CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 523Impact of Technology on AdolescentsMedia and Digital CommunicationPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

GROOMING, GOSSIP, FACEBOOK AND MYSPACE: What can we learn about these sites from those who won't assimilate?

Open access
Tufekci, Zeynep·2008·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/13691180801999050
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores the rapid adoption of online social network sites (also known as social networking sites) (SNSs) by students on a US college campus. Using quantitative (n = 713) and qualitative (n = 51) data based on a diverse sample of college students, demographic and other characteristics of SNS users and non-users are compared. Starting with the theoretical frameworks of Robin Dunbar and Erving Goffman, this paper situates SNS activity under two rubrics: (1) social grooming; and (2) presentation of the self. This study locates these sites within the emergence of social computing and makes a conceptual distinction between the expressive Internet, the Internet of social interactions, and the instrumental Internet, the Internet of airline tickets and weather forecasts. This paper compares and contrasts the user and non-user populations in terms of expressive and instrumental Internet use, social ties and attitudes toward social-grooming, privacy and efficiency. Two clusters are found to influence SNS adoption: attitudes towards social grooming and privacy concerns. It is especially found that non-users display an attitude towards social grooming (gossip, small-talk and generalized, non-functional people-curiosity) that ranges from incredulous to hostile. Contrary to expectations, non-users do not report a smaller number of close friends compared with users, but they do keep in touch with fewer people. Users of SNS are also heavier users of the expressive Internet, while there is no difference in use of instrumental Internet. Gender also emerges as an important predictor. These findings highlight the need to differentiate between the different modalities of Internet use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13691180801999050

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women use their phones for social purposes significantly more than men do.

    “women use their phones for social purposes significantly more than men do”

    From Hypernatural Monitoring: A Social Rehearsal Account of Smartphone Addiction (2018) · cites this paper as Tufekci, 2008

    The 'Demographics and other characteristics' section reports that women had significantly higher odds of using social network sites than men. The paper includes cell-phone texting among its measures of expressive Internet use (Table 2), but the passages do not report a gender comparison of social phone use; that phone-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Boyd, D. (2007) 'Social network sites: public, private, or what', Knowledge Tree, 13, [Online] Available at: http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/ social-network-sites-public-private-or-what/ (1 September 2007).
  2. Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007) 'Social network sites: definition and conception', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210-230.
  3. Stutzman, F. (2006) 'An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities', iDMAa Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 10-18.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tufekci, Z.
Affiliations
University of Maryland
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-06
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
544-564
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/13691180801999050
OpenAlex
W2160229179
Cited by
523
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 49
FWCI
90.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
social networking sites, university students, social grooming, gossip, self-presentation, privacy concerns, social ties, technology adoption, gender differences, Erving Goffman, social computing, Facebook, MySpace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review