, 8–11 July, pp. 120–127. Palo Alto: AAAI.
21.
DavisJLJurgensonN (2014) Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society17(4): 476–485.
22.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
DylkoI (2016) How technology encourages political selective exposure. Communication Theory26: 389–409.
24.
DylkoIBeamMALandrevilleKD. (2012) Filtering 2008 presidential election news on YouTube by elites and non-elites: an examination in the democratizing potential of the Internet. New Media & Society14(5): 832–849.
25.
EllisonNBboydd (2013) Sociality through social network sites. In: DuttonWH (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172.
26.
EvelandWP (2004) The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: the roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication21: 177–193.
27.
EvelandWPHivelyMH (2009) Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication59(2): 205–224.
28.
FramptonBDChildJT (2013) Friend or not to friend: coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory. Computers in Human Behavior29: 2257–2264.
29.
GarrettRK (2009) Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication14(2): 265–285.
30.
GarrettRKCarnahanDLynchEK (2013) A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior35(1): 113–134.
31.
GildeZúñigaHCopelandLBimberB (2014) Political consumerism: civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media & Society16(3): 488–506.
32.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
33.
GoldsteinSB (1999) Construction and validation of a conflict communication scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology29: 1803–1832.
34.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
35.
HmielowskiJDBeamMAHutchensMJ (2016) Structural changes in media and attitude polarization: examining the contributions of TV news before and after the Telecommunications Act of 1996. International Journal of Public Opinion Research28(2): 153–172.
36.
HoltKShehataAStrömbäckJ. (2013) Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: do social media function as leveller?European Journal of Communication28(1): 19–34.
37.
KimYHsuSHGil de ZúñigaH (2013) Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: the moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication63: 498–516.
38.
KushinMJYamamotoM (2010) Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society13(5): 608–630.
39.
LarssonAOMoeH (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society14: 729–747.
40.
LittE (2012) Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media56: 330–345.
41.
McDonaldDGDimmickJ (2003) The conceptualization and measurement of diversity. Communication Research30(1): 60–79.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13: 114–133.
44.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32: 303–330.
50.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Books.
51.
PetronioS (2002) Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
52.
PetronioS (2013) Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication13: 6–14.
53.
PriorM (2005) News vs. entertainment: how increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science49: 577–592.
54.
PriorM (2007) Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
PriorM (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–127.
56.
RauP-LPGaoQDingY (2008) Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior24: 2757–2770.
57.
SchaffnerBF (2011) Polling: innovations in survey research. In: MedvicSK (ed.) New Direction in Campaigns and Elections. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.
58.
ScheufeleD (2000) Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Mass Communication & Society77: 727–743.
59.
ScheufeleDHardyBWBrossardD. (2006) Democracy based on difference: examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication56: 728–753.
60.
SleeperMBalebakoRDasS. (2013) The post that wasn’t: exploring self-censorship on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 793–802. New York: ACM.
61.
StroudNJ (2011) Niche News: The Politics of News Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
62.
SunsteinC (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
TufekciZ (2015) Facebook said its algorithms do help form echo chambers, and the tech press missed it. New Perspectives Quarterly32: 9–12.
VitakJ (2012) The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media56: 451–470.
66.
VitakJBlasiolaSPatilS. (2015) Balancing audience and privacy tensions on social network sites. International Journal of Communication9: 1485–1504.
67.
VitakJZubePSmockA. (2011) It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking14(3): 107–114.
68.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikN. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289.
69.
WangYKomanduriSLeonPG. (2011) “I regretted the minute I pressed share”: A qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 7th symposium on usable privacy and security, Pittsburgh, PA, 20–22 July. New York: ACM.
70.
WeeksBEHolbertRL (2013) Predicting dissemination of news content in social media: a focus on reception, friending, and partisanship. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly90(2): 212–232.
71.
YamamotoMKushinMJDalisayF (2015) Social media and mobiles as political mobilization forces for young adults: examining the moderating role of online political expression in political participation. New Media & Society17(6): 880–898.
72.
YeagerDSKrosnickJAChangL. (2011) Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and nonprobability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly75: 125–138.
