Controversias público-privado en redes sociales y adolescenciaEstudio de encuesta

  1. Ángela González Villa 1
  2. Adriana Gewerc Barujel 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Journal:
Prisma Social: revista de investigación social

ISSN: 1989-3469

Year of publication: 2022

Issue: 39

Pages: 289-310

Type: Article

More publications in: Prisma Social: revista de investigación social

Metrics

SCImago Journal Rank

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2021)
  • Year 2021
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.244
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: Social Sciences (miscellaneous) Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 333/643

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2021)
  • Year 2021
  • Journal Impact: 0.550
  • Field: TRABAJO SOCIAL Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 5/51
  • Field: SOCIOLOGÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 15/73
  • Field: COMUNICACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 15/67

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: B
  • Human Sciences: C

Scopus CiteScore

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2021)
  • Year 2021
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 1.2
  • Area: Social Sciences (all) Percentile: 52

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

(Indicator corresponding to the last year available on this portal, year 2021)
  • Year 2021
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.21
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 168/264

Abstract

Public exposure in digital environments is a common social practice among contemporary teenagers that forges new geographies for traditionally private realities. This study analyzes the perception of the teenagers of Compulsory Secondary Education of Galicia (Spain) about what they consider public or private in social networks, the implications of their participation and the regulations of the platforms. The public-private is visualized as the axis of the controversies that feed the new subjectivities. The exhibition imperative generates capital and social recognition that results in margins of satisfaction strained by modesty or possible digital risks. Through a descriptive-comparative methodology based on an ad hoc questionnaire applied online, the results warn that teenagers with a profile on social networks publish content due to a need for exposure. The composition of the audience and the idealization of the reality to be shown are factors that affect the publication of content. Significant differences in public-private treatment are identified according to the type of participation in these environments. The conclusions highlight the need for a critical training connected with the adolescent reality.

Bibliographic References

  • Adjei, J.K., Adams, S., Mensah, I.K., Tobbin, P.E. y Odei-Appiah, S. (2020). Digital Identity Management on Social Media: Exploring the Factors That Influence Personal Information Disclosure on Social Media. Sustanbility, 12(23), 9994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239994
  • Alemany, J., del Val, E. y Garcia-Fornes, A. (2020). Assessing the Effectiveness of a Gamified Social Network for Applying Privacy Concepts: An Empirical Study with Teens. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 777 - 789. 10.1109/tlt.2020.3026584
  • Arendt, H. (1993). The Human Condition. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Arfuch, L. (2006). Las subjetividades en la era de la imagen: de la responsabilidad de la mirada. En I. Dussel y D. Gutiérrez (Coords.), Educar la mirada: políticas y pedagogías de la imagen (pp. 75-84). Manantial.
  • Balleys, C., Millerand, F., Thoër, C. y Duque, N. (2020). Searching for oneself on YouTube: Teenage peer socialization and social recognition processes. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120909474
  • Barrenengoa, P. D. (2020). Conjeturas sobre la subjetivación digital. Revista de Psicología-Tercera época, 19(1), 120-137. 10.24215/2422572Xe052
  • Bauman, Z. y Lyon, D. (2013). Vigilancia líquida. Paidós.
  • Bobbio, N. (2004). La gran dicotomía: público/privado. Por una teoría general de la política. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. En J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research in Sociology Education (pp.241-258). Greenwood.
  • boyd, D. M. y Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
  • Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy-What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic journal of digital literacy, 10(4), 21-35. 10.18261 / ISSN1891-943X-2006-04-03.
  • Claresta, H. y Tamburian, D. (2021, August). Self-Disclosure of Adolescent Girls on TikTok Social Media. In International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021) (pp. 800-806). Atlantis Press.https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.126
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology.
  • Corral, Y. (2009). Validez y confiabilidad de los instrumentos de investigación para la recolección de datos. Revista de Ciencias de la Educación, 19(33), 228-247. http://servicio.bc.uc.edu.ve/educacion/revista/n33/art12.pdf
  • De la Peña, G. (2001). Público-privado, espacio-territorio: ¿de la dicotomía a la convergencia? Revista de Humanidades: Tecnológico de Monterrey, 10, 95-108. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/384/38401004.pdf
  • Deleuze, G. (2006). Post-scriptum sobre las sociedades de control. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana, (13). https://journals.openedition.org/polis/5509
  • Deleuze, G. y Guattari, F. (2004). Mil mesetas: Capitalismo y esquizofrenia. Pretextos.
  • De Piero, J. L. (2019). ¿Es posible hablar de subjetividades digitales? Revista Electrónica de Psicología Politica, (42), 30-40. https://www.aacademica.org/jose.luis.de.piero/18.pdf?view
  • Del Prete, A. y Redon, S. (2020). Virtual social networks: Spaces of socialization and definition of identity. Psicoperspectivas, 19(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol19-issue1-fulltext1834
  • Dennen, V. y Rutledge, S. (2018). The embedded lesson approach to social media research: Researching online phenomena in an authentic offline setting. TechTrends, 62(5), 483-491. 10.1007/s11528-018-0315-4
  • Duffy, B. y Chan, N. (2019). “You never really know who´s looking”: Imagined surveillance across social media platforms”. New Media and Socety, 1(21), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818791
  • Dumont, L. (1987). Ensayos sobre el individualismo: una perspectiva antropológica sobre la ideología moderna. Alianza.
  • Escobar-Pérez, J. y Cuervo-Martínez. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición, 6, 27-36. http://www.humanas.unal.edu.co/psicometria/files/7113/8574/5708/Articulo3_Juicio_de_expertos_27-36.pdf
  • Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777–795. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197
  • Foucault, M. (1990). Tecnologías del yo y otros textos afines. Paidos Iberica Ediciones SA.
  • Foucault, M. (2002). Vigilar y castigar: Nacimiento de la prisión. Siglo Veintiuno.
  • Fr??il?, C. O. (2021). Motivation of TikTok users. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 4(12), 1640-1644. 10.47191/ijcsrr/V4-i12-04
  • Goffman, E. (1971). La presentación de la persona en la vida cotidiana. Amorroutu.
  • Gray, L. (2018). Exploring how and why young people use social networking sites. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1425829
  • Habermas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press.
  • Hernández-Serrano, M. J., Jones, B., Renés-Arellano, P. y Ortuño, R. A. C. (2022). Analysis of Digital Self-Presentation Practices and Profiles of Spanish Adolescents on Instagram and TikTok. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 11(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2022.1.797
  • Hernández-Serrano, M. J., Renés-Arellano, P., Ortuño, R. A. C. y González-Larrea, B. (2021). Privacy in social networks: analysis of the Spanish teenagers' digital selfrepresentation risks. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (79), 133-154. 10.4185/RLCS-2021-1528
  • Hwang, L. A., Ng, J. W. J. y Vaithilingam, S. (2019). Social capital and subjective well-being: The mediating role of social networking sites. First Monday, 24(10). 10.5210/fm.v24i10.10130
  • Koskela, H. (2018). Exhibitionism as the New Normal: From Presenting to Performing. En B. Doringer y B. Felderer (Eds.), Faceless (pp.249-266). Edition Angewandte. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527704-015
  • Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Manantial.
  • León, L. (2010). Adolescentes y web 2.0: Privacidad y Riesgos. En C.G. Gregorio (Ed.), Datos personales y libertad de expresión en las redes sociales digitales (pp. 21-69). Florencia. Barindelli.https://www.academia.edu/33674283/Adolescentes_y_Web_2_0_privacidad_y_riesgos
  • Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New media & society, 10(3), 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415
  • Livingstone, S., Stoilova, M. y Nandagiri, R. (2019). Children's data and privacy online: growing up in a digital age: an evidence review. London School of Economics and Political Science.
  • Marwick, A. E., Murgia-Diaz, D. y Palfrey, J. G. (2010). Youth, privacy and reputation. Berkman Center.
  • Masur,P.K. y Scharkow, M. (2016). Disclosure Management on Social Network Sites: Individual Privacy Perceptions and User-Directed Privacy Strategies. Social Media + Society, 2(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116634368
  • Miguel, C. (2016). Visual intimacy on social media: From selfies to the co-construction of intimacies through shared pictures. Social Media+Society, 2(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641705
  • Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J. y Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school students. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 362-374.10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x
  • Mizuko, I., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J. y Watkins, C. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. www.dmlhub.net/publications
  • Nissenbaum, H. (2010). In Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. New York University.
  • Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New media & society, 11(2), 199-220. https://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/VirtualGeographiesFacebook.pdf
  • Papalini, V. y Remondino, G. (2008). Cultura masiva y procesos de subjetivación contemporáneos. Oficios terrestres, 21, 154-165. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/45626
  • Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Suny Press.
  • Quinn, K. (2016). Why We Share: A Uses and Gratifications Approach to Privacy Regulation in Social Media Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127245
  • Remondino, G. (2012). Blog y redes sociales: un análisis desde las tecnologías de la gubernamentalidad y el género. Athenea Digital. Revista de pensamiento e investigación social, 12(3), 51-69. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/537/53724611004.pdf
  • Rodríguez-Illera, J.L., Martínez-Olmo, F., Rubio-Hurtado, Mª. J. y Galván-Fernández, C. (2021). Las prácticas de publicación de contenidos de los jóvenes en las redes sociales. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 60, 135-151. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.74025
  • Rodríguez-Groba, A., Martínez-Piñeiro, E. y González-Villa, A. (2021). Lights and shadows in the e-communication of Galician pre-teens. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 16(1), 122-131. 10.1109/RITA.2021.3052675
  • Rose, N. (2003). Identidad, genealogía, historia. En S. Hall y P. Du Gay (Coords.), Cuestiones de identidad cultural (pp. 214-249). Amorrortu.
  • Sánchez, H., Reyes, R. y Mejía, K. (2018). Manual de términos en investigación científica, tecnología y Humanística. Universidad Ricardo Palma.
  • Serrano-Tellería, A. (2017). Between the public and the private in mobile communication. Taylor and Francis.
  • Shane-Simpson, C., Manago, A., Gaggi, N. y Gillespie-Lynch, K. (2018). Why do college students prefer facebook, twitter, or instagram? Site affordances, tensions between privacy and self-expression, and implications for social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 276-288. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.041
  • Sibilia, P. (2008). La intimidad como espectáculo. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Sibilia, P. (2012). El hombre postorgánico: cuerpo, subjetividad y tecnologías digitales. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Skjong, R. y Wentworth, B. (17-22, June 2001). Expert Judgement and risk percepcion. The Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference [Conference presentation]. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Stavanger, Norway. http://research.dnv.com/skj/Papers/SkjWen.pdf
  • Soto-Flechas, L. (2021). Entre juegos de autenticidad, idealización y cuidado de sí en Facebook. Trabajos Sociales, 1(23), 97-127. https://doi.org/10.15446/ts.v23n1.87692
  • Splichal, S. (2018). Publicness–privateness: the liquefaction of “the Great Dichotomy”. Javnost-The Public, 25(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1424004
  • Tarullo, R. (2020). ¿Por qué los y las jóvenes están en las redes sociales? Un análisis de sus motivaciones a partir de la teoría de usos y gratificaciones. Revista Prisma Social, (29), 222-239. https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/3558
  • Thompson, J. B. (2011). Los límites cambiantes de la vida pública y la privada. Comunicación y sociedad, (15), 11-42. https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v0i15.1138
  • Thorhauge, A.M., Demant, J.J. y Krogager, S.G. (2020). Intimacy and visual communication in social media. MedieKultur, 36(67), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i67.118198
  • Urrutia, V. G. y Jiménez-Figueroa, A. (2022). Identidad en la era digital: construcción de perfiles en redes sociales en adolescentes chilenos/as. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 29, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.29101/crcs.v29i0.17430
  • Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T. y Valcke, M. (2014). Educating teens about the risks on social network sites. An intervention study in secondary education. Comunicar, 22(2), 123-131. https://www.scipedia.com/public/Vanderhoven_et_al_2014a
  • Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of social media. Oxford University Press.
  • Van Dijck, J., Poell, T. y De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
  • Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Vanderhoven, E., Haers, J. y Segaert, B. (Eds.). (2016). Youth 2.0: social media and adolescence. Springer.
  • Walsh, M.J. y Baker, S.A. (2017). The selfie and the transformation of the public–private distinction. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1185-1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1220969
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books.