skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2470658acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks

Published: 27 April 2013 Publication History

Abstract

When you share content in an online social network, who is listening? Users have scarce information about who actually sees their content, making their audience seem invisible and difficult to estimate. However, understanding this invisible audience can impact both science and design, since perceived audiences influence content production and self-presentation online. In this paper, we combine survey and large-scale log data to examine how well users' perceptions of their audience match their actual audience on Facebook. We find that social media users consistently underestimate their audience size for their posts, guessing that their audience is just 27% of its true size. Qualitative coding of survey responses reveals folk theories that attempt to reverse-engineer audience size using feedback and friend count, though none of these approaches are particularly accurate. We analyze audience logs for 222,000 Facebook users' posts over the course of one month and find that publicly visible signals --- friend count, likes, and comments --- vary widely and do not strongly indicate the audience of a single post. Despite the variation, users typically reach 61% of their friends each month. Together, our results begin to reveal the invisible undercurrents of audience attention and behavior in online social networks.

References

[1]
A. Acquisti and R. Gross. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies, pages 36--58. Springer, 2006.
[2]
I. Altman. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. ERIC, 1975.
[3]
P. André, M. Bernstein, and K. Luther. Who gives a tweet?: evaluating microblog content value. In Proc. CSCW 2012, 2012.
[4]
L. Backstrom, E. Bakshy, J. Kleinberg, T. Lento, and I. Rosenn. Center of attention: How facebook users allocate attention across friends. In Proc. ICWSM 2011, 2011.
[5]
E. Bakshy, J. Hofman, W. Mason, and D. Watts. Everyone's an in\'02uencer: quantifying influence on twitter. In Proc. WSDM 2011, 2011.
[6]
E. Bakshy, I. Rosenn, C. Marlow, and L. Adamic. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '12, 2012.
[7]
M. Bernstein, A. Marcus, D. Karger, and R. Miller. Enhancing directed content sharing on the web. In Proc. CHI 2010, 2010.
[8]
d. boyd. Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12), 2006.
[9]
d. boyd. Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree, 13(1):1--7, 2007.
[10]
M. Burke, C. Marlow, and T. Lento. Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009.
[11]
K. Caine, L. Kisselburgh, and L. Lareau. Audience visualization influences disclosures in online social networks. In Ext. Abst. CHI 2011, 2011.
[12]
H. Clark and G. Murphy. Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in psychology, 9:287--299, 1982.
[13]
S. Counts and K. Fisher. Taking it all in? visual attention in microblog consumption. Proc. ICWSM 2011, 2011.
[14]
N. Ellison et al. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1):210--230, 2007.
[15]
T. Erickson and W. Kellogg. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM TOCHI, 7(1):59--83, 2000.
[16]
E. Gilbert. Designing social translucence over social networks. In Proc. CHI 2012, 2012.
[17]
E. Goffman. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY, 1959.
[18]
S. Gosling, S. Gaddis, S. Vazire, et al. Personality impressions based on facebook profiles. In Proc. ICWSM 2007, 2007.
[19]
J. Hancock, J. Birnholtz, N. Bazarova, J. Guillory, J. Perlin, and B. Amos. Butler lies: awareness, deception and design. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009.
[20]
B. Hogan. The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6):377--386, 2010.
[21]
P. Killworth, E. Johnsen, H. Bernard, G. Ann Shelley, and C. McCarty. Estimating the size of personal networks. Social Networks, 12(4):289--312, 1990.
[22]
H. Kwak, H. Chun, and S. Moon. Fragile online relationship: a \'01rst look at unfollow dynamics in twitter. In Proc. CHI 2011, 2011.
[23]
C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. A familiar face (book): pro\'01le elements as signals in an online social network. In Proc. CHI 2007, 2007.
[24]
C. Lampe, N. Ellison, and C. Steinfield. Changes in use and perception of facebook. In Proc. CSCW 2008, 2008.
[25]
E. Lieberman and R. Miller. Facemail: showing faces of recipients to prevent misdirected email. In Proc. SOUPS 2007, 2007.
[26]
A. Marwick et al. I tweet honestly, i tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1):114--133, 2011.
[27]
C. McCarty, P. Killworth, H. Bernard, E. Johnsen, and G. Shelley. Comparing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization, 60(1):28--39, 2001.
[28]
R. Metz. Friendster outs voyeurs. Wired, 2005.
[29]
B. Nonnecke and J. Preece. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In Proc. CHI 2000, 2000.
[30]
L. Palen and P. Dourish. Unpacking privacy for a networked world. In Proc. CHI 2003, 2003.
[31]
B. Suh, L. Hong, P. Pirolli, and E. Chi. Want to be retweeted? large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In Proc. SocialCom 2010, 2010.
[32]
J. Y. Tsai, P. Kelley, P. Drielsma, L. F. Cranor, J. Hong, and N. Sadeh. Who's viewed you?: the impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application. In Proc. CHI 2009, 2009.
[33]
Z. Tufekci. Can you see me now? audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1):20--36, 2008.
[34]
Z. Tufekci. Facebook, youth and privacy in networked publics. In Proc. ICWSM 2012, 2012.
[35]
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2):207--232, 1973.
[36]
J. Ugander, B. Karrer, L. Backstrom, and C. Marlow. The anatomy of the facebook social graph. CoRR, abs/1111.4503, 2011.
[37]
F. Viégas. Bloggers' expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 2005.
[38]
F. Viégas and J. Donath. Chat circles. In Proc. CHI 1999, 1999.
[39]
A. Young and A. Quan-Haase. Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: a case study of facebook. In Proc. C&T 2009, 2009.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2013
    3550 pages
    ISBN:9781450318990
    DOI:10.1145/2470654
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 April 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. audience
    2. information distribution
    3. social networks

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHI '13
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 392 of 1,963 submissions, 20%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI 2025
    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)169
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
    Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media