Self-Disclosure on Facebook: The Effects of Ego-Depletion and Audience Composition

The extent to which individuals disclose personal information about themselves online continues to rise. Along with this increase, the number of individuals disclosing potentially damaging information is also increasing. The purpose of the current study was to investigate why people use Facebook in order to disclose personal information about themselves that may lead to negative consequences. College students from The Ohio State University at Newark were instructed to watch a video that would engage their self-control resources. For some, the task depleted their regulatory resources. After watching this video, the participants were asked to write about a day in their life when they felt very upset. Participants were informed of whom the information would be sent to: close Facebook friends, Facebook acquaintances, random Facebook users, or no one. It was hypothesized that the self-disclosure of potentially damaging information on Facebook may be due to a failure in self-regulation and the potential audience of the self-disclosure. Results revealed that the composition of the audience, but not self-control, affected the amount of participants’ self-disclosure. Moreover, the predicted self-control by audience interaction did not increase participant self-disclosure. The results of the current study suggest that self-disclosure online may be motivated by self-presentation rather than caused by a failure in self-regulation. SELF-DISCLOSURE ON FACEBOOK 3 Self -Disclosure on Facebook: The Effects of Ego-Depletion and Audience Composition In 2010, a teacher in Massachusetts was fired for calling her students “germ bags” in a status update on Facebook. She also called her students’ parents “snobby” and “arrogant. ” The teacher claimed that she did not realize this information would be made available to everyone and that there might be consequences for saying these things on Facebook (CBS News, 2010). There have been multiple instances where people have been fired from their jobs because of disclosing negative information online (CBS News, 2010; Smith & Kanalley, 2010; Dolak, 2013). While there is no shortage of media reports on the topic, very little empirical research has systematically examined why individuals may engage in behavior that could have such far reaching negative consequences. As the use of technology for interpersonal communication continues to grow and advance, the potential for individuals to disclose potentially damaging information (i.e., negative self-disclosure) is also likely to increase. Social networking sites are one of the most popular ways to communicate online due to their prevalence and ease of use. The present study examined why people engage in negative online self-disclosure by manipulating self-control and the composition of the audience. Self-Disclosure On a daily basis, people inform others about what is happening in their lives. This sharing of information about oneself is termed self-disclosure and is a process essential to interpersonal relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Owing to advances in technology, this sharing of information can now take place online or in face-to-face (FtF) contexts. Ample research has been conducted on how self-disclosure processes influence interpersonal relationships in FtF settings (Kelly & McKillop, 1996; Collins & Miller, 1994; Altman & Taylor, 1973). Research suggests SELF-DISCLOSURE ON FACEBOOK 4 that individuals disclose more to those that they like and that they like those to whom they disclose (Collins & Miller, 1994). Moreover, females typically disclose more than males, and it has been suggested that certain personality types may contribute to more self-disclosure (Cozby, 1973). Social penetration theory suggests that what a person decides to disclose is determined by the rewards or the costs of their actions (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin (1976) found that individuals disclosing to strangers that had disclosed more intimate information were likely to reciprocate the same amount of self-disclosure. When meeting strangers it may be necessary to monitor one’s behavior and base the level of intimate selfdisclosure on that of the stranger (Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). They also found that this reciprocation is not necessary when disclosing to close friends because these friendships do not require one to act in a certain way, and a sense of trust has already been formed (Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). Individuals may also disclose based on the sensitivity of the information (Kelly & McKillop, 1996). Most of the time, people will not engage in intimate self-disclosure if they do not know the person well. More sensitive information may be inappropriate when talking to someone that one just met in comparison to someone they have known for years. Disclosing information that is too intimate may be detrimental to any relationship. Some have suggested that disclosing a “medium” amount may indicate that an individual desires a close relationship. Disclosing too much may lead to a perception that the individual lacks discretion and is likely to be seen as untrustworthy (Levin & Gergen, 1969). Increasing the intimacy of self-disclosure may be rewarding, but it also comes with a cost to the relationship if too much intimacy is disclosed too soon (Cozby, 1973). SELF-DISCLOSURE ON FACEBOOK 5 Little research has been conducted on how self-disclosure operates when one is interacting in an online environment. Self-disclosure may operate differently online than it does in FtF situations. There are many ways to disclose online. People use instant messaging, e-mail, and, perhaps the most popular places, social networking sites (an online platform for creating networks of friends). On these sites, individuals can disclose in numerous ways such as writing a blog, updating their status, sharing pictures, and socially approving (i.e., like) posts that were created by others. It is even possible to disclose your exact location to anyone around the world making online self-disclosure inherently different from FtF self-disclosure. Additionally, there are, potentially, millions of people that one could be disclosing to in a single incidence of online self-disclosure—a situation highly unlikely to occur in FtF communication. Moreover, communication online allows individuals to remain anonymous and communicate with anyone around the world regardless of geographical distance. Research indicates that individuals who blog and refrain from giving personal information that could identify them feel more anonymous and self-disclose more (Qian & Scott, 2007). Moreover, if one indicates their age, gender, and relationship status on social networking sites (such as Facebook) they are more likely to selfdisclose in general (Nosko, Wood, & Molema, 2010). This indicates that there may be a motive for disclosing or that there are certain personalities in which people disclose more intimate information. People that do not disclose these things are being more discrete and will therefore be less likely to self-disclose (Nosko, Wood, & Molema, 2010). Thus, there may be personality differences between individuals that would lead to differential self-disclosure. Beyond personality differences, self-disclosure in online environments can be motivated by self-presentation as well as showing off and entertainment (Lee, Im, & Taylor, 2008). These motivations are very similar to motivations to disclose in FtF interactions. As stated, a goal of SELF-DISCLOSURE ON FACEBOOK 6 FtF self-disclosure may be to increase liking (Kelly & McKillop, 1996). When individuals are motivated to increase liking they are also more likely to engage in self-presentation. In order to self-disclose one has to be motivated to share, and that motivation may stem from selfpresentational concerns. However, it is possible that there are differences in the motivations behind text-based online self-disclosure because while communicating online, one does not see the face of the person they are communicating to, and others cannot see them. Thus, individuals may engage in selective self-presentation and present themselves favorably to others (Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse, 2012). Self-control While much research has examined self-disclosure in a general sense, little research has identified the possible psychological mechanisms responsible for negative self-disclosure online. One possibility for the existence of negative self-disclosure may be a failure to regulate one’s behavior. Some research suggests that self-regulation may be a limited resource and that once this regulatory pool of resources is depleted, engaging in subsequent self-control becomes increasingly difficult. Multiple studies have supported this resource depletion model (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Masicampo & Baumeister, 2008; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Tice, Baumeister, Schmueli, & Muraven, 2007). In one study, participants arrived in the lab to find a plate of freshly baked cookies and a bowl of radishes on the table. Those whose self-regulation was being depleted were told that they could have all of the radishes they wanted but no cookies—this required most participants to engage in self-regulation to refrain from eating the cookies. Engaging in self-regulation by resisting the urge to consume the cookies led to a reduction in the individuals’ available pool of self-regulatory resources. Immediately following the self-regulation manipulation, participants were given an unsolvable SELF-DISCLOSURE ON FACEBOOK 7 puzzle task and told to persist at the task for as long as they could. Participants who had previously engaged in self-regulation (i.e., used up some of their regulatory pool of resources), spent less time trying to solve puzzle than those who were not depleted. The authors interpreted this result as support for the resource depletion model (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Thus, it appears that