A Brief History of (Social) Cyberspace

  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • German Neubaum
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


Recent developments in Internet technology offer new possibilities for individuals to communicate, consequently changing common usage patterns of the World Wide Web. With the increase in popularity of so-called social media, a growing body of research is exploring how these technologies address human needs, how individuals use social media, and which psychological and interpersonal effects arise from usage. While focusing on the most prevalent forms of social media such as social networking sites, blogs and micro-blogs, this chapter describes the inherently social as well as emotional aspects of the new applications, and summarizes current scientific knowledge in this regard against the background of social psychological and media psychological findings. It also discusses implications for emotional experiences during social media usage, and emotions as prerequisites for as well as effects of Internet use.


Life Satisfaction Social Capital Social Medium Positive Emotion Usage Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Altman, I., Taylor, D.: Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. Holt/Rinehart and Winston, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  2. Amichai-Hamburger, Y.: Internet and personality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18 (1), 1–10 (2002). doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00034-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, A.: Phantom emotions: psychological determinants of emotional experiences on the Internet. In: Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., Reips, U. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, pp. 303–330. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561803.013.0020Google Scholar
  4. Barak, A.: The psychological role of the internet in mass disasters: past evidence and future planning. In: Brunet, A., Ashbaugh, A.R., Herbert, C.F. (eds.) NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - E: Human and Societal Dynamics vol 72: Internet Use in the Aftermath of Trauma, pp. 23–43. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010). doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-626-3-23Google Scholar
  5. Barak, A., Suler, J.: Reflections on the psychology and social science of cyberspace. In: Barak, A. (ed.) Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, Research, Applications, pp. 1–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117 (3), 497–529 (1995). doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazarova, N.N., Taft, J., Choi, Y., Cosley, D.: Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 32 (2), 121–141 (2013). doi:10.1177/0261927X12456384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazarova, N.N., Choi, Y.H., Sosik, V.S., Cosley, D., Whitlock, J.: Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’15) (2015)Google Scholar
  9. Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.: Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 13 (1), 210–230 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buechel, E., Berger, J.A.: Facebook therapy? Why people share self-relevant content online. In: Society for Consumer Psychology Winter Conference, Las Vegas (2012). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2013148Google Scholar
  11. Buffardi, L.E., Campbell, W.E.: Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 (10), 1303–1314 (2008). doi:10.1177/0146167208320061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke, M., Develin, M.: Once more with feeling: supportive responses to social sharing on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’16) (2016)Google Scholar
  13. Burke, M., Marlow, C., Lento, T.: Social network activity and social well-being. Paper presented at the CHI, Atlanta, GA (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Busemann, K., Gscheidle, C.: Web 2.0: Habitualisierung der Social Communitys. Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2012. [Web 2.0: Habitualization of social communities. Results from the ARD/ZDF online study 2012]. Media Perspektiven 7–8, 380–390 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. Cacioppo, J.T., Patrick, B.: Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. WW Norton and Company, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  16. Carr, C.T., Schrock, D.B., Dauterman, P.: Speech acts within Facebook status messages. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 31 (2), 176–196 (2012). doi:10.1177/0261927X12438535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carstensen, T.: Gender in trouble in Web 2.0: gender relations in social networks sites, wikis and weblogs. Int. J. Gen. Sci. Technol. 1 (1), 105–127 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. Chou, H.T., Edge, N.: “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (2), 117–121 (2012). doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Correa, T., Hinsley, A.W., Zúñiga, H.G.: Who interacts on the web?: the intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2), 247–253 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cozby, P.C.: Self-disclosure: a literature review. Psychol. Bull. 79, 73–91 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deters, F.G., Mehl, M.R.: Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 4 (5), 579–586 (2013). doi:10.1037/h0033950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diener, E., Suh, E., Oishi, S.: Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian J. Clin. Psychol. 24 (1), 25–41 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. Dominick, J.R.: Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web. J. Mass Commun. 76 (4), 646–658 (1999). doi:10.1177/107769909907600403Google Scholar
  24. Donath, J., Boyd, D.: Public displays of connection. BT Technol. J. 22 (4), 71–82 (2004). doi:10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.ccCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S., Sethna, B.N.: The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6 (2), 119–146 (1991). doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duggan, M., Brenner, J.: The demographics of social media users - 2012. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from (2013)
  27. Ebo, B. (ed.): Cyberghetto or Cybertopia? Race, Class, and Gender on the Internet. Praeger, London (1998)Google Scholar
  28. Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K.M., Walsh, S.P.: Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 11 (6), 739–741 (2008). doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 12 (4), 1143–1168 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media Soc. 13 (6), 873–892 (2011). doi:10.1177/1461444810385389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Facebook Key Facts: Retrieved from (2016)
  32. Fejfar, M.C., Hoyle, R.H.: Effect of private self-awareness on negative affect and self-referent attribution: a quantitative review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4 (2), 132–142 (2000). doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Festinger, L.: A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2), 117–140 (1954). doi:10.1177/001872675400700202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fiske, S.T.: Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. Wiley, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  35. Gangadharbatla, H.: Facebook me: collective self-esteem, need to belong, and Internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes toward social networking sites. J. Interact. Advert. 8 (2), 5–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  37. Gonzales, A.L., Hancock, J.T.: Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (1–2), 79–83 (2011). doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Greene, K., Derlega, V.J., Mathews, A.: Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In: Vangelisti, A., Perlman, D. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp. 409–427. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606632.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haferkamp, N., Krämer, N.C.: “When I was your age, Pluto was a planet”: impression management and need to belong as motives for joining groups on social networking sites. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ICA 2009 (International Communication Association), Chicago, IL, May 2009Google Scholar
  40. Haferkamp, N., Krämer, N.C.: Social comparison 2.0: examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (5), 309–314 (2011). doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0120Google Scholar
  41. Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S.C., Papadakis, A.-M., Kruck, J.V.: Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (2), 91–98 (2012). doi:0.1089/cyber.2011.0151Google Scholar
  42. Hamburger, Y.A., Ben-Artzi, E.: The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the different uses of the Internet. Comput. Hum. Behav. 16 (4), 441–449 (2000). doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00017-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hampton, K.N., Goulet, L.S., Rainie, L., Purcell, K.: Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from (2011)
  44. Hampton, K.N., Goulet, L.S., Marlow, C., Rainie, L.: Why most Facebook users get more than they give. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from (2012)
  45. Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., Agle, G.: Replicating Bales’ problem solving experiments on a computerized conference: a pilot study. Research Report No 8, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center, Newark (1978)Google Scholar
  46. Ho, J.Y.C., Dempsey, M.: Viral marketing: motivations to forward online content. J. Bus. Res. 63 (9–10), 1000–1006 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Instagram: Introducing Instagram for Windows Phone. Retrieved from (2016)
  48. Jiang, L., Bazarova, N.N., Hancock, J.T.: The disclosure-intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: an attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Hum. Commun. Res. 37 (1), 58–77 (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, B.K., Knobloch-Westerwick, S.: Glancing up or down: mood Management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites. Comput. Soc. Behav. 41, 33–39 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Joinson, A.N.: Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31 (2), 177–192 (2001). doi:10.1002/ejsp.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jung, T., Youn, H., McClung, S.: Motivations and self-presentation strategies on Korean-based “Cyworld” weblog format personal homepages. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 10 (1), 24–31 (2007). doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., Morris, J.: The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (4), 183–189 (2011). doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M.: Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In: Blumler, J.G., Katz, E. (eds.) The Uses of Mass Communications. Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, pp. 19–32. Sage, Beverly Hills (1974)Google Scholar
  54. Kiesler, S.: The hidden messages in computer networks. McKinsey Q. 3, 13–26 (1987)Google Scholar
  55. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T.W.: Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am. Psychol. 39 (10), 1123–1134 (1984). doi:10.1037//0003-066X.39.10.1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kim, J., Dindia, K.: Online self-disclosure: a review of research. In: Wright, K.B., Webb, L.M. (eds.) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, pp. 156–180. Peter Lang, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  57. Kramer, A.D.I., Chung, C.K.: Dimensions of self-expression in Facebook status updates. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), pp. 169–176 (2011)Google Scholar
  58. Krämer, N.C., Winter, S.: Impression management 2.0. self-presentation on social networking sites and its relationship to personality. J. Med. Psychol. 20 (3), 106–116 (2008). doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106Google Scholar
  59. Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Fuchslocher, A., Eimler, S.C., Szczuka, J.M., Brand, M.: Do I need to belong? Development of a scale for measuring the need to belong and its predictive value for media usage. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ICA 2012 (International Communication Association), Phoenix (2013)Google Scholar
  60. Krämer, N.C., Rösner, L., Eimler, S.C., Winter, S., Neubaum, G.: Let the weakest link go! Empirical explorations on the relative importance of weak and strong ties on social networking sites. Societies 4, 785–809 (2014). doi:10.3390/soc4040785Google Scholar
  61. Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Eimler, S.C.: Not breaking bonds on Facebook–Mixed–Methods research on the influence of individuals’ need to belong on ‘Unfriending’ behavior on Facebook. Int. J. Dev. Sci. 9 (2), 61–74 (2015). doi:10.3233/DEV-150161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P.: Envy on Facebook: a hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction? In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), Leipzig (2013)Google Scholar
  63. Lai, L.S., Turban, E.: Groups formation and operations in the Web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decis. Negot. 17 (5), 387–402 (2008). doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9113-2Google Scholar
  64. Lapidot-Lefler, N., Barak, A.: Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2), 434–443 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M.: Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychol. Bull. 107 (1), 34–47 (1990). doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.1.34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lee, K.T., Noh, M.J., Koo, D.M.: Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: the mediating role of self-disclosure and social support. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 6 (16), 413–418 (2013). doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewis, J., West, A.: ‘Friending’: London-based undergraduates’ experience of Facebook. New Med. Soc. 11 (7), 1209–1229 (2009). doi:10.1177/1461444809342058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Li, Q., Smith, P.K., Cross, D.: Research into cyberbullying: context. In: Li, Q., Cross, D., Smith, P. (eds.) Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives, pp. 3–12. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lin, H., Qiu, L.: Sharing emotion on Facebook: network size, density, and individual motivation. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  70. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., Ólafsson, K.: Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of European Children. Full Findings. EU Kids Online, LSE, London (2011)Google Scholar
  71. Macias, W., Hilyard, K., Freimuth, V.: Blog functions as risk and crisis communication during Hurricane Katrina. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 15 (1), 1–31 (2009). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01490.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Madden, M.: Older adults and social media. Social networking use among those ages 50 and older nearly doubled over the past year. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from (2010)
  73. Marder, B., Joinson, A., Shankar, A., Thirlaway, K.: Strength matters: self-presentation to the strongest audience rather than lowest common denominator when faced with multiple audiences in social network sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 56–62 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McAndrew, F.T., Jeong, H.S.: Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (6), 2359–2365 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mehdizadeh, S.: Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 13 (4), 357–364 (2010). doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0257Google Scholar
  76. McKenna, K.Y.A., Bargh, J.A.: Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4 (1), 57–75 (2000). doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neubaum, G., Krämer, N.C.: My friends right next to me: a laboratory investigation on predictors and consequences of experiencing social closeness on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 18, 443–449 (2015). doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neubaum, G., Rösner, L., Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C.: Psychosocial functions of social media usage in a disaster situation: a multi-methodological approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 28–38 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.021Google Scholar
  79. Nosko, A., Wood, E., Molema, S.: All about me: disclosure in online social networking profiles: the case of FACEBOOKTM. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (3), 406–418 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. OECD, London. Retrieved from: (2007)
  81. O’Reilly, T.: What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from (2005)
  82. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Calmaestra, J., Vega, E.: The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. A study of Spanish adolescents. Z. Psychol./J. Psychol. 217 (4), 197–204 (2009). doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.197Google Scholar
  83. Pavot, W., Diener, E.: Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol. Assess. 5 (2), 164–172 (1993). doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pawlikowski, M., Altstótter-Gleich, C., Brand, M.: Validation and psychometric properties of a short version of Young’s Internet Addiction Test. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (3), 1212–1223 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pennebaker, J.W. (ed.): Emotion, Disclosure, and Health. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (1995)Google Scholar
  86. Pennebaker, J.W., Chung, C.K.: Expressive writing and its links to mental and physical health. In: Friedman, H.S. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology, pp. 417–437. Oxford University Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  87. Pew Research Center: Social Networking Use. Retrieved from (2015)
  88. Putnam, R.: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Reich, S., Vorderer, P.: Individual differences in need to belong in users of social networking sites. In: Moy, P. (ed.) Communication and Community, pp. 129–148. Hampton Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  90. Reicher, S.D., Spears, R., Postmes, T.: A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6 (1), 161–198 (1995). doi:10.1080/14792779443000049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rice, R.E.: Mediated group communication. In: Rice, R.E. (ed.) The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, pp. 129–156. Sage, Beverly Hills (1984)Google Scholar
  92. Rice, R.E., Case, D.: Electronic message systems in the University: a description of use and utility. J. Commun. 33 (1), 131–152 (1983). doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02380.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rimé, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P., Boca, S.: Beyond the emotional event: six studies on the social sharing of emotion. Cognit. Emot. 5 (5–6), 435–466 (1991). doi:10.1080/02699939108411052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ritzer, B., Jurgenson, N.: Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. J. Consum. Cult. 10 (1), 13–36 (2010). doi:10.1177/1469540509354673Google Scholar
  95. Rosenberg, M.: Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G., Orr, R.R.: Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (2), 578–586 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schutz, W.C.: FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  98. Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B.: The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London (1976)Google Scholar
  99. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., Mcguire, T.W.: Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. 37 (2), 157–187 (1986). doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Slater, M.D.: Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Commun. Theor. 17 (3), 281–303 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sproull, L., Kiesler, S.: Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manag. Sci. 32 (11), 1492–1512 (1986). doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Statistic Brain: Twitter Statistics. Retrieved from (2015)
  103. Sumter, S.R., Baumgartner, S.E., Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J.: Developmental trajectories of peer victimization: off-line and online experiences during adolescence. J. Adolesc. Health 50 (6), 607–613 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10.251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sundar, S.S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Nussbaum, J.F., Behr, R.A.: Retirees on Facebook: Can online social networking enhance their health and wellness? In: Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’11), pp. 2287–2292 (2011)Google Scholar
  105. Tamir, D.I., Mitchell, J.P.: Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (21), 8038–8043 (2012). doi:10.1073/pnas.1202129109ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., Uppal, S.: Data mining emotion in social network communication: gender differences in MySpace. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (1), 190–199 (2010). doi:10.1002/asi.21180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Thiel, S.M.: “IM Me” Identity construction and gender negotiation in the world of adolescent girls and instant messaging. In: Mazzarella, S.R. (ed.) Girl Wide Web. Girls, the Internet, and the Negotiation of Identity, pp. 179–201. Peter Lang Publishing, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  108. Tidwell, L.C., Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Hum. Commun. Res. 28 (3), 317–348 (2002). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tokunaga, R.S.: Friend me or you’ll strain us: understanding negative events that occur over social networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (7–8), 425–432 (2011). doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Trepte, S., Reinecke, L.: The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: a longitudinal study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (3), 1102–1112 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tufekci, Z.: Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28 (1), 20–36 (2008). doi:10.1177/0270467607311484Google Scholar
  112. Utz, S., Tanis, M., Vermeulen, I.: It is all about being popular: the effects of need for popularity on social network site use. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (1), 37–42 (2012). doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., Kee, K.F.: Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 14 (4), 875–901 (2009). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J.: The differential susceptibility to media effects model. J. Commun. 63 (2), 221–243 (2013). doi:10.1111/jcom.12024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., Schouten, A.P.: Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 9 (5), 584–590 (2006). doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. van den Eijnden R.J.J.M., Meerkerk, G.-J., Vermulst, A.A., Spijkerman, R., Engels, R.C.M.E.: Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: a longitudinal study. Dev. Psychol. 44 (3), 655–665 (2008). doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Walther, J.B.: Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Commun. Res. 19 (1), 52–90 (1992). doi:10.1177/009365092019001003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23 (1), 3–43 (1996). doi:10.1177/009365096023001001ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Walther, J.B.: Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23 (5), 2538–2557 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Walther, J.B.: Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (eds.) The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4th edn., pp. 443–479. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2011)Google Scholar
  121. Wellman, B., Wortley, S.: Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. Am. J. Sociol. 96 (3), 558–588 (1990). doi:10.1086/229572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Willard, N.: Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. Research Press, Champaign (2007)Google Scholar
  123. Winter, S., Neubaum, G., Eimler, S.C., Gordon, V., Theil, J., Herrmann, J., Meinert, J., Krämer, N.C.: Another brick in the Facebook wall – How personality traits relate to the content of status updates. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 194–202 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wise, K., Alhabash, S., Park, H.: Emotional responses during social information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 13 (5), 555–562 (2010). doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. YouTube Statistics: Retrieved from (2016)
  126. Zywica, J., Danowski, J.: The faces of facebookers: investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; Predicting Facebook and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 14 (1), 1–34 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  • German Neubaum
    • 1
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social Psychology: Media and CommunicationUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Human Factors and Gender StudiesUniversity of Applied Sciences Ruhr WestBottropGermany

Personalised recommendations