The Imagined Audience on Social Network Sites
Open accessAbstract
When people construct and share posts on social network sites like Facebook and Twitter, whom do they imagine as their audience? How do users describe this imagined audience? Do they have a sub-audience in mind (e.g., “friends who like reality television”)? Do they share more broadly and abstractly (e.g., “the public”)? Do such imaginings fluctuate each time a person posts? Using a mixed-methods approach involving a 2-month-long diary study of 119 diverse American adults and their 1,200 social network site posts, supplemented with follow-up interviews ( N = 30), this study explores the imagined audience on social network sites. The findings reveal that even though users often interacted with large diverse audiences as they posted, they coped by envisioning either very broad abstract imagined audiences or more targeted specific imagined audiences composed of personal ties, professional ties, communal ties, and/or phantasmal ties. When people had target imagined audiences in mind, they were most often homogeneous and composed of people’s friends and family. Users’ imaginings typically fluctuated among these audience types as they posted even though the potential audience as per their posts’ privacy settings often did not change. The findings provide a list of audience types, as well as detailed descriptions, examples, and frequencies on which future research can build. With people’s online presence playing an important role for their reputations, these findings provide more insight into for whom people are managing their privacy and whom they have in mind as they share.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Many trans people have concerns about being accidentally outed while participating online, putting them at risk for harassment, trolling, and even physical harm.
“Many have concerns about being accidentally outed while participating online, putting them at risk for harassment, trolling, and even physical harm [62, 64, 79].”
From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
LGBTQ+ users were also influenced by their imagined audience for each social media sites and fine-tuned their profiles and accounts accordingly.
“LGBTQ+ users were also influenced by their imagined audience for each social media sites and fine-tuned their profiles and accounts accordingly [61, 62].”
From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
Cites
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798 · see citing works
Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life
Nissenbaum, H. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9780804772891 · Cited by 2,129 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Given that different audiences may have different expectations for appropriateness and relevance (Arkin, 1981; Burgoon et al., 1989; Farnham & Churchill, 2011; Nissenbaum, 2009), imagining specific sub-audiences may lead to disclosures on social network sites that are irrelevant or inappropriate for those outside of t…”
BackgroundInfluentialSocial Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications
(2010) · A Networked Self · doi:10.4324/9780203876527-8 · Cited by 1,724 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…actual audience compositions (Bernstein, Bakshy, Burke, & Karrer, 2013; Eslamimehdiabadi et al., 2015; Hogan, 2010; Moll, Pieschl, & Bromme, 2014), and in comparison to offline interactions, communication tends to be more persistent, searchable, archivable, and shareable (boyd, 2010; Quinn, 2014).”
BackgroundHogan, B. (2010) · Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467610385893 · Cited by 1,318 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…1996), algorithms and preferences play into actual audience compositions (Bernstein, Bakshy, Burke, & Karrer, 2013; Eslamimehdiabadi et al., 2015; Hogan, 2010; Moll, Pieschl, & Bromme, 2014), and in comparison to offline interactions, communication tends to be more persistent, searchable,…”
Background<i>Knock, Knock</i> . Who's There? The Imagined Audience
Litt, E. (2012) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Self-citationHargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2013) · IEEE Security & Privacy · doi:10.1109/msp.2013.64 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
DeVito, M. A., Birnholtz, J., Hancock, J. T., French, M., & Liu, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173694 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Classification and Its Consequences for Online Harassment: Design Insights from HeartMob
Blackwell, L., Dimond, J., Schoenebeck, S., & Lampe, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3134659 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Self-Presentation in Social Media: Review and Research Opportunities
Erin E., H., & Kent State University, U. (2021) · Review of Communication Research · doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.027 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Social Media and the Changing Information Environment
Kraft, P. W., Krupnikov, Y., Milita, K., Ryan, J. B., & Soroka, S. (2020) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfaa015 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Mapping the transnational imaginary of social media genres
Hallinan, B., Kim, B., Scharlach, R., Trillò, T., Mizoroki, S., & Shifman, L. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211012372 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Intended and Unintended Visitors: Evidencing the Audience for Digital Black Press Outlets
Williams Fayne, M. (2025) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10776990251328583 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Adriaansen, R.-J. (2024) · Memory, Mind & Media · doi:10.1017/mem.2024.7 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Challenges and Opportunities for Technology-Supported Activity Reporting in the Workplace
Lu, D., Marlow, J., Kocielnik, R., & Avrahami, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173744 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software
Frluckaj, H., Stevens, N., Howison, J., & Dabbish, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687047 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Trust and Friction: Negotiating How Information Flows through Decentralized Social Media
Hwang, S., Nanayakkara, P., & Shvartzshnaider, Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757516 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Anderson, B., Lund, B. D., Mohammed, Y., & Khan, Z. I. (2026) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2026.103310
By Us, for Us?: Examining the Digital Black Press’ Audience
Williams Fayne, M. (2026) · The Blackish Press · doi:10.1093/9780197773444.003.0005
The Blackish Press: Content, Ownership, and Audience of Digital Black News Outlets
Williams Fayne, M. (2026) · Oxford University Press · doi:10.1093/9780197773444.001.0001
- Authors
- Litt, E., & Hargittai, E.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Litt, Eden
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-01-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2324870069
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 88.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Northwestern University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- imagined audience, social network sites, audience targeting, audience types, privacy settings, online self-presentation, audience management, Facebook, Twitter, online reputation, personal connections, community ties
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
