CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Innovative Human-Technology InteractionDigital Marketing and Social MediaPhotography and Visual Culture

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How the Intention to Share Can Undermine Enjoyment: Photo-Taking Goals and Evaluation of Experiences

Open access
Barasch, Alixandra, Zauberman, Gal, Diehl, Kristin·2018·Journal of Consumer Research
DOI 10.1093/jcr/ucx112
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract People often share their experiences with others who were not originally present, which provides them with both personal and interpersonal benefits. However, most prior work on this form of sharing has examined the decision to share one’s experience only after the experience is over. We investigate a distinct, unexplored aspect of the sharing process: when the decision to share is already salient during an experience and hence can impact the experience itself. We examine this research question within the context of photo-taking, an increasingly ubiquitous and integral part of people’s experiences. Across two field and three laboratory studies, we find that relative to taking pictures for oneself (e.g., to preserve one’s memories), taking pictures with the intention to share them with others (e.g., to post on social media) reduces enjoyment of experiences. This effect occurs because taking photos with the intention to share increases self-presentational concern during the experience, which can reduce enjoyment directly, as well as indirectly by lowering engagement with the experience. We identify several factors that moderate the effect of photo-taking goals on enjoyment, such as individual differences in the extent to which individuals care about how others perceive them and the closeness of the intended audience.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jcr/ucx112

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 71 references

4 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention
  2. Instagram Press, 2017
  3. Libby, 2011, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 44, 185
  4. Mackie, 1987, Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–128 of 128

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Barasch, A., Zauberman, G., & Diehl, K.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Barasch, Alixandra
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-11-14
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
1220-1237
ISSN
  • 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5277
DOI
10.1093/jcr/ucx112
OpenAlex
W2768598312
Cited by
128
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Photography and Visual Culture
Keywords
sharing intention, self-presentation, social media, individual differences, memory preservation

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