Advertisement

Sozialkontakte online

Identitäten, Beziehungen, Gemeinschaften
  • Nicola Döring
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Nahezu die Hälfte der Online-Kommunikation hat interpersonalen Charakter. Wenn sich Menschen über Emails, Chats, WhatsApp-Nachrichten, Dating-Dienste, Online-Foren, Social-Networking-Plattformen und sonstige Soziale Medien austauschen, geht es immer auch um Identitätsdarstellungen, soziale Beziehungen und Gemeinschaftserleben. Der Beitrag fasst den sozialpsychologischen Forschungsstand zusammen und geht auf zentrale Fragestellungen, Theorien, Methoden und Befunde ein. Es zeigt sich, dass bei der interpersonalen Online-Kommunikation psychosoziale Chancen und Risiken meist Hand in Hand gehen.

Schlüsselwörter

Interpersonale Online-Kommunikation Digitale Individualkommunikation Computervermittelte Kommunikation Soziale Medien Sozialpsychologie des Internet 

Literatur

  1. Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook psychology: Popular questions answered by research. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(1), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AoIR. (2012). Ethical decision – making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
  3. Aretz, W., Gansen-Ammann, D.-N., Mierke, K., & Musiol, A. (2017). Date me if you can: Ein systematischer Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand von Online-Dating. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 30(01), 7–34.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-101465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashby, G. A., O’Brien, A., Bowman, D., Hooper, C., Stevens, T., & Lousada, E. (2015). Should psychiatrists ‚Google‘ their patients? BJPsych Bulletin, 39(6), 278–283.  https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.114.047555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azucar, D., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2018). Predicting the Big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 150–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bacigalupe, G., & Bräuninger, I. (2017). Emerging technologies and family communication: The case of international students. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 289–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9437-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3), 372–374.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
  10. Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitkom. (2017). Vorurteile gegenüber Online-Dating verschwinden. https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Vorurteile-gegenueber-Online-Dating-verschwinden.html. Zugegriffen am 30.01.2018.
  12. Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., & Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245–267.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(25), 10135–10140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caers, R., de Feyter, T., de Couck, M., Stough, T., Vigna, C., & Du Bois, C. (2013). Facebook: A literature review. New Media & Society, 15(6), 982–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813488061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6), 575–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313479697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chesebro, J. W. (1985). Computer-mediated interpersonal communication. In B. D. Ruben (Hrsg.), Information and behavior (1. Aufl., S. 202–222). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  17. Conner, T. S., & Mehl, M. R. (2015). Ambulatory assessment: Methods for studying everyday life. In R. A. Scott & M. C. Buchmann (Hrsg.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (S. 1–15). Hoboken: Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, D. M., Waugh, D., Abdipanah, M., Hashemi, O., & Abdul Rahman, S. (2014). Twitter deception and influence: Issues of identity, slacktivism and puppetry. Journal of Information Warfare, 13(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  19. Culnan, M., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. Hahn Roberts & L. W. Porter (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.Google Scholar
  21. Das, M., Ester, P., & Kaczmirek, L. (Hrsg.). (2011). Social and behavioral research and the internet: advances in applied methods and research strategies. European association of methodology series. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. De Andrea, D. C., & Carpenter, C. J. (2016). Measuring the construct of warranting value and testing warranting theory. Communication Research, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644022.
  23. Der Spiegel (1987, 16. März). Traum vom perfekten Sklaven. Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522414.html. Zugegriffen am 30.01.2018.
  24. DGOF. (2014). Richtlinie für Untersuchungen in den und mittels der Sozialen Medien (Soziale Medien Richtlinie). http://ratmarktforschung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/R11_RDMS_D.pdf. Zugegriffen am 30.01.2018.
  25. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for E-Commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Döring, N. (2003). Sozialpsychologie des Internet: Die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  27. Döring, N. (2013). Modelle der Computervermittelten Kommunikation. In R. Kuhlen, W. Semar & D. Strauch (Hrsg.), Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Infomationswissenschaft und -praxis (6., völlig neu gefasste Aufl., S. 424–430). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110258264.424.
  28. Döring, N. (2014a). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), 9.  https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Döring, N. (2014b). Psychische Folgen der Internetnutzung. Psychologische Risiken und Chancen der Internetnutzung. Der Bürger im Staat, 4(2014), 261–267.Google Scholar
  30. Döring, N. (2017). Sozialpsychologie der Internetnutzung. In H.-W. Bierhoff & D. Frey (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Sozialpsychologie: Band 3. Kommunikation, Interaktion und soziale Gruppenprozesse (1. Aufl., S. 341–377). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  31. Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5., vollst. überarb., akt. u. erw. Aufl.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’ romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 444–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dwyer, R., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. (2017). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007.
  34. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook „Friends“: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Feldman, M. D. (2000). Munchausen by Internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet. Southern Medical Journal, 93(7), 669–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fielding, N., Lee, R. M., & Blank, G. (Hrsg.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of online research methods (2. Aufl.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  37. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fisch, M., & Gscheidle, C. (2008). Mitmachnetz Web 2.0: Rege Beteiligung nur in Communitys. Media Perspektiven, 7, 356–364.Google Scholar
  39. Gatter, K., Hodkinson, K., & Kolle, M. (2016). On the differences between tinder versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldstraw, D., & Keegan, B. J. (2016). Instagram’s ‚fitspiration‘ trend and its effect on young women’s self-esteem. In AIS electronic library (Hrsg.), BLED 2016 Proceedings (Bd. 35, S. 190–198). http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=bled2016.
  41. Gosling, S. D., & Johnson, J. A. (Hrsg.). (2010). Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  42. Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015). Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 877–902.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gruschke, D. (2014). Über Post-Privacy. In C. Kappes, J. Krone, & L. Novy (Hrsg.), Medienwandel kompakt 2011 – 2013. Netzveröffentlichungen zu Medienökonomie, Medienpolitik & Journalismus (S. 79–86). Springer VS: Wiesbaden.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00849-9_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hall, J. A. (2014). First comes social networking, then comes marriage? characteristics of Americans married 2005–2012 who met through social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(5), 322–326.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hewson, C., Vogel, C., & Laurent, D. (2016). Internet research methods (2. Aufl.). Los Angeles/London/New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  46. Hu, X., Kim, A., Siwek, N., & Wilder, D. (2017). The Facebook paradox: Effects of Facebooking on individuals’ social relationships and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(87).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00087.
  47. Ignatow, G., & Mihalcea, R. F. (2017). Text mining: A guidebook for the social sciences. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington /Melbourne: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Iliev, R., Dehghani, M., & Sagi, E. (2015). Automated text analysis in psychology: Methods, applications, and future developments. Language and Cognition, 7(02), 265–290.  https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ivan, L., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2017). Older people and the use of ICTs to communicate with children and grandchildren. Transnational Social Review, 7(1), 41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2016.1277861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Joinson, A. N., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2002). Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 275–289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Keith, B. E., & Steinberg, S. (2017). Parental sharing on the Internet: Child privacy in the age of social media and the pediatrician’s role. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(5), 413–414.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.5059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Khan, K. S., & Chaudhry, S. (2015). An evidence-based approach to an ancient pursuit: Systematic review on converting online contact into a first date. Evidence-Based Medicine, 20(2), 48–56.  https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koch, W., & Frees, B. (2017). ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2017: Neun von zehn Deutschen online. Media Perspektiven, 2017(9), 434–446.Google Scholar
  55. Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(15), 5802–5805.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543–556.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Adolescents’ comments in social media: Why do adolescents receive negative feedback and who is most at risk? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 486–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., & Yu, M. (2014). „Where have all the good men gone?“: Gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 76(2), 387–410.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kutscher, N., & Kreß, L.-M. (2016). „Internet is the same like food“ – An empirical study on the use of digital media by unaccompanied minor refugees in Germany. Transnational Social Review, 6(1), 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2016.1184819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Landers, R. N., Brusso, R. C., Cavanaugh, K. J., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). A primer on theory-driven web scraping: Automatic extraction of big data from the internet for use in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 475–492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lankton, N. K., McKnight, D. H., & Tripp, J. F. (2017). Facebook privacy management strategies: A cluster analysis of user privacy behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 149–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leaver, T. (2017). Intimate surveillance: normalizing parental monitoring and mediation of infants online. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117707192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Leaver, T., & Highfield, T. (2018). Visualising the ends of identity: Pre-birth and post-death on Instagram. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 30–45.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1259343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lemke, R., & Merz, S. (2018). The prevalence and gratification of nude self-presentation of men who have sex with men in online-dating environments: Attracting attention, empowerment, and self-verification. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(1), 16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Linares, K., Subrahmanyam, K., Cheng, R., & Guan, S.-S. A. (2011). A second life within second life. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1(3), 50–71.  https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2011070104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lutz, C., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2017). The dark side of online participation: Exploring non-, passive and negative participation. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 876–897.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mansfield-Devine, S. (2015). The Ashley Madison affair. Network Security, 2015(9), 8–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-4858(15)30080-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Marriott, T. C., & Buchanan, T. (2014). The true self online: Personality correlates of preference for self-expression online, and observer ratings of personality online and offline. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, G. (2012). The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 221–237.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612441215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Egan, K. G., Cox, E., Young, H., Gannon, K. E., & Becker, T. (2011). Feeling bad on Facebook: depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 447–455.  https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Newitz, A. (2015). Ashley madison code shows more women, and more bots. https://gizmodo.com/ashley-madison-code-shows-more-women-and-more-bots-1727613924. Zugegriffen am 30.01.2018.
  74. Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations and the Internet: reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nielsen, J. (2006). The 90-9-1 rule for participation inequality in social Media and online communities. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/. Zugegriffen am 30.01.2018.
  76. Nowland, R., Necka, E. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Loneliness and social Internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 70–87.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617713052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Park, A., Conway, M., & Chen, A. T. (2018). Examining thematic similarity, difference, and membership in three online mental health communities from reddit: A text mining and visualization approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 98–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Paxton, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2017). Finding the traces of behavioral and cognitive processes in big data and naturally occurring datasets. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1630–1638.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0874-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pegg, K. J., O’Donnell, A. W., Lala, G., & Barber, B. L. (2018). The role of online social identity in the relationship between alcohol-related content on social networking sites and adolescent alcohol use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(1), 50–55.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Quiroz, P. A. (2013). From finding the perfect love online to satellite dating and ‚loving-the-one-you’re near‘: A look at Grindr, Skout, Plenty of Fish, Meet Moi, Zoosk and assisted serendipity. Humanity & Society, 37(2), 181–185.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597613481727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community:homesteading on the electronic frontier. A William Patrick book. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  82. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online (First MIT paperback edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  83. Richards, N. M. (2013). The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1934–1965. https://harvardlawreview.org/2013/05/the-dangers-of-surveillance/.Google Scholar
  84. Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., & Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 17–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sheer, V. C., & Chen, L. (2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager-subordinate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(1), 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simon Rosser, B. R., West, W., & Weinmeyer, R. (2008). Are gay communities dying or just in transition? Results from an international consultation examining possible structural change in gay communities. AIDS Care, 20(5), 588–595.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120701867156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Spitzer, M. (2017). Cyberkrank! Wie das digitalisierte Leben unsere Gesundheit ruiniert. München: Droemer.Google Scholar
  90. Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‚privacy paradox‘ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tifferet, S., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2018). Self-presentation in linkedIn portraits: Common features, gender, and occupational differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 33–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2016). ‚Strong is the new skinny‘: A content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of Health Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316639436.
  93. Tiidenberg, K. (2014). Bringing sexy back: reclaiming the body aesthetic via self-shooting. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-3.
  94. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  95. Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGEN: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy – and completely unprepared for adulthood and what this means for the rest of us. New York: Atria Books.Google Scholar
  96. Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Hrsg.). (2017). Computational social psychology. frontiers of social psychology. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2005). Global village or cyber-balkans: Modeling and measuring the integration of electronic communities. Management Science, 51(6), 851–868.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Eenbergen, M. C., van de Poll-Franse, L. V., Heine, P., & Mols, F. (2017). The impact of participation in online cancer communities on patient reported outcomes: Systematic review. JMIR Cancer, 3(2), e15.  https://doi.org/10.2196/cancer.7312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C. A., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In The 11th International AAAI Conference On Web and Social Media (ICWSM17), Montreal, Canada, 15.-18. Mai 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03107.
  100. Vogel, E. A., & Rose, J. P. (2016). Self-reflection and interpersonal connection: Making the most of self-presentation on social media. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(3), 294–302.  https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vorderer, P., & Schneider, F. M. (2017). social media and ostracism. In K. D. William & S. A. Nider (Hrsg.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (S. 240–257). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Wada, M., Hurd Clarke, L., & Rozanova, J. (2015). Constructions of sexuality in later life: Analyses of canadian magazine and newspaper portrayals of online dating. Journal of Aging Studies, 32, 40–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Hrsg.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (S. 529–563). Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  105. Walther, J. B., van der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using facebook. Communication Research, 36(2), 229–253.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208330251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wang, X., Zhao, K., & Street, N. (2017). Analyzing and predicting user participations in online health communities: A social support perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4), e130.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the „real world“: Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 573–576.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2003). The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. White, C. M., Cutello, C. A., Gummerum, M., & Hanoch, Y. (2018). A cross-cultural study of risky online self-presentation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(1), 25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Whitty, M. T. (2017). Do you love me? psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0729, [vor Druck].
  111. Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 203–220.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wong AnKee, A., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). The review of the ugly truth and negative aspects of online dating. Global Journal of Manaement and Business Research, 15(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  113. Yee, N. (2014). The Proteus paradox: How online games and virtual worlds change us – And how they don’t. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2018). Are you happy for me … on Facebook? The potential importance of „likes“ and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 26–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IfMK (Institut für Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft)Technische Universität IlmenauIlmenauDeutschland

Personalised recommendations