ROTHBARD JUSTIN M BERG University of Pennsylvania As employees increasingly interact with their professional contacts in online social networks that are personal in nature such as Facebook or Twitter they are likely to experience a collision of thei ID: 42478
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE IN CYBERSPACE HOW BO..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
pantsatthe2011WhartonPeopleandOrganizationsCon-ferenceandmembersoftheContemporaryP@thwaysofCareer,LifeandLearningResearchCenterofRouenBusi-nessSchoolfortheirhelpfulcommentsonpriorversionsofthemanuscript;andTaraniMerriweatherWoodsonforher engageinsomepersonaldisclosureintheirin-teractions,butwithoutviolatingprofessionalnorms,theywillbemorerespectedandlikedbyprofessionalcontacts.However,todate,littletheoryhasshedlightontheboundaryworkthatemployeesdowheninteractinginonlinesocialnetworks.Herewefocusononlinesocialnetworksthatareper-sonalinnatureandpervasiveenoughsuchthatemployeesreceiveconnectionrequestsfromprofessionalcontacts(e.g.,FacebookorTwitter).Withavarietyoffeatures,includingbiographi-calprofiles,photosharing,andpubliccom-ments(Boyd,2007),theseonlinesocialnetworksarebecomingakeyforumforrelationshipde-velopmentandmaintenance(Ellisonetal.,2007).Recentdatapointtoablurringoftheprofes-sionalandpersonaldomainsintheseonlinenetworks,whichexacerbatestheneedforactiveboundarymanagement.Forinstance,youngeremployeesareconnectedtoanaverageof16coworkersonFacebook(MillennialBranding,2012),and41percentofFacebookusersthinkitisirresponsibletoignoreafriendrequestfromacoworker(KetchumGlobalResearchNetworkforLibertyMutual,2011).Whilemostofthelitera-tureononlinesocialnetworksfocusesonpri-vacy(see,forinstance,Boyd,2007;Lewis,Kauf-man,&Christakis,2008;Martin,2009;Solove,2007),afewstudiesreportevidenceofindividu-alsconductingonlineboundaryworkthroughself-censoring(Lampinen,Tamminen,&Oulas-virta,2009;Skeels&Grudin,2009),adjustingpro-filevisibility(Tufekci,2008),customizingprofilestodisclosedifferentinformationtodifferentin-dividuals(Donath&Boyd,2004;Zhao,Gras-muck,&Martin,2008),andcreatingmultiplepro-files(Stutzman&Hartzog,2012).Agreatdealofpersonalinformationisoftendisclosedintheseonlineforums.However,akeyfeaturethatdistinguishessuchonlineinterac-tionisthattheinformationdisclosedismuchlesstailoredtoaparticularconversation.Inface-to-faceandotherindividualizedinterac-tions,suchasemailorphonecalls,employeescanmanagetheboundarybetweentheirprofes-sionalandpersonalidentitiesbycontrollingtheamountandnatureofpersonalinformationtheydisclosetoprofessionalcontactsovertimeandbyadaptingsuchdisclosuretoparticulardyadicrelationships(Collins,1981;Goffman,1956).Inonlinesocialnetworks,personalinformationisdisclosedinanontailoredfashion.Comparedwithfeedbackandcommentsmadeinofflineworkinteractions,forinstance,onlineinforma-tionissharedwithapotentiallybroaderaudi-enceandisalsopersistentintimeandeasilysearchable(Boyd,2007).Becauseofthis,whentwoprofessionalcontactsfirstconnectinapri-marilypersonalonlinesocialnetworklikeFace- initially,yetthisinformationistailoredanddi-rectedinapersonalizedmannerintheconver-sationbetweentheindividuals(Goffman,1956;Taylor,1968;Worthy,Gary,&Kahn,1969).Incon-trast,connectinginonlinesocialnetworksun-leashesafloodofself-disclosureintheformofanarchiveofinformationthatisnottailoredtotheparticularrelationshiporsituation,anditsoriginalcontextandmeaningmaybeskewed(Boyd,2008).TherecentÒtimelineÓfeatureofFacebookisavividillustrationofanontailoredchronologicaldisplayofavastamountofinfor-mation.Inaddition,thisinformationmaybeeasilysearchableandretrievableusingsearchenginesandwebsitesthatcollectavailablein-formationonagivenindividualandhisorherconnections(Boyd,2007).Suchafloodofnontai-loredself-disclosureÑespeciallyatthebegin-ningofaprofessionalrelationshipÑisanexpe-riencethatseemstobeuniquetoconnectinginonlinesocialnetworks.Asecondkeyfeatureofonlineinteractionisthatevenaftertheinitialfloodofself-disclosure,thesharingofpersonalinformationcontinuesbetweenthecontacts,withoutaccesstothevis-iblesocialcuesÑincludingfacialexpressions,vocaltones,andbodylanguage(Mehrabian,1971)Ñthatnormallyhelpreinforcenormsandscriptsinphysicalspacebyprovidingcriticalinformationabouthowoneshouldbehaveinsocialinteractions(Collins,1981,2004;Goffman,1959).Onlinesocialnetworksthatarepersonalinnatureessentiallyputusersinonelarge,in- suggestedbyemergingempiricalevidence(e.g.,Bohnert&Ross,2010;Forest&Wood,2012).How-ever,theoryandresearchtodatehavenotdi-rectlyaddressedhowandwhyemployeesman-ageboundariesbetweentheirprofessionalandpersonalidentitiesinonlinesocialnetworks,orhowthisaffectsthewaytheirprofessionalcon-tactsregardthem.ONLINEBOUNDARYMANAGEMENT:ATHEORETICALFRAMEWORKMotivationalDriversandOnlineBoundaryManagementBehaviorsWedevelopaframeworktoexplainthemoti-vationaldriversofonlineboundarymanage-mentbehaviors.Drawingonsocialnetworkthe-ory,webuildonthepremisethatemployees,wheninteractinginonlinesocialnetworks,ad- 2013649 negativeself-views(self-verification)arelikelytoplayanimportantroleinshapingthecontenttheydiscloseinonlinesocialnetworks.Wefo-cusonself-enhancementandself-verificationbecausethesetwoself-evaluationmotiveshavereceivedextensiveattentionandempiricalsup-portandhavebeencontrastedfrequentlyintheliterature(seeAnseel&Lievens,2006;Sedikides,1993;Swann,1990;Swannetal.,1989;seeKwang&Swann,2010,forameta-analysis).Inaddition,bothinvolveevaluationsoftheselfthatconcernhowpeoplewanttobeseenbyothers(andthus theirself-views(i.e.,self-verification;Swann,1983)maydiscloseamorediversearrayofpos-itiveandnegativeself-relevantinformation,withtheexpectationthattheaudiencetheyreach,orpartofthisaudience,willgivethemfeedbackthatconfirmstheirpositiveandnega-tiveself-views.Insum,self-enhancersaremoti- tivefacetsofthemselves(suchasdiscussingaprofessionalsetbackoranongoingdivorce)toreceiveconfirmationoftheirself-views(Swann,1983).Inthiscaseprofessionalandpersonaldo-mainsareoftenmergedasemployeesstriveforconsistencyintheirself-viewsandintegrationacrossbothdomains(seeTable1forexamples).Proposition1:Employeesaremorelikelytoengageinopenboundarymanagementbehaviorsinonlineso-cialnetworkswhentheycombineself-verificationmotivesandpreferencesforintegrationoftheirprofessionalandpersonalidentities.2Weconceptualizethetemporalnatureofonlinebound-arymanagementbehaviorsasanalogoustopersonalproj-ects,whicharedefinedbyLittleasÒasetofinterrelatedactsextendingovertime...intendedtomaintainorattainastateofaffairsforeseenbytheindividualÓ(1983:273).Thisconceptualizationplacesindividualsinaspecific,stablecontextthatshapestheirmotivationstoengageinonlineboundarymanagementforameaningfulbutnotpermanentstretchoftime(Little,1983;McGregor&Little,1998).Thisisinlinewiththenotionthatthetwomotivationaldriversinourframeworkhavebeenconstruedasstableindividualprefer-enceswithinagivensocialcontextbutarenotpersonalitytraitsand,thus,maychangeoveranindividualÕslifecourse. nature.Anexampleissettingupprivateprofilesandignoringordenyingconnectionrequestsfromcertainprofessionalcontacts(seeTable1formoreexamples).Employeeswhoprefertokeeptheirprofessionalandpersonalidentitiesseparate(Ashforthetal.,2000;Kreiner,2006;Rothbardetal.,2005)andseektodisplayself-verifyingidentitycuestoselectedinteractionpartners(Swann,1983,1987)arelikelytoprotecttheironlineidentitiesfromunsoliciteddisclo-suresandfeedbackandtoreachouttocontactswhomayvalidatetheirself-views.Theymaystrivetoavoidcoactivationoftheirprofessional professionalandpersonalinformationthattheybelievewillenhancetheimpressionstheirpro-fessionalcontactshaveofthemandthatmayelicitpositivefeedback(Lampinenetal.,2009).Inshort,employeeswhousecontentbehaviorsthinkoftheboundarychallengesasaboutpre-sentingthemostidealimageofthemselvestoaTABLE1IllustrativeExamplesofBoundaryManagementBehaviorsinOnlineSocialNetworksArchetypalBoundaryManagementBehaviorsExamplesofBehaviors(NotExhaustive)Open¥Setuppublicsearchableprofile¥Disclosebothpositiveandnegativeinformationinprofessionalandpersonaldomain¥LetotherscommentpubliclyonpostsandtagoneinpicturesAudience¥Setupprivateprofileandignoreordenyconnectionrequestsfromcertainprofessionalcontacts sionalandpersonalidentities.Hybridboundarymanagement.Whileaudi-enceandcontentbehaviorsarerelativelystraightforward,theydonotworkwellforem-ployeeswhoprefertobothkeeptheirprofes-sionalandpersonalcontactsseparate(Ashforthetal.,2000;Kreiner,2006;Rothbardetal.,2005)andenhancetheirimageintheeyesofprofes-sionalcontactsinonlinesocialnetworks(Sedikides,1993;Sedikides&Strube,1995).Theseemployeesmaynotwanttoforegothebenefitofconnectingandsharinginformationwithprofessionalcontactsinonlinesocialnet-works.Theyviewboundarycontrolasentailingbothwithwhomtheyconnectinonlinesocialnetworksandwhatinformationtheycommuni-catetotheirconnections.Inresponsetothesedualchallenges,suchemployeesmaycraftmoresophisticatedonlineboundarymanage-mentbehaviors,whichwetermhybridbehav-iors,definedastheconcurrentmanagementofaudienceandcontentboundariessuchthatem-ployeesdividetheirprofessionalandpersonalcontactsintoseparateaudiencesandtailorthecontenttheydisclosetoeachaudience.Forin- tionships.Normviolationsareespeciallyharm-fultorespectandlikinginworkcontextswherestrongnormsconveyclearimagesofwhatcon-stitutesappropriateprofessionalbehavior(Bloor&Dawson,1994;Chreim,Williams,&Hin-ings,2007).Employeeswhoarenotconsistentinonlinesocialnetworkswithhowtheirprofes-sionalcontacts,onaverage,expectthemtobe-haveinofflineinteractionswilllosecredibility vealingtoomuchorinappropriateinformationtoabroadaudienceofprofessionalcontacts phily,orindividualsÕattractiontosimilarothers(Blau,1977;Byrne,1971),openbehaviorsmayincreaselikingintheeyesofsomeprofessionalcolleaguesÑforexample,whenacoworkersharesthefocalemployeeÕsvalues.However,researchonhomophilysuggeststhatorganiza-tionsaremoreheterogeneousthanfriendshipnetworksinthatorganizationsofferfewerop-portunitiesforchoicehomophilyÑthepropen-sitytochoosesimilarothersÑsuchthatprofes- hancelikingintheofflinerelationship.Ignoring tacts(Collins&Miller,1994;Cozby,1973).Pro-videdthattheexchangeofinformationremainsappropriate,sharingdetailsabouteachotherÕspersonallives,thoughts,anddesiresindicatestrustandallowsindividualstodiscovercom-monperspectives(Jourard,1959;Jourard&Lasa-kow,1958;Worthyetal.,1969).Moreover,em-ployeesmaybenefitfromboundarycrossoversthatleadtoreciprocalexchangesofinformation,therebyenrichingprofessionalrelationships(Rothbard,2001;Rothbard&Ramarajan,2009).Forinstance,anemployeemaybuildstrongerbondswithlong-distancecoworkersbysharingselectedprofessionalandpersonalinformationwiththemandgivingpositivefeedbackÑforin-stance,byregularlyÒLikingÓtheirpostsorcom-mentingonthem.Thefactthattheyinteractwitheachothernotonlyonaprofessionalbasisbutalsoonapersonalonemayhelpbuildgreaterclosenessandliking.Proposition7b:ContentboundarymanagementbehaviorsarelikelytoincreaseaveragelikingamongoneÕsprofessionalcontactsbecausetheyal-lowonetobroadcastpersonalandprofessionalinformationtoabroadsetofworkaudiences.Consequencesofhybridbehaviors.Hybridboundarymanagementbehaviors,drivenbybothself-enhancementmotivesandsegmenta-tionpreferences,mayhelpindividualsspando-mainboundarieswhenroleidentitiesarecom-patibleandyetkeepinformationseparatewhenprofessionalandpersonalidentitiesareincom-patible(Rothbard&Ramarajan,2009).Asare-sult,employeesmaybeabletocustomizethematchbetweencontentandaudience,whichshouldmaximizerespectandliking(Phillipsetal.,2009).Becauseemployeesareawareofwhatcontenttheysharewithwhichaudience,hybridbehaviorscanhelpalleviateonlinesocialnet-worksÕchallengesbyencouragingmoretailoreddisclosures.Inparticular,hybridbehaviorsmakeinvisibleaudiencesmoresalientandlimit forin- informationandreceivingpositivefeedbackaboutit,suchasÒLikesÓandencouragingcom-mentsfromprofessionalcontacts,generateemo-tionalenergy.Inaddition,feedbackstemmingfromorgani-zationalandoccupationalnorms(Bloor&Daw-son,1994;Prattetal.,2006)interactswithem-ployeesÕindividualpreferencesastheychooseonlineboundarymanagementbehaviors.Inpar-ticular,employeesmaytonedowntheirself-verificationstrivingsiftheyreceivefeedbackintheworkplacethatinformationtheyhaddis-closedviolatedorganizationalnorms.Similarfeedbackprocessescanleademployeestoshiftfromintegrationbehaviorstomoresegmentedones,orviceversa.Employeesmightrevise changemoregraduallyovertimeasemployeesÕconnectionsrespondtotheirbehaviorsonline.DISCUSSIONOnlinesocialnetworksposenew,complex,andoftenchallengingopportunitystructuresforenactingprofessionalandpersonalidentities.Howemployeesmanageboundarieswithinthesestructuresmayhelporharmtheirprofes-sionalrelationshipsinimportantways.Wehaveproposedaconceptualframeworkofonlineboundarymanagement,theorizingaboutthekeyunderlyingdriversoffourarchetypalonlineboundarymanagementbehaviorsandthecon-sequencesofthesebehaviorsforaveragere-spectandlikingamongemployeesÕprofessionalcontacts.Insodoing,wecontributetoexistingtheoryandresearchonboundarywork(Ashforthetal.,2000;Nippert-Eng,1995;Rothbardetal.,2005)andself-evaluationmotivesthatguideidentitynegotiation(Brown,1990;Sedikides&Strube,1995;Swann,1983;Wiesenfeldetal.,2007)byextendingbothtothevirtualworldofcyberspace,wheretheseprocessesareshapedbydynamicsdifferentfromthoseinphysicalspace.Inparticular,thisframeworkguidesfu-tureresearchonboundaryworkandidentitynegotiationinasocialspacecharacterizedbyopendisclosuretobroadaudiencesandpublicorsemi-publicfeedback(Boyd,2007;Donath,2007;Donath&Boyd,2004),ratherthanthetai-loreddisclosureandprivatefeedbackthatchar-acterizeinteractionsinphysicalspace.Inaddi-tion,byexaminingemployeesÕboundarypreferencesandself-evaluationmotivesto-gether,thisframeworkhighlightsthedouble-edgedswordofonlineboundarymanagementÑalthoughallfourcombinationsinthe2!2frameworkofferpotentialbenefits,noneofthefourisfreeofsignificantrisk,challenge,ordifficulty.Further,thisframeworkopensupnewlinesofresearchonthedynamicsbetweenlikingand preferenceforintegration(openandcontent).Thisisbecausethetechnicalstructureofonlinesocialnetworksistypicallygearedtowardinte-grationbehaviorssuchthatsegmentationre-quiresanongoingsetofmacrochoicesregard-ingthecontactswithwhomoneisconnected.Thisisalsobecauseinitialmacrochoicescreateinertiaandpathdependencies,whichmaybedifficulttoreviseasemployeesexperiencechangesintheirprofessionalandpersonallivesortrytorevisittheironlineboundarymanage-mentbehaviorstoaddresssocialfeedbackand &Schein,1979)andontherelativesalienceoftheirprofessionalandpersonalidentities(Ash-forthetal.,2000;Rothbard&Edwards,2003).Also,whileourframeworkfocusesononline spacecontinuestogrow,employeeswillinevi- innetworkedpublics.Doctoraldissertation,SchoolofInformation,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf;ac-cessedMay4,2010.Brass,D.1984.Beingintherightplace:Astructuralanalysisofindividualinfluenceinorganizations.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,29:518Ð539.Brown,J.D.1990.EvaluatingoneÕsabilities:Shortcutsandstumblingblocksontheroadtoself-knowledge.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,26:149Ð167.Brown,J.D.1991.Accuracyandbiasinself-knowledge.InC.R.Snyder&D.F.Forsyth(Eds.),Handbookofsocialandclinicalpsychology:Thehealthperspective:158Ð178.NewYork:PergamonPress.Brumbaugh,R.B.1971.Authenticityandtheoriesofadmin-istrativebehavior.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,16:107Ð112.Burt,R.S.2004.Structuralholesandgoodideas.AmericanJournalofSociology,110:349Ð399.Byrne,D.1971.Theattractionparadigm.NewYork:AcademicPress.Chreim,S.,Williams,B.E.,&Hinings,C.R.2007.Interlevelinfluencesonthereconstructionofprofessionalroleidentity.AcademyofManagementJournal,50:1515Ð1539.Collins,N.L.,&Miller,L.C.1994.Self-disclosureandliking:Ameta-analyticreview.PsychologicalBulletin,116:457Ð aweightingfactorinimpressionformation.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,30:444Ð448.Harrison,D.A.,Price,K.H.,&Bell,M.P.1998.Beyondrela-tionaldemography:Timeandtheeffectofsurface-versusdeep-leveldiversityongroupcohesiveness.AcademyofManagementJournal,41:96Ð107.Hixon,J.G.,&Swann,W.B.,Jr.1993.Whendoesintrospectionbearfruit?Self-reflection,self-insight,andinterper-sonalchoices.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol-ogy,64:35Ð43.Jehn,K.A.,&Shah,P.P.1997.Interpersonalrelationshipsandtaskperformance:Anexaminationofmediatingprocessesinfriendshipandacquaintancegroups.Jour-nalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,72:775Ð790.John,O.P.,&Robins,R.W.1994.Accuracyandbiasinself-perception:Individualdifferencesinself-enhance-mentandtheroleofnarcissism.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,66:206Ð219.Jourard,S.M.1959.Self-disclosureandother-cathexis.Jour-nalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,59:428Ð431.Jourard,S.M.,&Lasakow,P.1958.Somefactorsinself-disclosure.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,56:91Ð98.KetchumGlobalResearchNetworkforLibertyMutual.2011.TheResponsibilityProject.http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/infographics/rp-survey-online-etiquette-the-workplace#fbid#UNJZtmX1Lts;accessedNovember10,2012.Kossek,E.E.,&Lautsch,B.2012.Work-familyboundaryman-agementstylesinorganizations:Across-levelframe-work.OrganizationalPsychologyReview,2:152Ð171.Kossek,E.E.,Noe,R.A.,&DeMarr,B.J.1999.Work-familyrole-synthesis:Individualandorganizationaldetermi-nants.InternationalJournalofConflictManagement,10:102Ð129.Kreiner,G.E.2006.Consequencesofwork-homesegmenta-tionorintegration:Aperson-environmentfitperspec-tive.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,27:485Ð507.Kreiner,G.E.,Hollensbe,E.C.,&Sheep,M.L.2006.Ontheedgeofidentity:Boundarydynamicsattheinterfaceofindividualandorganizationalidentities.HumanRela-59:1315Ð1341.Kreiner,G.E.,Hollensbe,E.C.,&Sheep,M.L.2009.Balancingbordersandbridges:Negotiatingthework-homeinter-faceviaboundaryworktactics.AcademyofManage-mentJournal,52:704Ð730.Kwang,T.,&Swann,W.B.,Jr.2010.Dopeopleembracepraiseevenwhentheyfeelunworthy?Areviewofcrit-icaltestsofself-enhancementversusself-verification.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,14:263Ð280.Lampinen,A.,Tamminen,S.,&Oulasvirta,A.2009.Allmypeoplerighthere,rightnow:Managementofgroupco-presencesonasocialnetworkingsite.InGROUPÕ09:Proceedingsofthe2009InternationalACMConferenceonSupportingGroupWork:281Ð290.NewYork:Associ-ationofComputingMachinery.Leary,M.R.,&Kowalski,R.M.1990.Impressionmanage-ment:Aliteraturereviewandtwo-componentframe-work.PsychologicalBulletin,107:34Ð47.Lefkowitz,J.2000.Theroleofinterpersonalaffectiveregardinsupervisoryperformanceratings:Aliteraturereviewandproposedcausalframework.JournalofOccupa-tionalandOrganizationalPsychology,73:67Ð85.Lewicki,R.J.,McAllister,D.J.,&Bies,R.J.1998.Trustanddistrust:Newrelationshipsandrealities.Academyof McLeanHospital.2010.Breakingthephysicianpatient Silentmessages. ceptualizationofpersonality.PsychologicalReview,80:252Ð283.Morrison,E.W.,&Bies,R.J.1991.Impressionmanagementinthefeedback-seekingprocess:Aliteraturereviewandresearchagenda.AcademyofManagementReview,16:522Ð541.Nahapiet,J.,&Ghoshal,S.1998.Socialcapital,intellectualcapital,andtheorganizationaladvantage.AcademyofManagementReview,23:242Ð266.Nelson,R.R.,&Winter,S.G.1982.Organizationalcapabili-tiesandbehavior.InR.R.Nelson&S.G.Winter(Eds.),Anevolutionarytheoryofeconomicchange:96Ð136.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Nippert-Eng,C.E.1995.Homeandwork:Negotiatingbound-ariesthrougheverydaylife.Chicago:UniversityofChi- 34:710Ð732.Podolny,J.M.2005.Statussignals:Asociologicalstudyofmarketcompetition.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Polzer,J.T.,Milton,L.P.,&Swann,W.B.,Jr.2002.Capitalizingondiversity:Interpersonalcongruenceinsmallworkgroups.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,47:296Ð324.Pratt,M.G.,Rockmann,K.W.,&Kaufmann,J.B.2006.Con-structingprofessionalidentity:Theroleofworkandidentitylearningcyclesinthecustomizationofidentityamongmedicalresidents.AcademyofManagementJournal,49:235Ð262.Prestwich,A.,&Lalljee,M.2009.Determinantsandconse- Solove,D.J.2007.Thefutureofreputation:Gossip,rumorandprivacyontheinternet.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Stopfer,J.M.,&Gosling,S.D.2012.Onlinesocialnetworksintheworkcontext.InD.Derks&A.Bakker(Eds.),Thepsychologyofdigitalmediaatwork:39Ð59.London:Psy-chologyPressÐRoutledge.Strater,K.,&Lipford,H.R.2008.Strategiesandstruggleswithprivacyinanonlinesocialnetworkingcommunity.Pa-perpresentedattheBritishHCIGroupAnnualConfer-enceonPeopleandComputers,Swinton,UK.Stutzman,F.,&Hartzog,W.2012.Boundaryregulationinsocialmedia.ProceedingsofACMConferenceonCom-puterSupportedCooperativeWork:769Ð778.Swann,W.B.,Jr.1983.Self-verification:Bringingsocialreal- 34:689Ð709.Tajfel,H.1970.Experimentsinintergroupdiscrimination.ScientificAmerican,223:96Ð102.Tajfel,H.,&Turner,J.C.1986.Thesocialidentitytheoryofintergroupbehavior.InS.Worchel&W.G.Austin(Eds.),Psychologyofintergrouprelations:7Ð24.Chicago:Nel-son-Hall.Taylor,D.A.1968.Thedevelopmentofinterpersonalrela-