Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-10
Behind the lab coat: How scientists’ self-disclosure on Twitter influences source perceptions,tweet engagement,and scientific attitudes through social presence
Social media platforms like Twitter offer scientists the opportunity to share professional, personal, and scientific information with the public. This study explores the effects of these self-disclosure types. In an online between-subjects experiment (N = 1458), participants rated scientists who disclosed personal information as more likable but less competent, and scientists who disclosed professional information as more competent and engaging. Subsequently, these perceptions influenced tweet engagement and certain scientific attitudes. Social presence served as a mediator between self-disclosure and perceptions. These findings broaden our understanding of science communication on Twitter as situated within a social media platform.
AltmanITaylorDA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships (Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships). Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
BenteGRüggenbergSKrämerNC, et al. (2008) Avatar-mediated networking: increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research34(2): 287–318.
3.
BioccaFHarmsCBurgoonJK (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments12(5): 456–480.
4.
BowmanTD (2015) Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars. Aslib Journal of Information Management dr Stefanie Haustein DCRS and DVL (Ed.)67(3): 356–371.
5.
BusselleRBilandzicH (2009) Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology12(4): 321–347.
6.
CarpenterAMGreeneK (2015) Social Penetration Theory. In: BergerCRRoloffME (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. 1st ed. London: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
CofféHTheiss-MorseE (2016) The effect of political candidates’ occupational background on voters’ perceptions of and support for candidates. Political Science68(1): 55–77.
8.
CollinsNLMillerLC (1994) Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin116(3): 457–475.
9.
CostasRMongeonPFerreiraMR, et al. (2020) Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter. Quantitative Science Studies1(2): 771–791.
10.
CôtéIMDarlingES (2018) Scientists on Twitter: preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops?FACETS Heard SB (Ed.)3(1): 682–694.
11.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 309–327.
12.
CuddyAJCFiskeSTGlickP (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, pp. 61–149.
13.
DerlegaVJWinsteadBAGreeneK (2008) Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In: SprecherSWenzelAHarveyJ (eds) Handbook of Relationship Initiation. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 153–174.
FiskeSTDupreeC (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(Suppl. 4): 13593–13597.
16.
FiskeSTCuddyAJCGlickP, et al. (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(6): 878–902.
17.
HayesAF (2018) Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs85(1): 4–40.
18.
JiangLCBazarovaNNHancockJT (2011) The disclosure–intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: an attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research37(1): 58–77.
19.
JuddCMJames-HawkinsLYzerbytV, et al. (2005) Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89(6): 899–913.
20.
JüngerJFähnrichB (2020) Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society22(3): 387–408.
21.
KashianNJangJShinSY, et al. (2017) Self-disclosure and liking in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior71: 275–283.
22.
KeQAhnY-YSugimotoCR (2017) A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE12(4): e0175368.
23.
KimJSongH (2016) Celebrity’s self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships: a mediating role of social presence. Computers in Human Behavior62: 570–577.
24.
KumkaleGTAlbarracÍnDSeignourelPJ (2010) The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology40(6): 1325–1356.
25.
LeeE-JOhSY (2012) To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication62(6): 932–949.
26.
LeeK-MNassC (2005) Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology7(1): 31–45.
27.
LeiteFPde Paula BaptistaP (2021) The effects of social media influencers’ self-disclosure on behavioral intentions: the role of source credibility, parasocial relationships, and brand trust. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice30: 295–311.
28.
LiangXSuLY-FYeoSK, et al. (2014) Building buzz: (scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(4): 772–791.
29.
LombardMDittonT (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication3(2): 1–11.
30.
MaXHancockJTLim MingjieK, et al. (2017) Self-disclosure and perceived trustworthiness of Airbnb host profiles. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 25 February, pp. 2397–2409. New York: ACM.
31.
McAlisterSAAnnaR (2014) Redefining virality in less broad strokes: predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media & Society17: 1317–1339.
32.
MarwickABoydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
33.
MazerJPMurphyRESimondsCJ (2009) The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology34(2): 175–183.
34.
MeeksL (2016) Gendered styles, gendered differences: candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(4): 295–310.
35.
MeeksL (2017) Getting personal: effects of twitter personalization on candidate evaluations. Politics & Gender13(1): 1–25.
36.
MurthyD (2012) Towards a sociological understanding of social media: theorizing Twitter. Sociology46(6): 1059–1073.
37.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The Partisan Brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 36–66.
38.
PalanSSchitterC (2018) Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance17: 22–27.
39.
PettyREPriesterJRBriñolP (2002) Mass media attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (LEA’s communication series). In: OliverMBRaneyAABryantJ (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 2nd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 155–198.
ShortJWilliamsEChristieB (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
42.
SpartzJTSuLY-FGriffinR, et al. (2017) YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication11(1): 1–16.
43.
SwanKShihLF (2019) On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Online Learning9(3): 3.
44.
UtzS (2015) The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior45: 1–10.
45.
ValkenburgPMOliverMB (2019) Media effects theories: an overview. In: OliverMBRaneyAABryantJ (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 4th ed.London: Routledge, pp. 16–35.
46.
WaltherJParksM (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
WeberLRCarterA (1998) On constructing trust: temporality, self-disclosure, and perspective-taking. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy18(1): 7–26.
48.
YeoSKCacciatoreMASuLY-F, et al. (2021) Following science on social media: the effects of humor and source likability. Public Understanding of Science30(5): 552–569.
49.
YzerbytVYKervynNJuddCM (2008) Compensation versus Halo: the unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34(8): 1110–1123.
50.
ZhangALLuH (2022) No laughing matter: exploring the effects of scientists’ humor use on Twitter and the moderating role of superiority. Science Communication44(4): 418–445.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
