research-article

How Communication Style Shapes Relationship Boundary Regulation and Social Media Adoption

Authors:

Reza Ghaiumy Anaraky,

Bart P. KnijnenburgAuthors Info & Claims

SMSociety '19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society

Pages 126 - 135

https://doi.org/10.1145/3328529.3328553

Published: 19 July 2019 Publication History

Abstract

We develop and validate a multi-item measure for perceived relationship boundary regulation and show how it significantly drives adoption and use of four social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. We further show how this perception is tied to one's communication style.

References

[1]

Irwin Altman. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Monterey, CA.

[2]

Yair Amichai-Hamburger and Gideon Vinitzky. 2010. Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 6: 1289--1295.

Digital Library

[3]

Monica Anderson and Jingjing Jiang. 2018. Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Pew Research Center.

[4]

Tamar Ashuri, Shira Dvir-Gvisman, and Ruth Halperin. 2018. Watching me watching you: How observational learning affects self-disclosure on social network sites? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23, 1: 34--68.

[5]

Lemi Baruh, Ekin Secinti, and Zeynep Cemalcilar. 2017. Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Communication 67, 1: 26--53.

[6]

P. M. Bentler and Chih-Ping Chou. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research 16, 1: 78--117.

[7]

Tom Buchanan, Carina Paine, Adam N. Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2007. Development of measures of online privacy concern and Protection for use on the internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 58, 2: 157--165.

Digital Library

[8]

Burgoon et al. 1989. Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 6, 2: 131--158.

[9]

Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Cameron Marlow. 2011. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. Proc. CHI 2011, 571--580.

Digital Library

[10]

Teresa Correa, Amber Willard Hinsley, and Homero Gil de Zúñiga. 2010. Who interacts on the web? Computers in Human Behavior 26, 2: 247--253.

Digital Library

[11]

Shaun W. Davenport, Shawn M. Bergman, Jacqueline Z. Bergman, and Matthew E. Fearrington. 2014. Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms. Computers in Human Behavior 32, Supplement C: 212--220.

[12]

Tobias Dienlin and Sabine Trepte. 2015. Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? European Journal of Social Psychology 45, 3: 285--297.

[13]

Maeve Duggan, Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, Amanda Lenhart, and Mary Madden. 2015. Social Media Update 2014. Pew Research Center.

[14]

Nicole B. Ellison, Jessica Vitak, Charles Steinfield, Rebecca Gray, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment. In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke (eds.). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 19--32.

[15]

Nina Gerber, Paul Gerber, and Melanie Volkamer. 2018. Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security 77: 226--261.

Digital Library

[16]

Li-tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1: 1--55.

[17]

Haiyan Jia and Heng Xu. 2016. Autonomous and interdependent: Collaborative privacy management on social networking sites. Proc. CHI 2016, 4286--4297.

Digital Library

[18]

Yolanda Jordaan and Gené Van Heerden. 2017. Online privacy-related predictors of Facebook usage intensity. Computers in Human Behavior 70, Supplement C: 90--96.

Digital Library

[19]

R.B. Kline. 2004. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.

[20]

Ksenia Koroleva, Hanna Krasnova, Natasha Veltri, and Oliver Günther. 2011. It's all about networking! Empirical investigation of social capital formation on social network sites. Proc. ICIS 2011.

[21]

Maurice Kuegler, Stefan Smolnik, and Gerald Kane. 2015. What's in IT for employees? The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24, 2: 90--112.

Digital Library

[22]

Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We're in it Together. Proc. CHI '11, 3217--3226.

Digital Library

[23]

Robert S. Laufer and Maxine Wolfe. 1977. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues 33, 3: 22--42.

[24]

Mark Leary. 1996. Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior. Westview Press, Madison, WI.

[25]

Ana Levordashka and Sonja Utz. 2016. Ambient awareness: From random noise to digital closeness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior 60: 147--154.

Digital Library

[26]

Christian Licoppe. 2004. 'Connected' presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22, 1: 135--156.

[27]

Mary Madden, Amanda Lenhart, Sandra Cortesi, Urs Gasser, Maeve Duggan, and Aaron Smith. 2013. Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. Pew Research Center.

[28]

Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC). Info. Sys. Research 15, 4: 336--355.

Digital Library

[29]

Alice Marwick and danah boyd. 2011. To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter. Convergence 17, 2: 139--158.

[30]

Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa Jr. 1985. Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 6, 5: 587--597.

[31]

James C. McCroskey. 1992. Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly 40, 1: 16--25.

[32]

Ashwini Nadkarni and Stefan G. Hofmann. 2012. Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences 52, 3: 243--249.

[33]

Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Digital Library

[34]

Xinru Page, Bart P. Knijnenburg, and Alfred Kobsa. 2013. FYI: communication style preferences underlie differences in location-sharing adoption and usage. Proc. UbiComp 2013.

Digital Library

[35]

Xinru Page, Alfred Kobsa, and Bart P. Knijnenburg. 2012. Don't disturb my circles! boundary preservation is at the center of location-sharing concerns. Proc. ICWSM 2012.

[36]

Xinru Page, Karen Tang, Fred Stutzman, and Airi Lampinen. 2013. Measuring networked social privacy. Proc. CSCW 2013, 315--320.

Digital Library

[37]

Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish. 2003. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. Proc. CHI 2003, 129--136.

Digital Library

[38]

Sandra Petronio. 1991. Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory 1, 4: 311--335.

[39]

Sandra Petronio. 2010. Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review 2, 3: 175--196.

[40]

Virginia P. Richmond, James C. Mccroskey, and Leonard M. Davis. 1982. Individual differences among employees, management communication style, and employee satisfaction: replication and extension. Human Communication Research 8, 2: 170--188.

[41]

Meredith M. Skeels and Jonathan Grudin. 2009. When social networks cross boundaries. Proc. GROUP 2009, 95--104.

Digital Library

[42]

Deb Sledgianowski and Songpol Kulviwat. 2008. Social network sites: Antecedents of User Adoption and Usage. Proc. AMCIS 2008

[43]

Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson. 2018. Social Media Use in 2018. Pew Research Center.

[44]

H. Jeff Smith, Sandra J Milberg, and Sandra J Burke. 1996. Information privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly 20, 2: 167--196.

Digital Library

[45]

Daniel J Solove. 2008. Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[46]

Frederic Stutzman and Woodrow Hartzog. 2012. Boundary regulation in social media. Proc. CSCW 2012, 769--778.

Digital Library

[47]

J. S. Tanaka. 1987. "How big is big enough?" Child Development 58, 1: 134--146.

[48]

Janice Y. Tsai, Patrick Kelley, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2010. Location-sharing technologies: Privacy risks and controls. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 6, 1: 119--151.

[49]

Jessica Vitak. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, 4: 451--470.

[50]

Jessica Vitak and Jinyoung Kim. 2014. "You can't block people offline": Examining how Facebook's affordances shape the disclosure process. Proc CSCW '14, 461--474.

Digital Library

[51]

Alan Westin. 1991. Harris-Equifax Consumer Privacy Survey. Equifax Inc, Atlanta, GA.

[52]

Pamela Wisniewski, A. K. M. Islam, Heather Richter Lipford, and David Wilson. 2016. Framing and measuring multi-dimensional interpersonal privacy preferences of social networking site users. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 38, 1.

[53]

Pamela Wisniewski, A. K. M. Najmul Islam, Bart P. Knijnenburg, and Sameer Patil. 2015. Give social network users the privacy they want. Proc CSCW 2015, 1427--1441.

Digital Library

[54]

Pamela J. Wisniewski, Bart P. Knijnenburg, and Heather Richter Lipford. 2017. Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users to inform privacy education and nudging. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98: 95--108.

Digital Library

[55]

Alyson Leigh Young and Anabel Quan-Haase. 2013. Privacy protection strategies on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society 16, 4: 479--500.

[56]

Nan Zhang, Chong Wang, and Yan Xu. 2011. Privacy in online social networks. Proc. ICIS 2011

[57]

Izzal Asnira Zolkepli and Yusniza Kamarulzaman. 2015. Social media adoption: The role of media needs and innovation characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior 43, Supplement C: 189--209.

Digital Library

Cited By

Aly HLiu YKhan SAnaraky RByrne KKnijnenburg B(2025)Digital privacy education: Customized interventions for U.S. older and younger adults in rural and urban settingsTechnology in Society10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.10280581(102805)Online publication date: Jun-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102805
Page XBerrios SWilkinson DWisniewski P(2022)Social Media and PrivacyModern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_7(113-147)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_7
Wisniewski PPage X(2022)Privacy Theories and FrameworksModern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_2(15-41)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_2

Index Terms

How Communication Style Shapes Relationship Boundary Regulation and Social Media Adoption
1. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy

Recommendations

Social media adoption

Media uses and gratifications, together with innovation characteristics merge to form a model of social media adoption.Personal, social and tension release needs drive social media adoption.Social media innovation characteristics enhance the likelihood ...
E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media

We discussed how consumers choose eWOM from E-commerce websites and social media.EC-eWOM usefulness and credibility negatively influence the adoption of SM-eWOM.EC-eWOM adoption negatively impacts SM-eWOM adoption.EC-eWOM adoption mediates the ...
Perceived usefulness, ease of use and risk in Social Media Adoption within Workspace: An Empirical Study Integrating Assessment of Unobserved Heterogeneity in PLS Path Modeling
ICEC '14: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Electronic Commerce

This paper investigates the role of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived risk (PR) in social media adoption and use within workspace. The proposed model is tested using data collected from 2,556 social media users at ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

SMSociety '19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society

July 2019

247 pages

ISBN:9781450366519

DOI:10.1145/3328529

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Ryerson Univeristy: Ryerson Univeristy

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 July 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

SMSociety '19

SMSociety '19: International Conference on Social Media and Society

July 19 - 21, 2019

ON, Toronto, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 78 of 189 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
338
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)29
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Aly HLiu YKhan SAnaraky RByrne KKnijnenburg B(2025)Digital privacy education: Customized interventions for U.S. older and younger adults in rural and urban settingsTechnology in Society10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.10280581(102805)Online publication date: Jun-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102805
Page XBerrios SWilkinson DWisniewski P(2022)Social Media and PrivacyModern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_7(113-147)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_7
Wisniewski PPage X(2022)Privacy Theories and FrameworksModern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_2(15-41)Online publication date: 9-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_2

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten