Knock, Knock. Who's There? The Imagined Audience

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 330-345

  Litt, Eden ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866331858     PISSN: 08838151     EISSN: 15506878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.705195     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abercrombie, N. and Longhurst, B. 1998. Audiences: A sociological theory of performance and imagination Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, revised ed. London: Verso.
3. Ang, I. 1991. Desperately seeking the audience New York: Routledge.
4. Baldwin, M. W. and Holmes, J. G. 1987. Salient private audiences and awareness of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6): 1087-1098.
5. Berkenkotter, C. 1981. Understanding a writer's awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32(4): 388-399.
6. Bortree, D. S. 2005. Presentation of self on the web: An ethnographic study of teenage girls' weblogs. Education, Communication & Information, 5(1): 25-39.
7. Boyd, D. 2006. Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12)
8. Boyd, D. 2007. "Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life.". In Youth, identity, and digital media Edited by: Buckingham, D. 119-142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Boyd, D. 2008. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
10. Boyd, D. 2010. "Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications.". In A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites Edited by: Papacharissi, Z. 39-58. New York: Routledge.
11. Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. B. 2007. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 210-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
12. Boyd, D. and Hargittai, E. 2010. Facebook privacy settings: Who cares?. First Monday, 15(8)
13. Boyd, D. and Heer, J. Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39). Kauai, HI.
14. Brake, D. R. 2012. Who do they think they're talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International Journal of Communication, 6: 1056-1076.
15. Cook, E. C. and Teasley, S. D. Beyond promotion and protection: Creators, audiences and common ground in user-generated media. Proceedings of the iConference 2011. Seattle, WA.
16. Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
17. Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. 1964. The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence New York: Wiley.
18. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1992. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6): 469-493.
19. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. 2007. The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4): 1143-1168.
20. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. and Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2004. Experiments in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4): 421-429.
21. Espinosa, P. 1982. The audience in the text: Ethnographic observations of a Hollywood story conference. Media, Culture & Society, 4(1): 77-86.
22. Fenigstein, A. 1979. Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 75-86.
23. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison New York: Pantheon Books.
24. Freud, S. 1922. Group psychology and the analysis of the ego New York: Boni and Liveright.
25. Fridlund, A. J. 1991. Sociality of solitary smiling: Potentiation by an implicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2): 229-240.
26. Gans, H. J. 2004. Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
27. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B. and Heino, R. 2006. Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2): 152-177. doi: 10.1177/0093650205285368
28. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life New York: Doubleday.
30. Gruzd, A., Wellman, B. and Takhteyev, Y. 2011. Imagining twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10): 1294-1318. doi: 10.1177/0002764211409378
31. Hagen, I. 1999. "Slaves of the ratings tyranny? Rethinking the media audience: The new agenda.". In Rethinking the media audience Edited by: Alasuutari, P. 130-150. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Marlow, C. and Rainie, L. 2012. Why most Facebook users get more than they give: Pew Internet and American Life Project
33. Hargittai, E. 2008. "The role of expertise in navigating links of influence.". In The hyperlinked society Edited by: Turow, J. and Tsui, L. 85-103. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
34. Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, cultural and media studies: The key concepts London: Routledge.
35. Hogan, B. 2010. The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6): 377-386. doi: 10.1177/0270467610385893
36. Hogan, R., Jones, W. H. and Cheek, J. M. 1985. "Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo psychology.". In The self and social life Edited by: Schlenker, B. R. 175-198. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37. Ickes, W. 1993. Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61(4): 587-610. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00783.x
38. James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology New York: Holt.
39. Joos, J. G. 2008. Social media: New frontiers in hiring and recruiting. Employment Relations Today, 35(1): 51-59. doi: 10.1002/ert.20188
40. Lavrusik, V. 2010. CNN editor resigns following controversial tweet about Hezbollah leader Retrieved fromhttp://mashable.com/2010/07/08/octavia-nasr-cnn/
41. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. 2010. Social media and young adults: Pew Internet and American Life Project
42. Livingstone, S. 2005. On the relation between audiences and publics: Why audience and public? London LSE Research Online. Retrieved fromhttp://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000437
43. Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. 2007. Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people, and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9: 671-696.
44. Madden, M. and Smith, A. 2010. Reputation management and social media: How people monitor their identity and search for others online Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
45. Marwick, A. E. 2010. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society,: Boyd D. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365313
46. Massanari, A. L. 2010. Designing for imaginary friends: Information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media & Society, 12(3): 401-416. doi: 10.1177/1461444809346722
47. Meyrowitz, J. 1985. No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Naaman, M., Boase, J. and Lai, C. H. Is it really about me?: Message content in social awareness streams. Proceedings of the CSCW'10 Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Savannah, GA.
49. Norman and Donald, A. 2002. The design of everyday things New York: Basic Books.
50. Ong, W. J. 1975. The writer's audience is always a fiction. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 90(1): 9-21.
51. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.
52. Rader, E. The effect of audience design on labeling, organizing, and finding shared files. Proceedings of CHI 2010. Atlanta, GA.
53. Schau, H. J. and Gilly, M. C. 2003. We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3): 385-404.
54. Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
55. Sen, P., Spyridakis, I., Amtmann, S. and Lee, C. P. Using social media for social activism. Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work. Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.
56. Smith, A. 2011. Why Americans use social media: Pew Internet & American Life Project
57. Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): 526-537. doi: 10.1037/h0037039
58. Stern, S. 2008. "Producing sites, exploring identities: Youth online authorship.". In Youth, identity, and digital media Edited by: Buckingham, D. 95-118. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
59. Sternberg, E. 1998. Phantasmagoric labor: The new economics of self-presentation. Futures, 30(1): 3-21. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00003-2
60. Strater, K. and Lipford, H. R. Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction. Swinton, UK.
61. Strohm, P. 1983. Chaucer's audience(s): Fictional, implied, intended, actual. The Chaucer Review, 18(2): 137-145.
62. The Huffington Post. 2009. "Nathalie Blanchard loses health benefits over Facebook photo.". In The Huffington Post Retrieved fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/nathalie-blanchard-loses-_n_366777.html
63. Walther, J. B. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23: 3-43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001
64. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D. and Tom Tong, S. 2008. The role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep?. Human Communication Research, 34: 18-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x
65. Webster, J. G. 2011. The duality of media: A structurational theory of public attention. Communication Theory, 21(1): 43-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01375.
66. Webster, J. G. and Phalen, P. 1997. The mass audience: Rediscovering the dominant model Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67. Wohn, D. Y., Lampe, C., Vitak, J. and Ellison, N. B. Coordinating the ordinary: Social information uses of Facebook by adults. Proceedings of presented at the iConference. Seattle, WA.
68. Wohn, D. Y., Lampe, C., Wash, R. W., Ellison, N. and Vitak, J. The "S" in social network games: Initiating, maintaining, and enhancing relationships. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HI.