4.7 Article

Why do adolescents untag photos on Facebook?

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 1106-1115

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.017

Keywords

Adolescent; Facebook; Untagging; Regret experience; Management of digital photos

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland, Mind the Gap [1265528, 290038, 277571]
  2. TEKES funded research projects Data to Intelligence (D2I) [21143201]
  3. Mobile Financial Services (MoFS) [211440]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Facebook users practice different strategies for managing their online self-presentation. Among the different available techniques, untagging is the most popular and frequently utilized. However, literature on the subject has not examined the untagging practices among adolescent Facebook users. In addition to this, there is no current knowledge of the differences between adolescent Facebook users who do and do not untag photos. The present study addresses this gap through a cross-sectional survey that involved 380 adolescent Facebook users (aged 12-18 years). The current study examines these differences in terms of adolescents' demographic attributes, digital imaging accessibility, online regret experience and management of digital photos. The study findings suggest that older males, extroverts, and those who perceive online information to be public, have more experience of taking and sharing photos, spend more time taking photos, practice strict protection of photos, demonstrate a negative perception of cloud storage, and rarely keep backups, are likely to untag photos. In addition to this, sociability and time lapse, in terms of realizing regretful experiences, significantly predicted the tendency among adolescents to untag photos. The study concludes by identifying various theoretical and practical implications of these findings. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available