skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2466448acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

"i read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished": a conversational perspective on Twitter regrets

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present the results of an online survey of 1,221 Twitter users, comparing messages individuals regretted either saying during in-person conversations or posting on Twitter. Participants generally reported similar types of regrets in person and on Twitter. In particular, they often regretted messages that were critical of others. However, regretted messages that were cathartic/expressive or revealed too much information were reported at a higher rate for Twitter. Regretted messages on Twitter also reached broader audiences. In addition, we found that participants who posted on Twitter became aware of, and tried to repair, regret more slowly than those reporting in-person regrets. From this comparison of Twitter and in-person regrets, we provide preliminary ideas for tools to help Twitter users avoid and cope with regret.

References

  1. Acquisti, A. Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. IEEE Security & Privacy 7, 6 (Nov./Dec. 2009), 82--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Acquisti, A., and Gross, R. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Springer (2006), 36--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Almuhimedi, H., Wilson, S., Liu, B., Sadeh, N., and Acquisti, A. I wish I hadn't tweeted that! Large-scale quantitative analysis of deleted tweets. In Proc. CSCW 2013, ACM (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Balebako, R., Leon, P., Almuhimedi, H., Kelley, P. G., Mugan, J., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., and Sadeh, N. Nudging users towards privacy on mobile devices. CHIPINC 2011 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosker, B. The Twitter typo that exposed Anthony Weiner, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/anthony-weiner-twitter-dm_n_872590.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jakobsson, M. Experimenting on Mechanical Turk: 5 how tos. http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/07/experimenting-on-mechanical-turk-5-how-tos/, July 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Knapp, M. L., Stafford, L., and Daly, J. A. Regrettable messages: Things people wish they hadn't said. Journal of Communication 36, 4 (1986), 40--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Lampinen, A., Lehtinen, V., Lehmuskallio, A., and Tamminen, S. We're in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In Proc. CHI 2011, ACM (2011), 3217--3226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lampinen, A., Tamminen, S., and Oulasvirta, A. All my people right here, right now: Management of group co-presence on a social networking site. In Proc. GROUP 2009, ACM (2009), 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Lieberman, E., and Miller, R. C. Facemail: Showing faces of recipients to prevent misdirected email. In Proc. SOUPS 2007, ACM (2007), 122--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Liu, H., Lieberman, H., and Selker, T. Automatic affective feedback in an email browser. Tech. rep., MIT Media Laboratory Software Agents Group, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Marwick, A. E., and boyd, d. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13, 1 (Feb. 2011), 114--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., and O'Hair, H. D. The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research 9, 3 (1983), 208--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer, J. R. Regretted messages: Cognitive antecedents and post hoc reflection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30, 4 (2011), 376--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Meyer, J. R., and Rothenberg, K. Repairing regretted messages: Effects of emotional state, relationship type, and seriousness of offense. Communication Research Reports 21, 4 (2004), 348--356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Perlow, J. New in labs: Stop sending mail you later regret, 2008. Official Gmail Blog. http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-in-labs-stop-sending-mail-you-later.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M. S., Zaldivar, A., and Tomlinson, B. Who are the crowdworkers?: Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In Ext. Abstracts CHI 2010, ACM (2010), 2863--2872. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P. G., and Cranor, L. F. "I regretted the minute I pressed share": A qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. In Proc. SOUPS 2011, ACM (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Wisniewski, P., Lipford, H., and Wilson, D. Fighting for my space: Coping mechanisms for SNS boundary regulation. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM (2012), 609--618. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. "i read my Twitter the next morning and was astonished": a conversational perspective on Twitter regrets

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • 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

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate392of1,963submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader