Men are from mars, women are from venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 91-98

  Haferkamp, Nina ^a   Eimler, Sabrina C ^b   Papadakis, Anna Margarita ^c   Kruck, Jana Vanessa ^c  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTIVATION; PERCEPTION; SELF CONCEPT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; SELF CONCEPT; SEX FACTORS; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORKING; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856823347     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0151     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Manago AM, Graham MB, Greenfield PM, et al. Selfpresentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2008; 29:446-458.
2. Rao L. (2011) comScore: Facebook keeps gobbling people's time. http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/07/comscore-facebookkeeps-gobbling-peoples-time/ (accessed February 21, 2011).
3. Leggatt H. (2011) comScore: Facebook stretches lead over MySpace. www.bizreport.com/2011/02/comscore-facebookstretches-lead-over-myspace.html (accessed February 21, 2011).
4. Walther JB, Van der Heide B, Kim SY, et al. The role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research 2008; 34:28-49.
5. Herring SC. (2003) Gender and power in online communication. In Holmes J, Meyerhoff M, eds. The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 202-228.
6. Jackson LA, Ervin KS, Gardner PD, et al. Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles 2001; 44:363-379. (Pubitemid 33381774)
7. Bimber B. Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly 2000; 81:868-876.
8. Ebo B, ed. (1998) Cyberghetto or cyertopia? Race, class, and gender on the Internet. London: Praeger.
9. Turkle S. (1995) Life on the screen. Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
10. Katz E, Blumler J, Gurevitch M. (1974) The use of mass communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Banczyk B, Krämer NC, Senokozlieva M. (2008) "The wurst" meets "fatless" in MySpace. The relationship between personality, nationality and self-presentation in an online community. Paper presented at the ICA, May 2008, Montreal, Canada.
12. Jung T, Youn H, McClung S.Motivations and self-presentation strategies on Korean-based "Cyworld" weblog format personal homepages. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10: 24-31. (Pubitemid 46385777)
13. Papacharissi Z. The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal home pages. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2002; 79:643-660. (Pubitemid 36189491)
14. Papacharissi Z. The self online: The utility of personal homepages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 2002; 46:346-368.
15. Papacharissi Z. Democracy on-line: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of on line political discussion groups. New Media & Society 2004; 6:259-284.
16. Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friendnetworking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11:169-174. (Pubitemid 351555927)
17. Krämer N, Winter S. Impression Management 2.0. The relationship of Self-Esteem, Extraversion, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Presentation within Social network sites. Journal of Media Psychology 2008; 20:96-106.
18. Buffardi L, Campbell K. Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008; 34:1303-1314.
19. Walther JB. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 1996; 23:3-43.
20. Bargh JA, McKenna, KYA, Fitzsimons GJ. Can you see the real me? The activation and expression of the 'true self' on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 2002; 58:33-48. (Pubitemid 34268217)
21. Haferkamp N, Krämer NC. (2010) Creating a digital self. Impression management and impression formation on social networking sites. In Drotner K, Schrøder, KC, eds. Digital content creation: Creativity, competence, critique. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 129-146.
22. Ellison NB, Heino RD, Gibbs JL. Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2006; 11:2. http://jcmc.indiana .edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html (accessed July 21, 2007).
23. Dorer J. Gendered Net: Ein Forschungsüberblick über den geschlechtsspezifischen Umgang mit neuen Kommunikationstechnologien (Gendered Net: A Research Overview on the Gender-Specific Usage of New Communication Technology). Rundfunk und Fernsehen 1997; 45:19-29.
24. Hall JA. (2006) Women's and men's nonverbal communication. Similarities, differences, stereotypes and origins. In Manusov V, Patterson M, eds. The sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 201-218.
25. Brody L. Gender and emotion: Beyond stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues 1997; 53:369-394. (Pubitemid 127619075)
26. Caldwell M, Peplau L. Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles 1982; 8:721-732.
27. Busselle R, Reagan J, Pinkleton B, et al. Factors affecting Internet use in a saturated-access population. Telematics and Informatics 1999; 16:45-58. (Pubitemid 30545687)
28. Hargittai E, Shafer S. Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly 2006; 87:432-448. (Pubitemid 43751401)
29. Sattel J. The inexpressive male: Tragedy or sexual politics? Social Problems 1976; 23:468-477.
30. Sveningsson Elm M. (2007) Doing and undoing gender in a Swedish Internet community. In Sveningsson Elm M, Sunde ń J, eds. Cyberfeminism in Northern lights. Gender and digital media in a Nordic context. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 104-129.
31. Tufekci Z. Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2008; 28:20-36.
32. Papacharissi Z, Rubin AM. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2000; 44:175-196.
33. Haferkamp N, Krämer NC. (2009) "When I was your age, Pluto was a planet": Impression management and need to belong as motives for joining groups on social networking sites. Paper presented at the Congress of the International Communication Association, May 2009, Chicago, IL.
34. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Backhaus K, Plinke W, Erichson B. (2006) Multivariate Analysemethoden-Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. [Multivariate methods of analyses-An application-oriented introduction] Berlin: Springer.
36. DolginKG,MinowaN.Gender differences in self-presentation: A comparison of the roles of flatteringness and intimacy in selfdisclosure to friends. Sex Roles 1997; 36:371-380.
37. Williams DG. Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex roles 1985; 12:587-600.
38. Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Heino RD. Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, selfdisclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research 2006; 33:1-26.
39. Feingold A. Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin 1992; 112:125-139.
40. Buss D. (1994) The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
41. Hancock JT, Toma C, Ellison N. (2007) The truth about lying in online dating profiles. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), 2007, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 449-452. (Pubitemid 47581632)