The study investigated strategic self-presentation (relationship closeness, information valence, and sex) on hypothetical choice of media used. 145 participants (73 women, 72 men; M age = 22.3 yr.) were randomly assigned to experimental conditions where they indicated their preference for communicating with either a friend or a stranger using Short Messaging Service (SMS), e-mail, or telephone, compared to face-to-face. Information valence was manipulated as a within-subjects variable by scenarios where information was self-referential and either negative or positive. Preference to mediated channels in the two scenarios was measured as an average of self-reported scores on a scale from 1–5 where 3 indicated face-to-face communication. Relationship closeness and scenario affected media preferences. Participants had higher preference scores for mediated channels when communicating with strangers than with friends and when sharing self-referential and negative information. Only women's preferences appeared to be affected by the manipulation of relationship closeness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreassenH. K.Bujnowska-FedakM. M.ChronakiC. E.DumitruR. C.PuduleI.SantanaS.VossH.WynnR. (2007) European citizens' use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 10(7), 53.
2.
AndreassenH. K.WangbergS. C.WynnR.SørensenT.HjortdahlP. (2006) Health-related use of the Internet in the Norwegian population. Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 126(22), 2950–2952. [in Norwegian]
3.
AvantG. R.KnutsenK. P. (1993) Understanding cultural differences: Janteloven and social conformity in Norway. Et Cetera: A Review of General Semantics, 50(4), 449–460.
4.
BarghJ. A.McKennaK. Y.FitzsimonsG. M. (2002) Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48.
5.
BeckwithL.BurnettM.WiedenbeckS.CookC.SorteS.HastingsM. (2005) Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: are there gender issues?Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, CHI2005, Portland, OR, April 2–7.
6.
BemS. L. (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.
7.
BergvikS.WynnR. (2012) The use of short message service (SMS) among hospitalized coronary patients. General Hospital Psychiatry, 34(4), 390–397.
8.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.
9.
ChernyL. (1999) Conversation and community: chat in a virtual world.Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
10.
ChoV.HungH. (2011) The effectiveness of short message service for communication with concerns of privacy protection and conflict avoidance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 250–270.
11.
CrossS. E.MadsonL. (1997) Models of the self: self-construal theory and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.
12.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.
13.
D'AmbraJ.RiceR. E.O'ConnorM. (1998) Computer-mediated communication and media preference: an investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task equivocality and media richness. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(3), 164–174.
14.
DehkordiM. A.ZareiB.DehkordiS. A. (2008) The effect of gender and age differences on media selection in small and medium tourism enterprises. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 683–686.
15.
DibbleJ. L.LevineT. R. (2010) Breaking good and bad news: direction of the MUM effect and senders' cognitive representations of news valence. Communication Research, 37(5), 703–722.
16.
DolginK. G.MeyerL.SchwartzJ. (1991) Effects of gender, target's gender, topic, and self-esteem on disclosure to best and midling friends. Sex Roles, 25, 311–329.
17.
DolginK. G.MinowaN. (1997) Gender differences in self-presentation: a comparison of the roles of flatteringness and intimacy in self-disclosure to friends. Sex Roles, 36, 371–380.
18.
FeasterJ. C. (2010) Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: an information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 115–118.
19.
FoxJ.BailensonJ. N. (2010) The use of doppelgängers to promote health and behavior change. CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 3(2), 16–17.
20.
FoxJ.BailensonJ.BinneyJ. (2009) Virtual experiences, physical behaviors: the effect of presence on imitation of an eating avatar. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 18(4), 294–303.
21.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.HeinoR. D. (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177.
22.
HackerH. M. (1981) Blabbermouths and clams: sex differences in self-disclosure in same-sex and cross-sex friendship dyads. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 385–401.
23.
HarperV. B.Jr. (2002) Sex differences in perceived outcomes of electronic mail interactions. Psychological Reports, 90(2), 701–702.
24.
HarperV. B.Jr. (2003) Sex differences in perceived attributes of computer-mediated communication. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 231–234.
25.
HarperV. B.Jr. (2005) Maintaining interpersonal and organizational relations through electronic mail by men and women. Psychological Reports, 97(3), 903–906.
26.
HendersonS.GildengM. (2004) “I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life”: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6(4), 487–506.
27.
Hutson-ComeauxS. L.KellyJ. R. (2002) Gender stereotypes of emotional reactions: how we judge an emotion as valid. Sex Roles, 47(1/2), 1–10.
28.
JoinerR.GavinJ.BrosnanM. J.CrookC.DuffieldJ.DurndellA.MarasP.MillerJ.ScottA. J.LovattP. (2005) Gender, Internet identification, and Internet anxiety: correlates of Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 371–378.
29.
JoinsonA. N. (2001a) Knowing me, knowing you: reciprocal self-disclosure on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 587–591.
30.
JoinsonA. N. (2001b) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.
31.
JoinsonA. N. (2003) Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: virtual worlds, real lives.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
JonesE. E.RhodewaltF.BerglasS.SkeltonJ. A. (1981) Effects of strategic self-presentation on subsequent self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 407–421.
33.
KapidzicS.HerringS. C. (2011) Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: have patterns changed?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 39–59.
34.
KeatenJ. A.KellyL. (2008) “Re: we really need to talk”: affect for communication channels, competence, and fear of negative evaluation. Communication Quarterly, 56(4), 407–426.
35.
MaccobyE. E. (1990) Gender and relationships: a developmental account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513–520.
36.
MagnusonM. J.DundesL. (2008) Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace profiles. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 239–241.
37.
ManagoA. M.GrahamM. B.GreenfieldP. M.SalimkhanG. (2008) Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446–458.
38.
MathesonK. (1991) Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: gender makes a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137–145.
O'SullivanP. B. (2000) What you don't know won't hurt me: impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 403–431.
41.
ParksM. R.RobertsL. D. (1998) ‘Making moosic’: the development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517–537.
42.
Punyanunt-CarterN. M.HembyC. O. (2006) College students' gender differences regarding e-mail. College Student Journal, 40, 651–653.
43.
RamirezA.Jr.BroneckK. (2009) ‘IM me’: instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 291–314.
44.
RheingoldH. (1993) The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier.New York: Perseus Books.
45.
RubinZ.ShenkerS. (1978) Friendship, proximity, and self-disclosure. Journal of Personality, 46, 1–22.
46.
RudnickL. (2003) “Janteloven” and the communication of Danish cultural identity. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27.
47.
SandersonJ. (2008) The blog serving its purpose: self presentation strategies on 38 pitches.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 912–936.
48.
SchauH. J.GillyM. C. (2003) We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404.
49.
SchlenkerB. R. (2003) Self-presentation. In LearyM. R.TangneyJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity.New York: Guilford. Pp. 492–518.
50.
SchoutenA. P.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2009) An experimental test of processes underlying self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2), Article 3.
51.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications.London, UK: John Wiley.
52.
SpenceI.DeYoungC. G.FengJ. (2009) The Technology Profile Inventory: construction, validation, and application. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 458–465.
53.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.
54.
StatSoft. (2005) Statistica. (Version 7.1) Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc.
55.
SussmanS. W.SproullL. (1999) Straight talk: delivering bad news through electronic communication. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150–166.
56.
TesserA.RosenS. (1975) The reluctance to transmit bad news. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 193–232.
57.
TurkleS. (1995) Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet.New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
58.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007) Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277.
59.
ValkenburgP. M.SumterS.PeterJ. (2011) Gender differences in online and offline self-disclosure in preadolescence and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 253–269.
60.
VasalouA.JoinsonA. N. (2009) My, myself and I: the role of interactional context on self-presentation through avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 510–520.
61.
WaltherJ. B. (1996) CMC: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
62.
WaltherJ. B. (2007) Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538–2557.
63.
WaltherJ. B.LiangY.DeAndreaD. C.TongS. T.CarrC. T.SpottswoodE. L.Amichai-HamburgerY. (2011) The effects of feedback on identity shift in computer-mediated communication. Media Psychology, 14, 1–26.
64.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A.MillerG. R. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 529–563.
65.
WeenigM. W. H.GroenenboomA. C. W. J.WilkeH. A. M. (2001) Bad news transmission as a function of the definitiveness of consequences and the relationship between communicator and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 449–461.
66.
YangM-L.YangC-C.ChiouW-B. (2010) Differences in engaging in sexual disclosure between real life and cyberspace among adolescents: social penetration model revisited. Current Psychology, 29, 144–154.
