Summary New Media Challenges
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary New Media Challenges..........................................................................................................1
Lecture 2: Introduction to Online Privacy..........................................................................................2
Lecture 3: Personalization, Privacy and Surveillance........................................................................6
Lecture 4: Always on: Multitasking and performance.....................................................................10
Lecture 5: Social Technologies – Benefits and applications.............................................................16
Lecture 6: Social Technologies - Risk & challenges........................................................................19
Lecture 7: Information processing and credibility in the age of internet..........................................24
Lecture 8: Selective attention, motivated reasoning, attitude formation and healthy living.............28
Lecture 9: Beyond bias: Hostile media effect when consuming news..............................................32
Lecture 10: Correcting misinformation, striving for the (im)possible..............................................38
Lecture 11: Social media and online hate.........................................................................................44
Lecture 12: Social media moderation: The work in keeping communities civil...............................50
Lecture 13: Social contagion on social media: How behaviors may spread across online networks 55
Lecture 14: Media literacy and digital citizenship...........................................................................63
Lecture 15: Democratic backlash of the Digital Revolution............................................................70
Lecture 16: New media and political campaigning..........................................................................76
Lecture 17: Extremism, conspiracy belief and polarization.............................................................82
Lecture 18 - Extremism, Populism, Misinformation and Gullibility................................................93
Pagina 1 van 100
,Lecture 2: Introduction to Online Privacy
Three theoretical perspectives:
Westin, 1967
→ Political-scientific approach: privacy in interaction with others/society as a whole. “We are entitled
to privacy, the function of privacy in society.”
Altman, 1975
→ psychological approach: privacy for the self (wellbeing and identity regulation) “privacy has to do
with that we let other in our personal sphere, how we need privacy”
Petronio, 2002
→ communication approach: privacy as information ownership and sharing. “laid the foundation with
her communication approach to privacy.”
1. Westin: Privacy (regulations) as a basic need
→ political view.
human right for people to have control over their privacy.
Privacy is:
a dynamic process (we regulate privacy so as to serve momentary needs and role
requirements).
non-monotonic (you can have such a thing as too little, just enough, but also too much
privacy → more is not always better!). “Less privacy is good”.
“privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when,
how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.”
privacy has four purposes/functions
o Personal autonomy: realization of individual choices, not being manipulated.
o Emotional Release: freedom from roles and outside expectations (bijv. to relax/let go,
escape from stress).
o Self-Evaluation: freedom to think, process information and make plans (process and
evaluate information, make plans).
o Limited and Protected Boundaries: ability to limit who has access to what
information. (what to share, with whom and when).
and four states of privacy:
o Solitude: no observation from others
o Intimacy: small group of people with a strong bond
o Reserve: the right to decide what to share and what not
o Anonymity: the right to not be identified.
→ solitude and intimacy have to do with being observed
→ reserve and anonymity have to do with having to identify oneself.
Pagina 2 van 100
,2. Altman: selective control of access to self
→ psychological
Irwin Altman formulated the Privacy Regulation Theory, which aimed at understanding why
individuals alternate between states of socially and solitude “why and how people regulate
their privacy, privacy is the control we have.
Five elements of privacy:
o Dynamic process: individuals regulate what they (do or not) want to share,
differently, depending on the situational or social context.
o Individual vs. group levels: individuals perceive their own privacy differently form
that of their community/family.
o Desired vs. actual levels: desired level of privacy might be lower/higher than
individuals in a given context.
o Non-monotonic: there is no such thing as both too much and not enough privacy.
“stranger on the train” you don’t know the person “you don’t want to burden people with your
problem” → tegen iemand die je niet kent. zonder gevoelens van schaamte, etc.
“the sauna principle” → level of relationship closeness vs. amount of likelihood of information
disclosure (dus of goede vrienden of helemaal onbekende, niemand daartussen).
o By-Directional (Inwards and Outwards): individuals might have different sensitivities
for their action towards others’ privacy and others’ actions towards them. “when you
are the invader compared to when you’re invaded”
3. Petronio: communication privacy management theory
→ communication
originally known as Communication Boundary Management.
Privacy is “selective control of access to the self” (Altman, 1975).
We need to regulate boundaries we put between ourselves and others.
How do we manage our privacy: physical → information privacy
big shifts in progressively speaking less of physical privacy and more about information privacy,
about what we do “online”
Context collapse
→ danah Boyd and Alice Marwick
modern communication tech destroyed the boundaries of communication
“when you post something online, you cannot distinguish your audience. “
Imagined audiences
in 2013 an experiment carried out by 30 million Facebook viewers compared their perceived
audience with their actual audience.
→ results: vast majority vastly underestimates their posts and general audience.
Pagina 3 van 100
, Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the
Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network
Sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635-657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106
→ scientific article
Abstract This article introduces a functional model of self-disclosure on social network sites (SNSs),
integrating functional theory and research on audience representation. The model suggests that people
pursue strategic goals and disclose information based on social media affordances, with self-
disclosure goals mediating the relationship between media affordances and disclosure intimacy. An
empirical study examining self-disclosure in Facebook updates, wall posts, and private messaging
supports the model and offers insights into the motivations for self-disclosure on SNSs. The study
helps reconcile traditional views on self-
disclosure with self-disclosing behaviors in
new media.
Research: combination of content analysis,
surveys, statistical analyses and content
analysis.
Hypotheses
H1: People pursue different disclosure goals in Facebook status updates, wall posts, and private messages.
H2: Disclosures directed at a familiar other (wall posts and private messages) are associated with relational
development goals more than disclosures directed at general others (status updates).
H3a: Social validation goals are most prominent in public and nondirected status updates.
H3b: Social validation goals are more salient in public wall posts compared to private messages.
H4: SNS users reveal less intimate information via public status updates and wall posts than via private messaging
on Facebook.
H5: Disclosure goals affect disclosure intimacy.
o Supported. The study found that the effect of disclosure goals on intimacy was significant. Disclosures
prompted by relational goals were more intimate than those prompted by social validation or social
control goals.
H6: Less intimate disclosures are associated with social validation goals compared to relational development
goals.
H7: Disclosure goals mediate between Facebook communication forms and disclosure intimacy.
Mediation model: relation between chosen functionality (private, part-private or public) and specific
disclosure goal, mediated by the actual goal from the behavior. (explains hypothesis).
Conclusion The study's findings support the functional model of self-disclosure on SNSs. People use
different social media functions for disclosures with different levels of intimacy, depending on their
motives and goals. The study highlights that visibility and directedness of communication forms on
SNSs affect the prevalent self-disclosure goals. Specifically, social validation and
self-expression/relief were the primary motivations for self-disclosure in public status updates, while
relational development was the main goal for wall posts and private messaging. Disclosures in
private messages were more intimate than those in public status updates and wall posts. The research
suggests that when people cannot control their disclosure target due to multiple or invisible audiences,
they compensate by exercising more control over the content they share, making it less intimate. The
findings contribute to understanding self-disclosure in social media, reconciling traditional views on
self-disclosure with self-disclosing behaviors in new media contexts.
Facebook was still big in this study, earlier features -> still relevant
People do have a sense of awareness about what they’re doing online
Links to Uses & Gratifications approach.
Results: these technologies did allow people to selectively choose one of the functionalities
and looking at the amount of disclosure.
Pagina 4 van 100
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary New Media Challenges..........................................................................................................1
Lecture 2: Introduction to Online Privacy..........................................................................................2
Lecture 3: Personalization, Privacy and Surveillance........................................................................6
Lecture 4: Always on: Multitasking and performance.....................................................................10
Lecture 5: Social Technologies – Benefits and applications.............................................................16
Lecture 6: Social Technologies - Risk & challenges........................................................................19
Lecture 7: Information processing and credibility in the age of internet..........................................24
Lecture 8: Selective attention, motivated reasoning, attitude formation and healthy living.............28
Lecture 9: Beyond bias: Hostile media effect when consuming news..............................................32
Lecture 10: Correcting misinformation, striving for the (im)possible..............................................38
Lecture 11: Social media and online hate.........................................................................................44
Lecture 12: Social media moderation: The work in keeping communities civil...............................50
Lecture 13: Social contagion on social media: How behaviors may spread across online networks 55
Lecture 14: Media literacy and digital citizenship...........................................................................63
Lecture 15: Democratic backlash of the Digital Revolution............................................................70
Lecture 16: New media and political campaigning..........................................................................76
Lecture 17: Extremism, conspiracy belief and polarization.............................................................82
Lecture 18 - Extremism, Populism, Misinformation and Gullibility................................................93
Pagina 1 van 100
,Lecture 2: Introduction to Online Privacy
Three theoretical perspectives:
Westin, 1967
→ Political-scientific approach: privacy in interaction with others/society as a whole. “We are entitled
to privacy, the function of privacy in society.”
Altman, 1975
→ psychological approach: privacy for the self (wellbeing and identity regulation) “privacy has to do
with that we let other in our personal sphere, how we need privacy”
Petronio, 2002
→ communication approach: privacy as information ownership and sharing. “laid the foundation with
her communication approach to privacy.”
1. Westin: Privacy (regulations) as a basic need
→ political view.
human right for people to have control over their privacy.
Privacy is:
a dynamic process (we regulate privacy so as to serve momentary needs and role
requirements).
non-monotonic (you can have such a thing as too little, just enough, but also too much
privacy → more is not always better!). “Less privacy is good”.
“privacy is the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when,
how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.”
privacy has four purposes/functions
o Personal autonomy: realization of individual choices, not being manipulated.
o Emotional Release: freedom from roles and outside expectations (bijv. to relax/let go,
escape from stress).
o Self-Evaluation: freedom to think, process information and make plans (process and
evaluate information, make plans).
o Limited and Protected Boundaries: ability to limit who has access to what
information. (what to share, with whom and when).
and four states of privacy:
o Solitude: no observation from others
o Intimacy: small group of people with a strong bond
o Reserve: the right to decide what to share and what not
o Anonymity: the right to not be identified.
→ solitude and intimacy have to do with being observed
→ reserve and anonymity have to do with having to identify oneself.
Pagina 2 van 100
,2. Altman: selective control of access to self
→ psychological
Irwin Altman formulated the Privacy Regulation Theory, which aimed at understanding why
individuals alternate between states of socially and solitude “why and how people regulate
their privacy, privacy is the control we have.
Five elements of privacy:
o Dynamic process: individuals regulate what they (do or not) want to share,
differently, depending on the situational or social context.
o Individual vs. group levels: individuals perceive their own privacy differently form
that of their community/family.
o Desired vs. actual levels: desired level of privacy might be lower/higher than
individuals in a given context.
o Non-monotonic: there is no such thing as both too much and not enough privacy.
“stranger on the train” you don’t know the person “you don’t want to burden people with your
problem” → tegen iemand die je niet kent. zonder gevoelens van schaamte, etc.
“the sauna principle” → level of relationship closeness vs. amount of likelihood of information
disclosure (dus of goede vrienden of helemaal onbekende, niemand daartussen).
o By-Directional (Inwards and Outwards): individuals might have different sensitivities
for their action towards others’ privacy and others’ actions towards them. “when you
are the invader compared to when you’re invaded”
3. Petronio: communication privacy management theory
→ communication
originally known as Communication Boundary Management.
Privacy is “selective control of access to the self” (Altman, 1975).
We need to regulate boundaries we put between ourselves and others.
How do we manage our privacy: physical → information privacy
big shifts in progressively speaking less of physical privacy and more about information privacy,
about what we do “online”
Context collapse
→ danah Boyd and Alice Marwick
modern communication tech destroyed the boundaries of communication
“when you post something online, you cannot distinguish your audience. “
Imagined audiences
in 2013 an experiment carried out by 30 million Facebook viewers compared their perceived
audience with their actual audience.
→ results: vast majority vastly underestimates their posts and general audience.
Pagina 3 van 100
, Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the
Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network
Sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635-657. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106
→ scientific article
Abstract This article introduces a functional model of self-disclosure on social network sites (SNSs),
integrating functional theory and research on audience representation. The model suggests that people
pursue strategic goals and disclose information based on social media affordances, with self-
disclosure goals mediating the relationship between media affordances and disclosure intimacy. An
empirical study examining self-disclosure in Facebook updates, wall posts, and private messaging
supports the model and offers insights into the motivations for self-disclosure on SNSs. The study
helps reconcile traditional views on self-
disclosure with self-disclosing behaviors in
new media.
Research: combination of content analysis,
surveys, statistical analyses and content
analysis.
Hypotheses
H1: People pursue different disclosure goals in Facebook status updates, wall posts, and private messages.
H2: Disclosures directed at a familiar other (wall posts and private messages) are associated with relational
development goals more than disclosures directed at general others (status updates).
H3a: Social validation goals are most prominent in public and nondirected status updates.
H3b: Social validation goals are more salient in public wall posts compared to private messages.
H4: SNS users reveal less intimate information via public status updates and wall posts than via private messaging
on Facebook.
H5: Disclosure goals affect disclosure intimacy.
o Supported. The study found that the effect of disclosure goals on intimacy was significant. Disclosures
prompted by relational goals were more intimate than those prompted by social validation or social
control goals.
H6: Less intimate disclosures are associated with social validation goals compared to relational development
goals.
H7: Disclosure goals mediate between Facebook communication forms and disclosure intimacy.
Mediation model: relation between chosen functionality (private, part-private or public) and specific
disclosure goal, mediated by the actual goal from the behavior. (explains hypothesis).
Conclusion The study's findings support the functional model of self-disclosure on SNSs. People use
different social media functions for disclosures with different levels of intimacy, depending on their
motives and goals. The study highlights that visibility and directedness of communication forms on
SNSs affect the prevalent self-disclosure goals. Specifically, social validation and
self-expression/relief were the primary motivations for self-disclosure in public status updates, while
relational development was the main goal for wall posts and private messaging. Disclosures in
private messages were more intimate than those in public status updates and wall posts. The research
suggests that when people cannot control their disclosure target due to multiple or invisible audiences,
they compensate by exercising more control over the content they share, making it less intimate. The
findings contribute to understanding self-disclosure in social media, reconciling traditional views on
self-disclosure with self-disclosing behaviors in new media contexts.
Facebook was still big in this study, earlier features -> still relevant
People do have a sense of awareness about what they’re doing online
Links to Uses & Gratifications approach.
Results: these technologies did allow people to selectively choose one of the functionalities
and looking at the amount of disclosure.
Pagina 4 van 100
