Research Article
No access
Published Online: 8 September 2015

Rubbernecking Effect of Intimate Information on Twitter: When Getting Attention Works Against Interpersonal Attraction

Publication: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 18, Issue Number 9

Abstract

Social networking sites offer individuals an opportunity to document and share information about themselves, as well as engaging in social browsing to learn about others. As a micro-blogging site within which users often share information publicly, Twitter may be a particularly suitable venue that can help satisfy both of these motivations. This study investigates how viewers react to disclosure of intimate information on Twitter. Specifically, the impact of disclosure intimacy is studied on attention that viewers pay to a Twitter page, reduction in their uncertainty about the attributes of the page owner, and their interpersonal attraction to the owner of the page. A total of 618 adult online panel members viewed one of six Twitter pages that contained either low-intimacy or high-intimacy tweets. Analyses indicated that viewers exposed to the Twitter pages containing high-intimate information paid more attention to the pages, were more confident about the attributions they could make about the page owner, yet were less willing to pursue further socialization with the page owner. Furthermore, attributional confidence mediated and perceived similarity moderated the relationship between disclosure intimacy and interpersonal attraction. This interaction between disclosure intimacy and perceived similarity was such that viewers who considered the page owner to be similar (dissimilar) to themselves were more (less) socially attracted to page owners who disclosed intimate information. These findings suggest that while intimate information shared on a Twitter page draws attention, this does not necessarily result in further socialization with the page owner—an effect we named as the “rubbernecking effect” of intimate information.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1.
Bazarova NN. Public intimacy: disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication 2012; 62:815–832.
2.
Wise K, Alhabash S, Park H. Emotional responses during social information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2010; 13:555–562.
3.
Haferkamp N, Eimler SC, Papadakis AM, et al. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15:91–98.
4.
Fono D, Raynes-Goldie K. (2006) Hyperfriends and beyond: friendship and social norms on LiveJournal. In Consalvo M, Haythornthwaite C, eds. Internet research annual volume 4: selected papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conference. New York: Peter Lang.
5.
Choi YH, Bazarova NN. Self-disclosure characteristics and motivations in social media: extending the functional model to multiple social network sites. Human Communication Research 2014; Epub ahead of print.
6.
Nguyen M, Bin YS, Campbell A. Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: a systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15:103–111.
7.
Ko HC, Kuo FY. Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure? CyberPsychology & Behavior 2009; 12:75–79.
8.
Utz S. The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also entertaining self-disclosure increases the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 45:1–10.
9.
Bevan JL, Cummings MB, Kubiniec A, et al. How are important life events disclosed on Facebook? Relationships with likelihood of sharing and privacy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2015; 18:8–12.
10.
Collins NL, Miller LC. Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 1994; 116:457–475.
11.
Berger CR, Calabrese RJ. Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research 1975; 1:99–112.
12.
Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Lai CH. First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research 2010; 38:70–100.
13.
Sunnafrank M. Predicted outcome value during Initial interactions: a reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research 1986; 13:3–33.
14.
Afifi WA, Burgoon JK. “We never talk about that”: a comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relationships 1998; 5:255–272.
15.
Norton MI, Frost JH, Ariely D. Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 2007; 92:97–105.
16.
Altman I, Taylor DA. (1973) Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
17.
Gilbert E, Karahalios K. (2009) Predicting tie strength with social media. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 211–220.
18.
Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S, et al. (2013) Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2015).
19.
Baruh L. Mediated voyeurism and the guilty pleasure of consuming reality television. Media Psychology 2010; 13:201–221.
20.
Stefanone MA, Lackaff D, Rosen D. The relationship between traditional mass media and “social media”: reality television as a model for social network site behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2010; 54:508–525.
21.
Stefanone MA, Jang CY. Writing for friends and family: the interpersonal nature of blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:123–140.
22.
Altheide DL. The control narrative of the Internet. Symbolic Interaction 2004; 27:223–245.
23.
de Laat PB. Online diaries: reflections on trust, privacy, and exhibitionism. Ethics & Information Technology 2008; 10:57–69.
24.
Baruh L, Bal HM, Cemalcılar Z. (2015) A multidimensional privacy orientation scale: development and validation with Turkish Twitter users. In Akdenizli B, ed. Digital transformations in Turkey: exploring current perspectives in communication studies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
25.
Allen IL. (1995) The city in slang. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Franklin DP. (2006) Politics and film: the political culture of film in the United States. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
ClearVoice Research. (2014) ESOMAR 26 Questions. http://clearvoiceresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ESOMAR-26-Questions_CVR-March-2014.pdf (accessed Dec. 11, 2014).
28.
Clatterbuck GW. Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human Communication Research 1979; 5:147–157.
29.
Montoya RM, Horton RS. On the importance of cognitive evaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 2004; 86:696–712.
30.
McCroskey JC, Richmond VP, Daly JA. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1975; 1:323–332.
31.
Pingdom. (2012) Report: Social network demographics in 2012. http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-demographics-in-2012/ (accessed June 15, 2015).
32.
Hayes AF. (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
33.
McCormick P. Keep your eyes to yourself. US Catholic 2000; 65:46–48.
34.
Antheunis ML, Schouten AP. The effects of other-generated and system-generated cues on adolescents' perceived attractiveness on social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 2011; 16:391–406.
35.
Gosling SD, Gaddis S, Vazire S. (2007) Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), pp. 1–4.
36.
Jiang LC, Bazarova NN, Hancock JT. The disclosure-intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: an attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research 2011; 37:58–77.
37.
Utz S. Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: how one's profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2010; 15:314–335.
38.
Steijn WMP, Schouten AP. Information sharing and relationships on social network sites. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:582–587.
39.
Jin SA. Peeling back the multiple layers of Twitter's private disclosure onion: the roles of virtual identity discrepancy and personality traits in communication privacy management on Twitter. New Media & Society 2013; 15:813–833.
40.
Bazarova NN, Choi YH. Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication 2014; 64:635–657.
41.
Bumgarner BA. You have been poked: Exploring the uses gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday 2007; 12.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 18Issue Number 9September 2015
Pages: 506 - 513
PubMed: 26348810

History

Published online: 8 September 2015
Published in print: September 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

Authors

Affiliations

Lemi Baruh
Department of Media and Visual Arts, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Zeynep Cemalcılar
Department of Psychology, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Notes

Address correspondence to:Dr. Lemi BaruhDepartment of Media and Visual ArtsCollege of Social Sciences and HumanitiesKoç UniversityTurkey
E-mail: [email protected]

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

Society Access

If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Back to Top