This study explores how norms on social network sites evolve over time and how violations of these norms impact individuals’ self-presentational and relationship goals. Employing Expectancy Violations Theory (Burgoon, 1978) as a guiding framework, results from a series of focus groups suggest that both the content of the violation and the users’ relationship to the violator impact how individuals react to negative violations. Specifically, acquaintances who engage in minor negative violations are ignored or hidden, while larger infractions (that could negatively impact the individual) result in deletion of the offending content and – in extreme cases – termination of the Facebook friendship. Negative violations from close friends (that did not impact participants’ goals) resulted in confrontations, while similar violations from acquaintances were often ignored by participants in an effort to ‘keep the peace.’ Furthermore, positive violations were more likely to arise from acquaintances than close friends.
BachmanGFGuerreroLK (2006) Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships23(6): 943–963.
2.
BarnesSB (2006) A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday11(9).
3.
BaymNK (1998) The emergence of on-line community. In: JonesSG (ed.) Cybersociety 2.0. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 35–68.
4.
boydd (2006) Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday11(12).
5.
boydd (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: BuckinghamD (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–142.
6.
BurgoonJ (1978) A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research4(2): 129–142.
7.
BurgoonJ (1993) Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology12(1–2): 30–48.
8.
BurgoonJKHaleJL (1988) Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and explication to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs55(1): 58–79.
9.
BurgoonJKLePoireBA (1993) Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research20(1): 67–96.
10.
BurgoonJKWaltherJBBaeslerEJ (1992) Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research19(2): 237–263.
11.
BurkeMMarlowCLentoT (2009) Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 945–954.
12.
BurnettG (2009) Colliding norms, community, and the place of online information: The case of archive.org. Library Trends57(4): 694–710.
13.
BurnettGBonniciL (2003) Beyond the FAQ: Explicit and implicit norms in Usenet newsgroups. Library and Information Science Research25(3): 333–351.
14.
CotterCWanzerMB (2008) Facebook norms and expectancy violations. Paper presented at National Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA, November.
15.
DiMiccoJMMillenDR (2007) Identity management: Multiple presentations of self in Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. Sanibel Island, FL: ACM, 383–386.
16.
DonathJSboydd (2004) Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal22(4): 71–82.
17.
DwyerCHiltzSRPasseriniK (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Keystone, CO: AIS.
18.
FioreATDonathJS (2004) Online personals: An overview. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1395–1398.
19.
FloydKVoloudakisM (1999) Affectionate behavior in adult platonic friendships: Interpreting and evaluating expectancy violations. Human Communication Research25(3): 341–369.
HomansGC (1950) The Human Group. New York: Harpers.
22.
HoneycuttJM (1991) The role of nonverbal behaviors in modifying expectancies during initial encounters. Southern Communication Journal56(3): 161–177.
23.
KemperTD (1968) Reference groups, socialization and achievement. American Sociological Review33(1): 31–45.
24.
KoermerCDPetelleJL (1991) Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction. Communication Quarterly39(4): 341–350.
25.
KruegerRACaseyMA (2008) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research(3rd edn) edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
LampeCEllisonNBSteinfeldC (2008) Changes in use and perception of Facebook. In:Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM, 721–730.
LannuttiPJCameroMO (2007) Women’s perceptions of flirtatious nonverbal behavior: The effects of alcohol consumption and physical attractiveness. Southern Communication Journal72(1): 21–35.
29.
LenhartAPurcellKSmithAZickhurK (2010) Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.
30.
LePoireBABurgoonJK (1994) Two contrasting explanations of involvement violations: Expectancy violations theory versus discrepancy arousal theory. Human Communication Research20(4): 560–591.
31.
MarteyRMStromer-GalleyJ (2007) The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games and Culture2(4): 314–334.
32.
MarwickAEboydd (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/146144481036531310.1177/1461444810365313.
33.
PempekTAYermolayevaYACalvertSL (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology30(3): 227–238.
34.
PostmesTSpearsRLeaM (2000) The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research26(3): 341–371.
35.
PreeceJ (2004) Etiquette online: From nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM47(4): 56–61.
36.
RamirezAJrWangZ (2008) When online meets offline: An expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication58(1): 20–39.
RycynaCCChampionCDKellyAE (2009) First impressions after various types of deception: Less favorable following expectancy violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology31(1): 40–48.
39.
SalamR (2007) The Facebook commandments: How to deal with unwanted friend requests, the ethics of de-friending, and other social networking etiquette predicaments. Slate, 25September. Available at: http://www.slate.com/id/2174439/ (consulted 1 December 2010).
40.
SherifM (1936) The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper.
41.
SherifMSherifCW (1964) Reference Groups. New York: Harper and Row.
42.
StranoM (2008) User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace2(2).
43.
TomaCLHancockJTEllisonNB (2008) Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34(8): 1023–1036.
44.
TongSTVan Der HeideBLangwellLWaltherJB (2008) Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication13(3): 531–549.
45.
WaltherJBSlovacekCTidwellLC (2001) Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research28(1): 105–134.
