Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The unprecedented opportunities for production and collaborative working supported by Web 2.0 technology offer immense potential for active knowledge creation. Research to date has mostly explored the demographic factors that influence production but we argue here that a more detailed understanding of the psychological determinants of online content creation is required if the potential of Web 2.0 is to be maximised. This paper outlines a psychologically driven discussion of the similarities and differences between online and offline contexts and factors that influence online content creation and identity. It demonstrates why a nuanced understanding of the factors that determine not only who produces online content, but what, how and why it is produced is essential to fully appreciate the complexity of the relationship between production and identity. We discuss how situational aspects of the online context and dispositional characteristics of users interact to determine production behaviour and highlight the importance of curation as a key skill for effective content creation and identity management. A number of challenges concerning the lack of co-presence, immediacy and durability and the importance of considering the intended audience and individual differences in practices and preferences concerning privacy are identified and we demonstrate how consideration of the psychological factors that influence online content production and identity creation can inform policy and practice concerning digital inclusion and web safety.

Keywords

Online content creation identity psychology individual differences curation

Introduction

Web 2.0 technology offers immense opportunities not only for the consumption of, but also the creation, dissemination and sharing of information on an unprecedented scale. These opportunities have been embraced at a rapid pace by society in general, and young people in particular. A recent United Nations International Telecommunication Union poll (2012) predicted that 2.7 billion people will be online by the end of 2013 (38 per cent of the world's population). In the UK more time is being spent online, with the average adult spending 17 hours per week on the internet (Ofcom, 2013). College students use Facebook for 30 minutes on average throughout the day (Pempek et al., 2009), while 15 per cent of adults who have internet access use Twitter and 8 per cent use it daily (Pew Internet, 2013). For psychologists this raises interesting questions about how behaviour will be impacted by these new technologies and how online behaviours differ from traditional offline behaviours.

The online opportunity: new contexts for content and identity creation

One of the particularly engaging aspects, and in many ways the premise, of Web 2.0 is its ability to support user-generated content in an interactive and ubiquitous manner. The ability to share information in a variety of different verbal and non-verbal formats underlies the best-known and successful Web 2.0 applications – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Tumblr. By its very nature, user-generated content is determined by its producer and therefore reflects aspects of the content generator's attitudes, preferences, behaviour and identity. Since psychology aims to understand and explain behaviour, it can contribute to the development of a principled understanding of behaviour in these rapidly expanding virtual contexts. These new contexts of social behaviour provide an ideal opportunity for social scientists to study behaviour. Young people are spending more of their time socialising online (Ofcom, 2013) and it is important that we comprehend the implications this has for psychosocial and identity development. For example, examining how young people use social networks offers insights into identity formation and peer relationships (Boyd, 2007). Online contexts can be viewed as a new form of social context that young people inhabit – an online version of the mall (Boyd, 2007). Unfortunately, the potentially rich behavioural data available from social networking sites, especially Facebook, have been underappreciated by developmental psychologists (Wilson et al., 2012). In this paper we present a psychologically driven characterisation of the new contexts afforded by Web 2.0 applications and their associated opportunities for content production and identity representation.

A psychological characterisation of emergent contexts of production and identity

Web 2.0 affords a new virtual environment for participation and, like its traditional offline counterpart, is no less complex. The interactive nature of Web 2.0 content creation mirrors the natural, interactive nature of human cognition. We are designed for interaction, communication and collaboration and thus it is unsurprising perhaps that the web has evolved to augment this propensity. Human cognition is by its very nature distributed (Dror and Hamad, 2008; Hutchins, 1995), collaborative (Rogers, 1993) and reliant upon constructive interaction (Miyake, 1986) and context dependent. An appreciation of the influence of context has long been present in the psychological literature, e.g. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory which highlights the transactional relationship between individuals and their environment (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994). Ecologically driven insights are increasingly being reflected in research exploring online behaviour. For example, there is the use of ‘network ecology narratives’ to refer to a holistic understanding of online network use; that is, an understanding that is developed by identifying the ways in which online network use is impacted by and impacts upon the broader life of the research participant (Notley, 2009). The importance of considering socio-cultural aspects has also been applied to characterise mobile learning environments (Cook et al., 2011; Dourish, 2004) and e-learning generally (Terras and Ramsay, 2012; Terras et al., 2013).

Unlike the traditional physical environment, the virtual environment provides an unprecedented range of contexts for interaction. Active participation via content generation is at the core of Web 2.0 applications, especially social networking contexts. However, the sheer scale and degree of interconnectivity both within and between online contexts adds complexity. Despite such differences, the fundamental tenets of a psychologically informed ecologically driven approach remain – the characteristics and skills of the user determine how they interact with and shape the context they inhabit. Virtual contexts, like offline contexts, have a transactional quality, possibly even more than traditional contexts given that many online activities are based on the premise of active participation. This dynamic relationship unfolds across time as individuals move from one context to another bringing with them new skills and experiences that will inform their current interactions, with the potential to change them and/or their context in the present and/or the future. This constantly evolving process reflects users' experience. It is also essential to capture temporal changes across contexts, allowing us to reflect upon the fast past of technological change and development, how this impacts upon behaviour and how patterns of use also help drive technological change. The relationship is interactive and transactional in nature. Mobile learning is an informative case study to illustrate not only the influence of context but also how the dynamic nature of the interaction between the user and the context unfolds over space and time. It is essential to remember that a learner's psychological state such as their motivation or emotional state do not vary across time and context and such changes can influence the success of the learning outcomes (Terras and Ramsay, 2012). To maximise learning, learners must be context aware, i.e. monitor and respond to factors not only in the external context such as noise but also regulate their internal context via self-regulation and meta-cognition (Terras and Ramsay, 2014). With respect to content creation, when learners are producing content, they must be aware of the context, i.e. the intended audience and how that audience will help determine and shape the nature and scope of the information produced.

Opportunities for identity and production

Online contexts are not simply online versions of offline systems. They are distinct environments in their own right created by the collaborative opportunities that Web 2.0 affords. It is useful to consider the similarities and differences between online and offline contexts. Like offline contexts, the online context is the product of an individual's specific patterns of use determined by psychosocial variables such as motivation, personality and their digital literacy skills. Each online sphere in which they engage will be unique to the user, there is total personalisation – a reflection of their identity. Also like traditional offline contexts, online contexts vary in the degree of complexity and their interconnectedness of social networks. For example, an individual may be a member of and participate in different types and numbers of online fora; they will also differ in the frequency of their contributions. These differences are important as they may impact on identity and production behaviour. This is shown with respect to friendship, where the concept of friendship online is subtly different. Online networks allow you to see how people are connected to each other. Hence many people tend to become friends with their friends' friends (Notley, 2009) with greater willingness and ease than traditional contexts. In virtual spheres a friend may be someone one has never met, and will never meet, face-to-face.

Technological innovations have had a major impact on our environment and the opportunities it presents for development. Initially opportunities for socialisation were restricted by boundaries of space and time, e.g. interactions tended to be face-to-face and at set times; at best they could be supported by telephone calls and email. However, the introduction of Web 2.0, especially mobile applications, has blurred if not broken the barriers of space and time and expanded the opportunities for socialisation and identity development and creation on a global scale.

These wide ranging opportunities raise important issues with respect to self-representation and identity: How does the content that users produce represent their identities? How are users' contributions perceived by others? In his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) proposed that the interactions which shape our identity take place face-to-face. This view is also reflected in mainstream psychological theories that emphasise that these interactions take place from a very young age and that the family and especially parents are important influences on children in their developing understanding of self (Erikson, 1963; Westen, 1998). More recently, interest has focused on the strong impact that interactions with peers and friends have on social and identity development of young people (Rubin et al., 2006). Zarbatany et al. (1990), for example, found that interactions with friends cement relationships and a sense of belonging, while Reis and Youniss (2004) confirmed the importance of friends in helping adolescents to create a coherent identity. However, the widespread use of the tools and applications provided by Web 2.0 technologies means that many interactions between young people now take place online. Social networking technologies provide new contexts and opportunities for young people to present themselves to others and evaluate information about themselves and others. Since socialisation and identity development happen in context, we must understand the nature of these online contexts and the increased range of opportunities they offer.

It has long been appreciated that the psychological concept of identity is central to online communication (Nonnecke and Preece, 2000; Turkle, 1995). As the communicative enablement provided by the internet has developed over the previous two decades, so has the parallel need to understand the novel ways in which human identity is reflected, managed, influenced, manipulated and curated online. Individuals have adopted many techniques to manage their self-presentation, e.g. names and name changes have been used strategically by individuals in order to manage impressions (Mehrabian and Piercy, 1993). Such strategic possibilities were extended significantly 20 years ago, with the early days of the World Wide Web heralding new possibilities of masking and manipulating identities through the use of online agents and avatars, commonly used in multi-user domains (MUDs) and object-oriented MUDs (MOOs). Avatars, graphics that the user designs or selects as a form of personal identity representation, were commonly used and formed the basis for the ground-breaking work of Turkle (1995) who argued for the legitimacy of multiple selves spanning online and offline existences. Turkle also explored the benefits to human beings of exploring different personalities online. More recently, multi-user online arenas have included virtual worlds such as Second Life, an example of a massively multiplayer online world (MMOW): avatars form the basis for social interaction between its members. Research efforts to understand identity as expressed in these domains continue (Meredith et al., 2008; Nowak and Rauh, 2005). The use of avatars in many games and other online applications offers users a chance to adopt personas to represent themselves online. Avatars are either static or dynamic graphical representations of the user. The nature of avatars has been explored with respect to personality predictors of avatar choice (Dunn and Guadagno, 2012), the role of context in avatar creation (Vasalou and Joinson, 2009) and the role of avatar facial expression (Lee et al., 2013) to name but a few.

The 1990s also witnessed the development and exploration of software agents that were programmed to learn any one user's behaviours, interests and preferences (Maes, 1994; Maes and Schneiderman, 1997). Such agents based their learning on the construction of a form of identity of the web user that was reflected in their online behaviours. Indeed, the 1990s saw the associated large scale arrival and adoption of collaborative filtering software: data based on the purchasing profiles of one identified set of customers was used for the purpose of suggesting purchasing opportunities for a set group of other customers based on their previous purchasing profiles. The common factor was the overlap in users' online spending profiles, arguably a form of online identity.

The quest to understand the concept of online identity continued with research into the interplay of personal identity and online community identity (Preece, 2000; Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003) and the nature of online identities such as ‘lurkers’– interviews with and surveys of individuals who read but either do not, or seldom, post messages to online groups (Nonnecke and Preece, 2000; Preece et al., 2004). More recently, Whitty (2008) has taken forward Turkle's (1995) work on the pluralistic nature of the self by exploring the existence of the concept of the true or real self in online spheres, and Whitty and Buchanan (2010) have extended Mehrabian and Piercy's (1993) work by examining the influence that different names have on online interactions.

The influence of online contexts on identity and identity management is complex: there are both intentional and unintentional influences on the way identity may be perceived by others. Awareness of our online identity is crucial. Generally, one might not necessarily think in terms of having an ‘identity’ at all. Nevertheless, in the Web 2.0 world, we argue here that one needs to be aware that if one has an online identity (whether it is limited to one's entry in one's employer's website or whether one has a large, intentional online footprint) then one needs to not just be aware of their online identity, but actively manage it. Indeed, as a minimum, we leave digital footprints micro when writing particular words and macro in our patterns of entering and leaving cyberspace. Being aware of one's identity online is crucial. From a psychological point of view this is dependent upon the individual's cognitive skills and psycho-social profile. The arena of social networking is an ideal case study to examine online identity creation.

Identity and Facebook

Recent research has examined self-presentation on social networking sites. Zhao et al. (2008) identified three different strategies used by Facebook users in self-presentation. First, users present themselves visually via pictures and wall postings. Second, they use ‘cultural presentation’ where they tell other users about their personal interests and hobbies, including their favourite activities, quotes, movies, music, books and TV shows. The third presentation strategy is via a narrative, a self-description under the ‘About Me’ section in Facebook. Visual presentation was the most widely used strategy with over 90 per cent of users displaying some photos of themselves and especially themselves in groups. Seventy-three per cent of users shared information about their interests and hobbies while only 67 per cent of users completed the ‘About me’ section and these tended to be very short. Zhao et al. argued that Facebook users tended to adopt a ‘show rather than tell’ approach where they stated minimally and explicitly information about one's self and instead created an online persona more implicitly via photos and comments and quotes from others. Individuals present themselves to others not only through the content that they create on their ‘profile’ page, but also via the presentation of those they are connected with: an individual's identity is composed of who they know and share a connection with (Dalsgaard, 2008). Users also reveal a lot about their identity via their interactions with other users (Wilson et al., 2012), although there has been less research carried out on this.

This implicit approach to identity presentations is consist with other research indicating that users do not seem to explicitly recognise the social identity function of Facebook: Pempek et al. (2009) found that ‘communicating with friends’ was the most popular reason for using Facebook (selected by 85 per cent), while ‘conveying identity’ was rarely picked (selected by only 4 per cent). Since Facebook clearly does have a role in projecting users’ identities, this suggests a lack of awareness amongst users on the impact of their online behaviours. In contrast, users of the social networking site MySpace considered self-presentation important in their use, with college students utilising MySpace for identity exploration, engaging in social comparison and expressing idealized aspects of the selves they wish to become (Manago et al., 2008).

Web 2.0 applications offer unprecedented opportunities to express and sculpt identity. It enables the creation of a digital representation of ourselves (Vella, 2013), a digital identity that allows us to shape who we are and control how we wish to be perceived by others. The socially situated relationship of language and identity was captured by Gee (1990) using the concept of ‘discourse’ to reflect how individuals alter their behaviour in different contexts in order to manage how they both view themselves and are viewed by others. Identity is multi-faceted and dynamic, and is managed across different situations in different environments. Hence, online contexts not only provide us with an increased range of contexts in which to present ourselves but a variety of formats with which to present and create identity and a high degree of control over what image is presented. Although this is essentially an advantage, it also provides increased opportunities for misrepresentation and represents a major practical and psychological challenge in terms of internet safety.

Online content production: who, what, why and how

Viewing production from a psychological perspective makes it clear that we need to understand who creates online content, what they create, why they create it, how they create it and the contexts in which this behaviour occurs. By way of illustration, we draw upon content creation in Facebook and online diaries as informative case studies.

Who

To date most of the research examining online content creation has been driven by demographic factors and has focused around practical issues concerning access. Age is a consistent predictor not only of Internet use (Blank and Dutton, 2012) but also content creation (Jones and Fox, 2009). However, the relationship is complex and an understanding of the more subtle psychological factors and how these interact with the environment as predicted by a transactional model is required. Further insight into the effects of age and how it interacts with psychological determinants of production in context comes from the work of Leung (2013) who explored the influence of age and personality factors in the use of Facebook, blogs and forums. Results indicated that social media content generation addressed ‘five socio-psychological needs: showing affection, venting negative feelings, gaining recognition, getting entertainment, and fulfilling cognitive needs’ (Leung, 2013: 997). Interestingly, participants reported using different online contexts to meet different needs. Facebook and blogs were used to meet social and affection needs, with fora being used to express dissatisfaction regardless of age.

Survey-based research suggests that production is influenced by a range of demographic factors such as socio-economic status, age and gender with data from the US indicating that ‘students who have at least one parent with a graduate degree are significantly more likely to create content, either online or offline than others’ (Hobbs and Jensen, 2009: 5) and that students with higher social status are more likely to create material (Hargittai and Walejko, 2008). Like the fast-paced development of technology itself, research concerning gender differences also suggests that the preferences and practices of men and women concerning technology is changing (Kimbrough et al., 2013). Untangling the influence of gender is complex as it not a distinct factor and is frequently influenced by other demographic, psycho-social and contextual variables. Research findings are mixed, with data initially suggesting that women are less likely to post online content; however, this difference is not apparent when experience and internet skills are considered (Correa, 2010; Hargittai and Walejko, 2008). Recent data indicates that mediated communication is used more frequently by women and that women have a preference for text messaging, social media and online video calls (Kimbrough et al., 2013).

It is important to remember that there are differences in the ways in which the technologies are used. In particular, many users adopt a more passive approach and do not actually contribute content. It is possible to identify different types of digital users: (1) active content generators, i.e. those who create, generate, produce and then publish their information online; (2) passive content consumers, i.e. those who read, view and listen to online content but do not generate it themselves, sometimes conceptualised as ‘lurkers’ (Nonnecke and Preece, 2000); these users read online content in news groups but rarely break cover and post themselves; (3) ‘reader-authors’ are those individuals who both create content and digest that of other people. Consideration of such individual differences in producer preferences and behaviour illustrates the relationship between content creation and identity and we argue that the content that is produced is a function of the user's psychosocial profile and the context in which they operate.

What

Online content comes in a variety of forms and may be generated for a number of reasons to meet a variety of needs. Blank (2013) made an interesting contribution to the research on the kinds of content that people create in reporting the results of the Oxford Internet Survey (OxIS) (Dutton and Blank, 2011), a survey of a representative sample of 2000 individuals in England, Scotland and Wales. Eight types of online content were identified: ‘writing a blog, posting “writing, stories, poetry or other work” the respondent considers creative, maintaining a personal website, having a profile on a social network site (SNS), uploading pictures, uploading video or music files, sending an email or message supporting a political or social cause, and commenting on a political or social issue in a blog, tweet, or on a SNS’ (Blank, 2013: 585). Using factor analysis, Blank identified three different kinds of content creation: ‘social and entertainment content’ was produced by 75 per cent of the sample, ‘skilled content’, such as creating websites and blogs, was created by 34% of the sample and ‘political content’ was only created by 14 per cent of the sample. In looking at who is creating content, Blank found that both ‘social and entertainment content’ and ‘skilled content’ were more likely to be created by non-elites with only ‘political content’ significantly and positively associated with elite status.

The majority of content posted online is multimodal, dynamically updated, situationally specific and socially mediated (Coiro et al., 2008). Online contexts offer immense opportunities for both creation and curation, with the ability to respond and rework information from various contributors. The increasingly multi-modal nature of new technology (Kress, 2003) allows not only the blending of content in terms of pictures and words, but also the blurring of boundaries in terms of creation and curation, ‘blending authorship, readership, production, and consumption’ (Greenhow and Gleason, 2012: 466). This presents exciting opportunities for content creation and digital literacy skills.

Perhaps the best-known vehicle for self-expression and identity that has undergone significant development is the personal diary. Traditionally diaries were ‘private’, reflecting an individual's personal and private thoughts, musings, observations, hopes and fears – accessed solely by the author. With the development of iCulture and software platforms such as OpenDiary, Tumblr and WordPress, the form and function of diaries has been significantly transformed as they shift from the private to the public sphere. An online diary might be a collaborative, international creation, read and absorbed by an international readership of millions, forming what has come to be known as the ‘blogosphere’. Furthermore, Web 2.0 functionality has expanded the diary medium beyond simple written text by supporting the posting of sound and image-based context [e.g. YouTube, Picasa (being rebranded as Google Photos) and Flickr (image and video hosting and sharing) to name but a few]. Such content is generally shared with, and commented upon, by a restricted or unrestricted group of individuals. As Web 2.0 becomes embedded in mobile devices, mobile applications (‘apps’) are being developed that enable content creation and consumption on small devices whilst on the move. Thus, the times and places at which online content can be created, consumed and commented upon is without limit.

Why

People are clearly using the functionality of Web 2.0 technologies to produce varied content. Hence it is informative to explore why people use these sites. Motivation is a key determinant of behaviour, with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and perceived competence being reliable predictors of content creation (Correa, 2010). Much of the research exploring why people use social networking sites has adopted the ‘uses and gratifications’ perspective which examines why people use specific media and what they use them for (Schramm et al., 1961). Significant insight into the reasons for online content creation comes from a qualitative study by Whiting and Williams (2013) who identified ten main reasons for using social media: social interaction, information seeking, to pass time, entertainment, relaxation, communicatory utility, convenience utility, expression of opinion, information sharing and surveillance/knowledge about others. Park et al. (2009) found a smaller set but similar reasons: socialising, entertainment, self-status seeking and information seeking. Quan-Haase and Young (2010) compared reasons for using Facebook and instant messaging: top reasons for using Facebook were having fun and knowing about activities in one's social network, while the use of instant messaging focused on relationship maintenance and development. Pempek et al. (2009) found similar results: with information sharing coming fairly low on users’ lists of reasons for using social networking sites, students instead spent more time observing content posted by others on Facebook rather than actually posting content themselves.

Furthermore, the different functions provided by different Web 2.0 tools support slightly different needs. For example, Ballard (2011) proposed that ‘content creation is the primary appeal of Twitter’. Ballard found a difference between gratifications sought and gratifications obtained: the top three gratification sought from Twitter were ‘entertainment’, ‘passing time’ and ‘expression’, but the top three gratifications obtained from Twitter actually were ‘entertainment’, ‘relational maintenance’ and ‘information seeking’.

As well as motives for using new technology there is also an increasingly large literature on how personality factors may influence the production and identity. Research indicates an association between use of social networking and narcissism, with Facebook being used as a means of self-promotion (Ryan and Xenos, 2011). Exhibitionists also use social media to show affection, express their negative feelings and achieve recognition. Interestingly, research suggests personality interacts with age, so that older adults with different narcissistic personalities are more likely to use Facebook, blogs and forums (Leung, 2013).

It is clear that Web 2.0 tools are widely used for socialising and entertainment. However, new technologies are increasingly required in education and at work. Despite the enthusiasm concerning the educational potential of social networking generally and the productive aspects in particular, the research findings to date have been rather mixed and often disappointing. Hew's (2011) review of the use of Facebook by students and teachers confirmed that Facebook has had very little educational value. Students appear to want to maintain a clear separation between work and leisure. Students perceive the primary function of Facebook as relationship maintenance and regard this as incompatible with academic work (Madge et al., 2009). Junco (2012) also found that when Facebook is used for educational purposes it is generally used to communicate and share information with existing friends. This may go some way to explaining the limited automatic transfer to more educational uses. Such use is very different from educational use of skills such as blogging and contributing to online tutorials in which information is to be shared with people who may not be friends or unknown people entirely. Socialisation in virtual environments and the implications this has for identity is complex and these nuances of use and behaviour must be appreciated if we are to maximise the potential and transfer content creation for the purposes of education and learning. From a rather different perspective, Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) found that students who spent more hours on Facebook spent less time studying and had lower self-reported Grade Point Averages . Networking itself has become a vital employability skill and platforms such as Linkedin, which are specifically designed for networking at work, have been more successful than applying the more informal technology to more formal purposes. Greenhow and Gleason have argued that knowing how to build a community on Twitter® is a just one skill that many employers are increasingly looking for.

How

Web 2.0 technologies clearly support communication and content creation. Most people could, if they wished, post content to Facebook, tweet messages on Twitter, contribute articles to a blog or messages to an online forum, and the evidence is that many people are doing these things. While the ease of contributing informally to these media might suggest that content creation is easy, using Web 2.0 technologies to produce high-quality content can present a much greater challenge. Despite the availability of opportunities for production, creators require the appropriate skills and ‘these skills have not become more common or easier to learn because of the Internet’ (Blank, 2013: 591). For example, writing high-quality content in blogs clearly requires not just the technical skills but also many of the same higher level writing skills which are required offline. The research base concerning technology supported reading and writing such as text messaging and blogging is starting to develop. There have been concerns expressed that content creation and communication via new technology, such as text messaging, is having an adverse impact on traditional literacy skills (Drouin, 2011; Drouin and Davis, 2009). However, these authors found no evidence to support this view. On the other hand, others have argued that the emergence of new practices such as tweeting represents a new form of literacy – ‘twitteracy’ which requires both traditional and new literacy skills (Greenhow and Gleason, 2012), with Twitter having the potential to combine very wide circulation with quality writing.

The ability to produce online content and effectively participate in Web 2.0 environments requires the pre-requisite media literacy skills (Terras et al., 2011). Media literacy has been defined as the ability to ‘access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts’ (Ofcom, 2009:4). We have previously advocated that consideration of the psychological infrastructure of the user, especially their cognitive resources (limited attention and memory resources) and socio-emotional state and preferences, supports the ability to evaluate and produce information (Terras and Ramsay, 2012, 2014). Despite the identification of digital natives (Prensky, 2001), there is minimal evidence that they actually possess more developed digital literacy skills to support eLearning or the creation of sophisticated content (Jones and Shao, 2011).

Given the transactional nature of the relationship between the individual and the online context in which they function, the situational aspects of the online context and dispositional characteristics of the user interact to determine production behaviour. Differences in content creation may be attributable to the dominant medium of a particular context, e.g. visual, verbal or mixed. Content creation draws upon skills and preferences, and hence the cognitive and psycho-social profile of the user should be considered. This is consistent with the proposals we have made elsewhere concerning the need to consider not only the physical barriers and enablers of internet use but also the psychological barriers and enablers of use generally and media literacy skills in particular (Terras et al., 2011, 2013). Furthermore, online identity is created and successful participation in both social and educational activities is dependent on the ability to both comprehend and produce the appropriate and necessary content.

The importance of curation

With respect to online content production, the key skill is curation. Buck (2013) on mashable.com describes ‘curation’ as follows: ‘A curator ingests, analyzes and contextualizes web content and information of a particular nature onto a platform or into a format we can understand and shares content with their online audiences.’ Buck cites platforms such as Tumblr and Pinterest as being as much about social content curation as about content creation. For our purposes here, we define ‘creation’ as the initial generation of content. By comparison, ‘curation’ is the arranging, sorting, ordering, rating and presenting of information. Traditionally, before individuals wrote for online global audiences, any curation activities resided with publishing outlets themselves. Content producers and publishers were separate and distinct. However, in the Web 2.0 domain, the responsibility for curation – of managing, sorting and maintaining content – has implicitly passed to the content creator. From a psychological perspective, this means that each curator must recognise that their online identity is ever constantly present, even if they are unaware of their audience.

The ways in which one both creates and curates one's online content are implicated in the successful sustainability of one's online presence. Content generation and content curation are equally important but in different ways. Posting personal information or material online, whether it is simple, demographic information or whether it is content that one has intellectually created, all remains online. We all therefore have a need to create and publish responsibly. That some younger users in particular tend to find this challenging has been recognised by the passing of a new law in California that will allow web users under the age of 18 to delete content that they post from 2015.

For example, remembering to curate one's online content regularly relies upon robust prospective memory. An appreciation of the minds of others, known as ‘theory of mind’ (Baron-Cohen et al., 1992), and an understanding of the fact that the minds of others might differ from one's own is required: How is one potentially perceived by others? Will others understand me in the way that I understand myself? What impression do I make or wish to make? How will the information I present create my online identity? Understanding, or at least having an awareness of, the minds of others is essential. Web 2.0 curation often occurs collaboratively, with any number of users taking it upon themselves to manage online content. Whilst virtual environments might afford positive digital citizenry of this type, the psychological mechanisms of importance remain constant.

The psychological challenges of online production and identity

Virtual environments and the intricate relationships between users and their online contexts are complex. Web 2.0 technologies allow people to produce content and communicate in new ways which were not previously possible; they allow people to carry out many tasks faster, more efficiently and more effectively, and they allow people to collaborate on tasks which were previously carried out alone. However, there are a number of challenges that face individuals who wish to produce content in these new virtual contexts. The challenges reflect the emergent characteristics of the new contexts and users' poor understanding of how the fast pace of technological change, and the increasing number of opportunities for production and presentation, may mask the contextual differences between online and offline environments, thereby limiting an individual's awareness of their potential impact on behaviour.

The characteristics of these new tools/platforms and the functions which they support differ in subtle ways from traditional offline environments. Many of these characteristics are related to changes in the characteristics of written and spoken language. Just as technology has impacted on the lexicon, with the introduction of new words such as email, lurkers, tweeting, blog, wordle and selfie, so too technology has some subtle and unexpected impacts on communicative practices. Traditionally the uses of written language and spoken language have differed in modality, formality, intended audience, co-presence and context, transience/duration, interactivity, non-verbal support and other characteristics. We now consider some of the challenges to content creation and communication which users might experience in their online practices.

Lack of co-presence and context in the online contexts

At first glance, the popularity of Facebook and Twitter is quite surprising, since communication in these media is primarily via written language which historically (Murray, 1988) and developmentally (Griffin et al., 2004) has been viewed as a secondary and less efficient means of communication. Spoken language is regarded as more efficient because the interlocutors are typically co-present, share context and can therefore interrupt and request clarifications to correct misunderstandings (Chapanis et al., 1977). Since the development of common ground or common understanding is one of the main aims of dialogue (Clark and Brennan, 1991), the absence of features such as co-presence and context sharing changes the nature of online interactions compared to their offline counterparts.

For example contextual sources of information about the speaker's emotions and attitudes, such as non-verbal behaviours, are available in offline dialogues to help interlocutors convey markers of identity and meaning. Online environments do not enjoy this richly nuanced interpersonal communication that is typical of face-to-face communication (Ramsay et al., 1996) and there is often insufficient non-verbal information to assist in the resolution of communicative ambiguities. However, social networking sites with their range of presentation options, including photographs and videos, compensate for this lack of co-presence allowing us to share our activities and thoughts with others without actually being there (Susarla et al., 2012). Such compensatory strategies to augment text are also present in text messaging and emails where smileys and emoticons are used as an attempt to compensate for this missing emotional dimension of text (Derks et al., 2008).

Immediacy and durability: monitoring the temporal aspects of production

Traditionally, whether one wrote a letter, authored a book, wrote a screen play or produced a painting, there existed an appreciable time interval between production and publication. By comparison, Web 2.0 contexts of production such as Twitter and YouTube allow, and in many instances their success depends upon, greater speed. The speed and global reach of Twitter were headline news at the 2014 Oscar's ceremony when a selfie photograph taken by the hostess, Ellen DeGeneres, with several A-list Hollywood stars, became the most retweeted message ever (Llewellyn Smith, 2014).

However, the immediacy of publication can also come with a psychological cost. It is essential to have robust meta-cognitive awareness of what one is doing and the need to reflect on how to do it responsibly. In other words, the risk is one of acting in haste and repenting at leisure, as it is very difficult to ‘un-publish’ much of one's online presence, especially that which is inferred or implicit. One needs to be able to self-regulate and exercise self-control. From a psychological perspective, this also draws upon the ability to understand the implications of one's words and actions for yourself and others. It also draws upon one's ability to perceive that time in online contexts is influenced by the sequencing of information, contextual changes, the state-dependent nature of human memory, cognitive limitations and the ability to plan one's activities amongst other factors (Terras and Ramsay, 2013, 2014).

The immediacy of publication is compounded by the durability of online content. Traditional face-to-face interactions were informal, transient and ephemeral, but firstly audio and video tape recordings and now social networking sites provide permanent records of contributions and interactions. Digital citizens and digital learners alike now need to explicitly plan for their online presence over the lifespan, perhaps developing a lifelong online persona. There have even been moves to clarify the management of an individual's digital estate after their demise, e.g. social media sites generally have a policy of allowing information to be memorialised upon production of a death certificate. Google, for example, has an Inactive Account Manager that allows users to specify what to do with one's data in the event of an inactive account after a particular time period. Whilst the management of online identity can be addressed through such policies, it is perhaps advisable to complement such policies with the adoption of responsible attitudes towards online publishing whilst one is alive. Vaughn et al. (2010) demonstrated that making people aware of their own mortality changes their behaviours. Therefore, we propose that it would be beneficial to raise digital citizens’ awareness of the fact that, unlike them, the information that they post on-line is potentially immortal; so they need to create both content and identity judiciously.

Audience and privacy: individual differences in practices and preferences

Another difference between offline and online production that presents a challenge concerns the audience for the communication and the associated idea of privacy. Offline face-to-face interactions are typically conducted one-to-one, whereas social networking interactions are broadcast to a much wider audience. Many contributors do not consider the audience sufficiently in producing content (Lipford et al., 2008).

Similar issues arise with respect to written production. Traditional contexts have generally been typified by sole-authorship, e.g. book authoring, with collaborative content creation being more typical of video and audio productions such as music and film, where the membership of the collaboration extends to a recognised number of people and type of individual, e.g. producer, director, writer etc., all of whom are aware of the existence of each other. The efforts of the content creators are orchestrated. By contrast, Web 2.0 contexts go beyond what Vonder Haar (1998) termed ‘the age of orchestration’ to truly democratise participation in online content creation.

Applications such as Facebook, Flickr and OpenDiary allow the sharing of information, one's whereabouts, photographs and personal thoughts with a potentially global and mobile audience or readership. Web 2.0 users need to be aware of the nature and scale of their readership: the readership needs to be intended if one is to manage one's privacy effectively. Whilst the public nature of the internet brings many advantages, it has become clear over the past 20 years that it is not always either advisable or desirable to share content with the widest audience. Although awareness and the provision of privacy controls has grown, one particular psychological barrier nevertheless remains. Many online users continue to ignore the fact that the internet is a public forum. The increasing use of Web 2.0 applications necessitates the need to consider conceptualisations of privacy. It is a complex issue as web users have developed different mechanisms in an attempt to manage their information disclosure. For example, users will sometimes choose to falsify their personal details in order to protect their privacy (Son and Kim, 2008). Traditionally, conceptualisations of privacy are either normative or descriptive in essence. Tavani (2007) describes privacy in terms of an area that must not be trespassed without prior agreement (normative), whereas descriptive notions of privacy advance the idea that it is a resource that can be eroded. Recent conceptualisations, such as Adams’ (2000) privacy model, refer to the information sensitivity, the information receiver and the information usage. All three of these factors make a significant contribution to the management of online presence. Another relevant factor is an individual's degree of concern for their online privacy (Buchanan et al., 2007). Crucially, individuals self-report that they read privacy policy statements but usage logs indicate that they do not (Jensen et al., 2005). Pew Internet reported recently (May, 2013) that only 9 per cent of teenagers are ‘very’ concerned about their online safety (802 teenagers aged 12–17 were surveyed in the summer of 2012). The expression ‘information revelation’ (Gross and Acquisti, 2005) refers to the extent of personal information that an individual is prepared to disclose online.

Christofides et al. (2012) compared the Facebook disclosure practices of adults and adolescents. This study is informative as it not only explored potential age differences but also possible explanations for these differences such as developmental differences in obtaining a full understanding of privacy: the findings indicate that definitions of privacy differ by age (Wolfe and Laufer, 1974) or developmental differences in perceptions of privacy. In contrast to adults, research suggests that teenagers and even university students do not consider information concerning age, religion, politics and sexual preference as private and therefore freely disclose it online (Christofides et al., 2009). A social learning-based explanation predicts that we learn our social behaviour from the environments in which we interact. Lastly, they consider whether differences may be attributable to the interaction of developmental factors. Learning research indicates age differences in perceptions of the nature and content of private information, and also indicates age differences in the frequency with which technology is used. Given that social networking environments by their very nature actively encourage disclosure and that adolescents are spending increasing amounts of time in these environments, disclosure then may be viewed as an appropriate behaviour. Their findings are consistent with the latter, suggesting that the behaviour of users shapes and is shaped by the context they inhabit as an ecological perspective suggests. The adolescents in the study are in the process of developing their personality and identity (Soto et al., 2011) and they are taking their cue from their peers in the environments in which they spend time.

Conclusion

Web 2.0 technologies offer increasing opportunities for content production, interaction and collaboration. However, the speed of these technological advances has made it difficult for users to reflect upon how these new practices have changed behaviours in online compared with offline environments. A comprehensive understanding of these factors is important not only for theory but also for policy and practice and education. Initiatives to promote awareness of issues concerning privacy, disclosure and internet safety generally will only have a limited impact on actual online behaviour, unless users fully appreciate the nature of online contexts, understand the risks they present and not only possess but deploy the requisite skills to modify their behaviour accordingly. Just as the original aim of formal education was to help children develop literacy and numeracy skills, it is important that we provide guidance about the 21st century skills required to use these new technologies effectively.

References

Adams

(2000) Multimedia information changes the whole privacy ballgame. Proceedings of the tenth conference on computers, freedom and privacy: Challenging the assumptions, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 25–32. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 4–7 April, 2000.

Ballard

(2011) “WHAT'S HAPPENING” @twitter: a uses and gratifications approach, USA: Master's thesis, University of KentuckyPaper 155. Available at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/155.

Baron-Cohen S, Allen J and Gillberg C (1992) Can autism be detected at 18 months? The needle, the haystack, and the CHAT. The British Journal of Psychiatry 161(6): 839–843.

Blank

(2013) Who creates content? Information, Communication & Society 16(4): 590–612.

Blank G and Dutton WH (2012) Age and trust in the Internet: the centrality of experience and attitudes toward technology in Britain. Social Science Computer Review 30(2): 135–151.

Boyd D (2007) Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning-Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 119–142.

Boyd

(2007) Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning. In: Buckingham

(ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 119–142. .

Bronfenbrenner U and Ceci SJ (1994) Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review 101(4): 568.

Buchanan

Paine

Joinson

(2007) Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(2): 157–165.

10.

Buck S (2013) If You Use the Web, You Are a ‘Curator’. Available at: http://mashable.com/2013/05/09/curator/ (accessed 12 September 2013).

11.

Chapanis

Parrish

Ochsman

(1977) Studies in interactive communication 11: The effects of four communication modes on linguistic performance of teams during cooperative problem solving. Human Factors 19: 101–116.

12.

Christofides E, Muise A and Desmarais S (2009) Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology and Behavior 12(3): 341–345.

13.

Christofides

Muise

Desmarais

(2012) Hey mom, what's on your Facebook? Comparing Facebook disclosure and privacy in adolescents and adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science. .

14.

Clark

Brennan

(1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick

Levine

Behrend

(eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–149.

15.

Coiro J, Knobel M, Lankshear C, et al. (2008) Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. Handbook of Research on New Literacies, pp. 1–21.

16.

Cook

Pachler

Bachmair

(2011) Ubiquitous mobility with mobile phones: a cultural ecology for mobile learning. E-Learning and Digital Media 8(3): 181–196.

17.

Correa

(2010) The participation divide among “online experts”: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students' web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 16: 71–92.

18.

Dalsgaard

(2008) Facework on Facebook: The presentation of self in virtual life and its role in the US elections. Anthropology Today 24(6): 8–12.

19.

Derks

Bos

AER

Von Grumbkow

(2008) Emoticons and online message interpretation. Social Science Computer Review 26: 379–388.

20.

Dror

Harnad

(2008) Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In: Dror

Harnad

(eds) Cognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends Our Minds, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 1–23.

21.

Drouin

(2011) College students' text messaging, use of textese and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27(1): 67–75.

22.

Drouin

Davis

(2009) R U txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41: 46–67.

23.

Dourish

(2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(1): 19–30.

24.

Dunn

Guadagno

(2012) My avatar and me? Gender and personality predictors of avatar-self-discrepancy. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 97–106.

25.

Dutton WH and Blank G (2011) Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2011. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

26.

Gee

(1990) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse, Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

27.

Greenhow

Gleason

(2012) Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum 76: 463–477. .

28.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday.

29.

Griffin

Hemphill

Camp

(2004) Oral discourse in the preschool years and later literacy skills. First Language 24: 123–147.

30.

Gross

Acquisti

(2005) Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 71–80. Alexandria, VA, USA, 7 November.

31.

Hargittai

Walejko

(2008) The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society 11(2): 239–256.

32.

Hew

(2011) Students' and teachers' use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 27: 662–676.

33.

Hobbs R and Jensen A (2009) The past, present, and future of media literacy education. The Journal of Media Literacy Education 1(1).

34.

Hutchins

(1995) Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.

35.

Jensen

Potts

Jensen

(2005) Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63(1): 203–227. .

36.

Jones C and Shao B (2011) The net generation and digital natives: implications for higher education. York: Higher Education Academy.

37.

Jones S and Fox S (2009) Generations online in 2009. Report, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC, pp.1–9.

38.

Junco

(2012) Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 187–198.

39.

Kimbrough

Guadagno

Muscanell

(2013) Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 896–900.

40.

Kirschner

Karpinski

(2010) Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 1237–1245.

41.

Kress G (2003) Literacy in the new media age. Psychology Press.

42.

Lee

Kim

Peng

(2013) Consumer reviews: Reviewer avatar facial expression and review valence. Internet Research 23(2): 116–132.

43.

Leung

(2013) Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of the gratifications sought and of narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 997–1006.

44.

Lipford HR, Besmer A and Watson J (2008) Understanding privacy settings in Facebook with an audience view. Available at: http://static.usenix.org/events/upsec08/tech/full_papers/lipford/lipford_html/c (accessed 17 October 2013).

45.

Llewellyn Smith C (2014) Ellen DeGeneres' Oscars selfie beats Obama retweet record on Twitter. Available at: www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/03/ellen-degeneres-selfie-retweet-obama (accessed 14 September 2013).

46.

Madge

Meek

Wellens

(2009) Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media & Technology 34(2): 141–155.

47.

Maes P (1994) Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM 37(7): 30–40.

48.

Maes P and Schneiderman B (1997) Direct manipulation vs. interface agents: A debate. Interactions 4(6): 42–61.

49.

Manago AM, Graham MB, Greenfield PM, et al. (2008) Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(6): 446–458.

50.

Mehrabian

Piercy

(1993) Differences in positive and negative connotations of nicknames and given names. Journal of Social Psychology 133(5): 737–740.

51.

Meredith

Griffiths

Whitty

(2008) Identity in massively multiplayer online games: A qualitative pilot study. In: Kotsis

Ibrahim

(eds) iiWAS2008 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services, Vienna: Austrian Computer Society2008.

52.

Miyake

(1986) Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science 10(2): 151–177.

53.

Murray

(1988) The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode and medium switching. Language in Society 17(3): 351–373.

54.

Nonnecke B and Preece J (2000) Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 73–80). ACM.

55.

Notley

(2009) Young people, online networks, and social inclusion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 1208–1227.

56.

Nowak

Rauh

(2005) The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11: 153–178.

57.

Ofcom (2009). The Consumer Experience: Telecoms, Internet and Digital Broadcasting 2009 report. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/consumer-experience/tce.pdf (accessed 10 February 2015).

58.

Ofcom (2013). Adults' media use and attitudes report 2013. Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy/media-lit-research/adults-2013/ (accessed 14 October 2013).

59.

Park

Kee

Vlaenzuela

(2009) Being immersed in Social networking environment: Uses and gratifications and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour 12(6): 729–733.

60.

Pedersen (1997) Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17(2): 147–156.

61.

Pempek

Yermolayeva

Calvert

(2009) College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30: 227–238.

62.

Pew Internet (2013) Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. Available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-Social-Media-And-Privacy.aspx (accessed 12 June 2013).

63.

Preece

(2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability, Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

64.

Preece

Maloney-Krichmar

(2003) Online communities: Focusing on sociability and usability. In: Jacko

Sears

(eds) The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 596–620.

65.

Preece

Nonnecke

Andrews

(2004) The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior 20(2): 201–223.

66.

Preibusch

(2013) Guide to measuring privacy concern: review of survey and observational instruments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71(12): 1133–1143. .

67.

Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon 9(5): 1–6.

68.

Quan-Haase

Young

(2010) Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 30: 350–361. .

69.

Ramsay

Barabesi

Preece

(1996) Informal communication is about sharing objects and media interacting with computers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Computer Interaction 8(3): 277–283.

70.

Raskin

Terry

(1988) A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 890–902.

71.

Reis

Youniss

(2004) Patterns in identity change and development in relationships with mothers and friends. Journal of Adolescent Research 19: 31–44.

72.

Rogers

(1993) Coordinating computer-mediated work. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 1: 295–315.

73.

Rubin

Bukowski

Parker

(2006) Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In: Damon

(ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th edn. New York: Wiley, vol. 3, pp. 571–645.

74.

Ryan

Xenos

(2011) Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior 27: 1658–1664.

75.

Schramm

Lyle

Parker

(1961) Television in the Lives of our Children, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

76.

Son

J-Y

Kim

(2008) Internet users' information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. Management Information Systems Quarterly 32(3): 503–529.

77.

Soto CJ, John OP, Gosling, SD and Potter J (2011) Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(2): 330.

78.

Susarla

Tan

(2012) Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content: Evidence from YouTube. Information Systems Research 23(1): 23–41.

79.

Tavani

(2007) Philosophical theories of privacy: Implications for an adequate online privacy policy. Metaphilosophy 38(1): 1–22.

80.

Terras

Ramsay

(2012) The five central psychological challenges facing effective mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(5): 707–832.

81.

Terras

Ramsay

(2013) E-learning, mobility and time: A psychological framework. In: Barberà

Reimann

(eds) Assessment and Evaluation of Time Factors in Online Teaching and Learning, Hershey, USA: IGI Global Publishing.

82.

Terras

Ramsay

(2014) Psychological perspective on the temporal dimensions of e-learning. E-Learning and Digital Media 11(2): 108–122. (Special Issue: The Temporal Dimensions of E-learning).

83.

Terras

Ramsay

Boyle

(2011) A psychological perspective on media literacy. In: Grahame

(ed.) Science Education in a Rapidly Changing World, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., pp. 63–90.

84.

Terras

Ramsay

Boyle

(2013) Learning and open educational resources: A psychological perspective. E-Learning and Digital Media 10(2): 162–174.

85.

Turkle

(1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, New York: Simon and Schuster.

86.

Vasalou

Joinson

(2009) Me, myself and I: The role of interactional context on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior 25: 510–520. .

87.

Vaughn

Bradley

Byrd-Craven

(2010) The effect of mortality salience on women's judgments of male faces. Evolutionary Psychology 8(3): 477–491.

88.

Vella

(2013) A digital identity: Creating uniqueness in a new contextual domain. E-Learning and Digital Media 10(3): 285–293.

89.

Vonder Haar

(1998) Visual interaction design: The orchestration age. SIGCHI Bulletin 30(1). Available at: http://old.sigchi.org/bulletin/1998.1/vid.html (accessed 21 October 2013).

90.

Westen

(1998) The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin 124(3): 333–371.

91.

Whiting A and Williams D (2013) Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 16(4): 362–369.

92.

Whitty

(2008) Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 1707–1723.

93.

Whitty

Buchanan

(2010) “What's in a ‘screen name’?” Attractiveness of different types of screen names used by online daters. International Journal of Internet Science 5(1): 5–19.

94.

Wilson

Gosling

Graham

(2012) A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(3): 203–220.

95.

Wolfe M and Laufer R (1974) The concept of privacy in childhood and adolescence. In: Man-environment interactions: Evaluations and applications, Part II, Privacy. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, vol. 6, pp. 29–54.

96.

Zarbatany

Hartmann

Rankin

(1990) The psychological functions of preadolescent peer activities. Child Development 61: 1067–1080.

97.

Zhao

Grasmuck

Martin

(2008) Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 24(5): 1816–1836.

Digital media production and identity: Insights from a psychological perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The online opportunity: new contexts for content and identity creation

A psychological characterisation of emergent contexts of production and identity

Opportunities for identity and production

Identity and Facebook

Online content production: who, what, why and how

Who

What

Why

How

The importance of curation

The psychological challenges of online production and identity

Lack of co-presence and context in the online contexts

Immediacy and durability: monitoring the temporal aspects of production

Audience and privacy: individual differences in practices and preferences

Conclusion

References