Essay on boxing match
yamackocovali
LaurenReichartSmithandJimmySandersonImGoingtoInstagramItAnAnalysisofAthleteSelfPresentationonInstagram.pdf
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hbem20
Download by: [Boston University] Date: 30 August 2017, At: 10:58
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
ISSN: 0883-8151 (Print) 1550-6878 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbem20
I'm Going to Instagram It! An Analysis of Athlete Self-Presentation on Instagram
Lauren Reichart Smith & Jimmy Sanderson
To cite this article: Lauren Reichart Smith & Jimmy Sanderson (2015) I'm Going to Instagram It! An Analysis of Athlete Self-Presentation on Instagram, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59:2, 342-358, DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125
Published online: 28 May 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4581
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles
I’m Going to Instagram It! An Analysis of Athlete Self-Presentation on Instagram
Lauren Reichart Smith and Jimmy Sanderson
Using Goffman’s notions of self-presentation and gender displays, the follow-
ing study examines the Instagram feeds of 27 professional athletes to determine
how athletes are using the visual social media site for self-presentation. A
mixed methods approach examined the photographs and captions to deter-
mine what behaviors and themes emerged. Through content analysis, the
self-presentation styles of athletes of both genders, as well as the main differ-
ences between them were examined, and significant differences emerged that
confirmed the previously established gender norms. Through textual analysis,
findings with respect to captions align with previous research on athlete self-
presentation on social media. Theoretical and practical implications, as well
as directions for future research are discussed.
Social media have become quite popular in the sports world (Hutchins, 2011;
Sanderson, 2011). As social media are ‘‘architected by design to readily support
participation, peer-to-peer conversation, collaboration, and community’’ (Meraz,
2009, p. 682), it is not surprising that these tools have become heavily integrated into
many aspects of sport amongst multiple sport stakeholders. For example, fans use
Twitter hashtags to express identity when discussing sports (Reichart Smith & Smith,
2012) and Twitter also has become a vehicle for fans to direct hateful and abusive
messages towards athletes (Kassing & Sanderson, 2015). Sports teams employ social
media to enhance marketing and customer service activities (Pronschinske, Groza,
& Walker, 2012; Walsh, Clavio, Lovell, & Blaszka, 2013) and managerial personnel
are now faced with monitoring athletes’ social media usage (Sanderson, 2011;
Sanderson & Browning, 2013). For sports reporters and journalists, social media
has created questions about professionalism and standards (e.g., does a tweet from
an athlete need to be verified?) (Reed, 2013; Sanderson & Hambrick, 2012) and the
instantaneous nature of Twitter in particular has accelerated sports media processes
(Hambrick & Sanderson, 2013; Hutchins, 2011).
Lauren Reichart Smith (Ph.D., University of Alabama) is an assistant professor and the associate director of public relations at Auburn University. Her research encapsulates both mass media and social media and includes issues of identity and enjoyment effects within sport.
Jimmy Sanderson (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Clemson University. His research explores the influence of social media in sports with a focus on sports media, organizations, identity, and social/parasocial interaction.
© 2015 Broadcast Education Association Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59(2), 2015, pp. 342–358 DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125 ISSN: 0883-8151 print/1550-6878 online
342
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 343
However, athletes are arguably the one sport stakeholder group who has been
most significantly affected by social media (Browning & Sanderson, 2012; Sanderson
& Kassing, 2011). Using these platforms, athletes take a more active part in their
public presentation (Lebel & Danylchuk, 2012; Sanderson, 2008) and share more
aspects of their identity than is typically portrayed in mainstream media coverage
(Sanderson, 2013, 2014). This capability enables athletes to counteract how they
are being portrayed in the mass media (Sanderson, 2008, 2011) and to disclose
information that prompts identification and potentially parasocial interaction with
fans (Sanderson, 2013). It is this particular process—self-presentation—that is the
focus of the current research.
Although athletes expressing more of their personality via social media can be
liberating, it also may foster particular judgments and negative consequences. For
instance, it was widely believed that Major League Baseball (MLB) player Logan
Morrison was demoted by the Florida Marlins to the minor leagues in 2011 because
of his Twitter activity (Brown, 2011). In another story, National Football League
(NFL) player DeSean Jackson’s release from the Philadelphia Eagles was speculated
to have resulted from his alleged affiliation with gang members and some reporters
used Jackson’s Instagram content to suggest this hypothesis was correct (Shorr-
Parks & Perez, 2014). Previous research on self-presentation and social media has
centered on more text-based mediums such as blogs (Sanderson, 2008) and Twitter
(Lebel & Danylchuk, 2012; Weathers et al., 2014). However, visual platforms such
as Instagram and Snapchat are becoming increasingly popular, with some industry
analysts positing that Instagram is the fastest growing social media platform (Lun-
den, 2014). Thus, we selected Instagram as the site for this research, to determine
how athletes engaged in self-presentation through a visual platform, and how self-
presentation differed by gender.
Literature Review
Self-Presentation
Self-presentation traces back to Erving Goffman’s (1959) seminal piece, The Pre-
sentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman posited that people functioned as per-
formers, expressing their identity through verbal and non-verbal messages with a
goal to display the most credible image to audiences (others). Self-presentation tends
to be goal-driven (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), thus, as individuals consider how to
self-present, they balance both individual goals and the ‘‘self’’ that they perceive
the audience desires (Bortree, 2005). Goffman (1974) considered self-presentation
to consist of both frontstage and backstage performances. With frontstage perfor-
mances, one is typically very guarded and cautious of the ‘‘self’’ that they are
presenting, whereas with backstage performances, one is generally less scripted and
perhaps less filtered with the ‘‘self’’ that is presented. Goffman (1959) noted that
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
344 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
one’s self-presentation is a continual process of complex negotiation between these
two positions, each of which may contain a multitude of presentation strategies that
a person seeks to manage through a revolving process of interpreting audiences,
goals, and contexts.
Traditionally, self-presentation unfolded in face-to-face interaction that, at some
levels, placed finite bounds on a person’s self-presentation. For example, a person
could introduce him/herself as physically fit; yet his/her physical appearance may
cause audience members to be skeptical of that claim. However, with the advent
of the internet and online communication, people were afforded more control over
their self-presentation, with the ability to engage in impression management virtu-
ally, without an audience being physically present to counteract self-presentation
claims. Thus, whereas a person does have control over their self-presentation in
offline environments, scholars have argued that this capability is greater in online
venues (Caplan, 2005; Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Papacharissi, 2002). Indeed,
while a person can attempt to highlight certain self-presentation aspects via face-to-
face interaction, the configuration processes afforded by online sites offer people a
greater degree of customization in this respect. Accordingly, Kim and Papacharissi
(2003) noted that online sites allow people to emphasize salient identities that
perhaps are not appropriate or desirable to display in face-to-face contexts.
In early self-presentation research via computer-mediated forums, scholars ex-
plored dating sites (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006; Gibbs et al., 2006; Toma & Han-
cock, 2010) and online community groups (Lampel & Bhalla, 2007; Schwammelin
& Wodzicki, 2012). With the growth in social media, self-presentation capabilities
have only been enhanced (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Van Der Heide, D’Angelo,
& Schumaker, 2012; Vitak, 2012). Indeed, boyd and Ellison (2007) posited that
social networking sites ‘‘constitute an important research context for scholars in-
vestigating processes of impression management, self-presentation, and friendship
performance’’ (p. 210).
One strand of computer-mediated self-presentation research that has garnered
attention from scholars centers on gender. For instance, Trammell and Keshelashvili
(2005) discovered that men were more likely to maintain filter blogs (information
related to events external to the author), while women were more inclined to
run diary blogs (sharing commentary on one’s life). Lebel and Danylchuk (2012)
explored male and female professional tennis players’ self-presentation on Twitter
and found that males used Twitter to self-present as sports fans, whereas females
self-presented as brand managers. Given that there are opportunities to control
more of one’s self-presentation, it seems natural that one could self-present outside
traditional gender norms. This is of particular salience in sport, where gender norms,
particularly for women, tend to be rigid. One study (Weathers et al., 2014) compared
self-presentation between sports broadcasts personalities Erin Andrews and Kirk
Herbstreit and found that Andrews self-presented along traditional gender lines,
perhaps missing an opportunity to self-present as more of a sports expert.
Much of the self-presentation literature is focused on interpersonal contexts such
as dating and friendship. Goffman (1979) observed the content of gender displays
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 345
distinguishes the social-structural classes in advertising. This practice disadvanta-
geously organizes the woman as subordinate to the male in magazine advertising.
He defined the term gender display (p. 1) as the conventionalized portrayal of ‘‘the
culturally established correlates of sex (whether in consequence of biology or learn-
ing).’’ Goffman (1979) defined five original gender displays: relative size, feminine
touch, function ranking, ritualization of subordination, and licensed withdrawal. All
five displays serve to frame the female in a subordinate and submissive manner.
Research that has focused on Goffman’s (1979) notions of gender displays has
focused primarily on print advertisements (e.g., Kang, 1997; Lidner, 2004). This
work has been significant in building a corpus of literature, however, little work
has been done outside of this context, particularly with celebrity groups such as
athletes. In one study, Kim and Sagas (2014) utilized the notions of gender displays
to compare the self-presentation of athletes and celebrities, finding few differences
in the sexualized portrayals between the two groups.
With the advent of social media, athletes are now endowed with the capabil-
ity to take more control over their self-presentation and express aspects of their
identity that they perceive to be most salient. This opens up avenues for fans that
are generally not seen in traditional mainstream media coverage and yet, these
expressions may run counter to what organizational personnel would prefer (e.g.,
political identity). Thus, examining athlete self-presentation, particularly as social
media evolves into more visual content, is warranted and provides the rationale for
our investigation of this construct on Instagram.
Athletes and Self-Presentation
Athletes rely a great deal on their public image. Indeed, how the public perceives
an athlete can play a significant role in his/her ability to obtain endorsements
and in leveraging sports teams when seeking to re-negotiate contracts. In the era
of traditional media, athletes could attempt self-presentation strategies, but these
efforts were checked and subjugated by the press. Athletes’ public perceptions,
then, were largely dictated by how sports reporters covered them. For example, an
athlete seeking to re-negotiate his/her contract could be the most loyal teammate
on the roster, but if media accounts framed her/him as ‘‘selfish’’ and ‘‘greedy’’
these perceptions were likely to shape how fans viewed the athlete. Bishop (2005)
chronicled press coverage of Seattle Seahawks wide receiver Joey Galloway as he
held out for a new contract prior to the 1999 NFL season. He discovered that
the media accounts framed him a selfish player for whom individual, rather than
collective goals were paramount. While this may have been the case, Galloway had
little ability to counter these projections, as most of his public statements would have
been filtered through the press.
The advent of the Internet generally, and social media more specifically has, in
sports parlance, become a game changer (Sanderson, 2011). Athletes can exert
more control over their self-presentation and disseminate these identity aspects
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
346 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
directly to fans. For instance, Sanderson (2008) profiled Boston Red Sox pitcher
Curt Schilling’s self-presentation on his blog after Schilling was accused of faking an
athletic injury and for criticizing fellow player Barry Bonds. His analysis discovered
that Schilling used his blog to self-present as a: (a) critic; (b) committed individual;
and (c) accountable person. Sanderson contended that Schilling’s blog enabled him
to traverse between these different self-presentations quickly and conveniently as
multiple incidents were occurring. Additionally, his analysis also uncovered that
blog readers overwhelmingly supported Schilling’s self-presentation strategies as
people commended Schilling for taking the offensive against media critics and
owning his missteps.
In other work, Sanderson (2013) explored how rookie athletes in the MLB, Na-
tional Basketball Association (NBA), NFL, and National Hockey League (NHL) used
Twitter to build identity upon entering the professional ranks. He discovered that
these athletes used Twitter to display a multi-faceted self that extended well beyond
the playing surface. Whereas these athletes did tweet about their training regiments,
they also tweeted about their popular culture preferences, requested fans to assist
them with questions (e.g., asking for restaurant recommendations) and shared stories
about their daily life experiences. Sanderson (2014) also investigated how MLB
player Logan Morrison used Twitter to self-present, and found that Morrison pro-
jected a very self-deprecating and sarcastic personality, which may have accounted
for his popularity on Twitter (Morrison has over 120,000 followers) as well as the
Florida Marlins (Morrison’s team at the time) management apparent disdain with
his Twitter activity. This dialectic is an important consideration in athlete self-
presentation, in that as athletes take more control over how they self-present, these
choices may run counter to the preference of team management and lead to conflict
between coaches/executives and athletes.
In terms of gender and athletes computer-mediated self-presentation, Lebel and
Danylchuck (2012) explored professional tennis players’ self-presentation on Twit-
ter. They discovered that players were more focused on back-stage presentation, but
that male tennis players focused more on sports fandom, whereas female tennis play-
ers focused more on brand management. They suggested that this finding reflected
gender norms, as females are socialized and nurtured to be thought conscious,
prompting this approach to self-presentation. Weathers et al. (2014) found similar
results in a study of sports broadcasters Erin Andrews and Kirk Herbstreit, as both
broadcasters self-presented along traditional gender lines. More specifically, the
bulk of Andrews’ self-presentation centered on fashion and entertainment, while
Herbstreit’s focused primarily on sports information and expert opinion.
Whereas this work has been important in broadening the literature on self-presen-
tation, particularly in the context of sport, it is important that the literature not remain
static. That is, as social media platforms evolve, it is plausible that athletes’ self-
presentation will as well, particularly as formats shift from text-based to visual-based
structures. Additionally, we still know very little about athletes’ self-presentation
across the sports landscape. Indeed, most of the prior work has covered mainstream
North American sports or mainstream professional sports, and while this work has
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 347
been beneficial, there is much more to the story. In that vein, we explored athletes’
self-presentation on Instagram across a variety of sports to gain more insight into
how this practice differed both across sports and between genders of athletes who
play the same sport. To guide analysis, the following research questions were posed:
RQ1: How were Goffman’s gender displays shown through Instagram photos by
athletes as a form of self-presentation?
RQ2: What were the differences between the gender displays in the self-presenta-
tion behaviors of the athletes?
RQ3: What themes emerged from the captions used by the athletes in their
Instagram photos?
Method
A mixed methods approach was utilized for this study. First, a content analysis
analyzed both the visual self-presentation styles of athletes of both genders, as
well as the main differences between them. Content analysis is an unobtrusive
and nonreactive method commonly used by social researchers and applied to all
types of media content (Krippendorff, 2004). A content analysis was selected for
the analysis of the photographs based on the premise that a picture is worth a
thousand words, and a photograph tells a story. The main draw of Instagram is the
photograph. Examining the gender displays of the athletes through Goffman’s lens
allows for a measurable examination of impression management.
The researchers believed that limiting the study to one methodology would ul-
timately result in the loss of significant findings. While a content analysis will
determine how many times a particular word, descriptor phrase, or photograph
was used, it will not provide additional information beyond the number of times
those items occurred. Additionally, the coding scheme for visual imagery cannot be
applied to verbal text. Thus, the researchers employed a textual analysis to discover
themes and patterns that emerged from the use of captions by athletes on their
Instagram photos. This enabled the researchers to also capture how the athletes
were enacting self-presentation through their text as well as their photographs.
Sampling
In selecting photos for analysis, the researchers chose to select sports that lent
themselves to direct comparisons. Thus, football was left out of the analysis because
while there is a women’s football league, many people do not know that the league
exists. The sports selected were basketball, soccer, tennis, track, golf, swimming,
baseball, and softball.
The researchers decided to select two athletes from each of the above selected
sports; two male and two female. Without an established framework for selection
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
348 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
criteria, the researchers collected as many athlete Instagram feeds as they could
find. Athletes for the analysis were selected based on popularity/name recognition
within their sport, their activity level on Instagram, and the number of Instagram
followers they had. All sports except for tennis were able to be represented by four
athletes; the researchers could not find a second male tennis player who fit the
above criteria to analyze.
Data Collection
Researchers selected the date of March 8, 2014 and working backward from that
date collected the 50 most recent photographs from each athlete’s Instagram ac-
count. Photographs and captions were analyzed separately using separate schemes
and analyses. The reason for analyzing the elements separately attributes to the
two not always being correlated. To code both together incorrectly assumes an
automatic relatedness. A witty caption could have nothing to do with the action
in the photograph. While the captions may refer to the photograph or the action
in the photograph the majority of the time, at times a caption will have nothing to
do with the photograph. Separate analysis of the two elements allows for full and
independent analysis. Any video, graphic, or text/meme was discarded from the
analysis. A total of 1,352 photographs were analyzed.
Coding Procedures
Coding procedures were utilized only for the photographs. The unit of analysis
was the photograph. Using a coding scheme adapted from Goffman (1979), Hatton
and Trautner (2011), and Kim and Sagas (2014), each photograph was coded for
the following 18 items: athlete name, sport (basketball, soccer, tennis, track, golf,
swimming, baseball/softball), focus of the photo (athlete, nonathlete/family mem-
ber/friend, scenery), number of people in the photo (solo of athlete, group, other),
athlete gender (male, female), race of athlete (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, other),
nationality (American, non-American), Active/Passive (active in sport, passive in
sport, active non-sport, passive non-sport), clothing (unrevealing, slightly revealing,
revealing, bathing suit/lingerie, naked), pose (upright/active, suggestive, overtly sex-
ual), breast (not a focal point, somewhat emphasized, major focus) genitals/buttocks
(not a focal point, somewhat emphasized, major focus), touch (no touching, casual
touch, provocative touch), size (larger than life, normal, further from view), with-
drawal (no suggestion of sexual activity, somewhat suggestive of sex, explicitly
sexual), stance (normal, posed knee/body arched, sitting/lying on floor), instruction
(exhibiting, not exhibiting), type of shot (selfie, head shot, half body, full body).
One coder coded the entire sample. Using Cronbach’s alpha formula, a second
coder separately coded approximately 30% of the sample for intercoder reliability.
Reliabilities were determined for the following variables: (a) name (˛ D 1.0), (b) sport
(˛ D 1.0), (c) focus (˛ D .92), (d) number (˛ D 1.0), (e) gender (˛ D 1.0), (f ) race
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 349
(˛ D 1.0), (g) nationality (˛ D 1.0), (h) active (˛ D .81), (i) clothing (˛ D .86), (j) pose
(˛ D .90), (k) breast (˛ D .84), (l) buttocks (˛ D .97), (m) touch (˛ D .74), (n) size
(˛ D .89), (o) withdrawal (˛ D .68), (p) stance (˛ D .88), (q) instruction (˛ D .94),
(r) type (˛ D .86). Overall intercoder reliability was deemed to be good at ˛ D .83
when combining all categories.
For the captions, a grounded theory approach using constant comparative method-
ology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was employed to answer the third research question.
We elected to utilize this approach for several reasons. First, whereas there are
established coding guides for visual content, we felt that the descriptive nature
of the captions would make them too fluid and diverse to rely on pre-existing
schemes. Second, while there is not much variation in the variables of a picture (e.g.,
male/female) with descriptive captions, the verbiage is not necessarily guaranteed
to reflect the visual image. For example, an athlete could post a picture slam-
dunking a basketball with caption, ‘‘Knock out cancer’’ which is more reflective of
the athlete’s advocacy and charitable passions, rather than his/her athletic identity.
In sum, we believed that the pre-established coding procedures for visual content
were sufficient for the visual content, while we needed to take a more a reflexive
and interpretive approach with the captions. Each caption served as the unit of
analysis. First, each author independently immersed themselves in the data through
an initial active reading of the captions. Braun and Clarke (2006) note that this type
of reading involves researchers searching for meanings and patterns, rather than just
casually reading through the data. This approach allows identification of possible
patterns to emerge and be shaped. This process also involves making notes about
what is interesting in the data and producing initial categories. Braun and Clarke
(2006) observed that this process can be driven by data or theory and we took
a data-driven approach, allowing categories to emerge as data analysis unfolded
rather than a priori (Kassing & Sanderson, 2009).
The researchers developed themes by micro-analyzing and classifying captions
into emergent categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) based on the way self-presentation
was occurring. This analysis was exploratory in nature, and not meant to be discrete,
thus we allowed for more than one self-presentation category to be present in a
single caption. Development, clarification, and refinement of categories continued
until new observations did not add substantively to existing categories. This allowed
the authors to gain insight into the usefulness of the developed thematic categories
(Suter, Bergen, Daas, & Durham, 2006).
Results
Descriptives
As noted above, the sample yielded 1,352 photographs and captions. The break-
down for photographs is as follows: 202 came from basketball, 200 from soccer,
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
350 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
151 from tennis, 199 from track, and 200 each from golf, swimming, and baseball/
softball. Each sport, with the exception of tennis, represented approximately 15% of
the sample. Tennis represented 11% of the total sample. When looking at the subject
of the photo, 989 of the total photographs were of the athlete (73%), 93 were of a
family member/friend/significant other (7%), and the remaining 20% (270 photos)
were of scenery or food. In the number of people in the photo, the majority of photos
were group photos (39%) with 520 of the total amount of photos being the athlete
with some other person or group of people. Slightly behind (479 photos) was the
athlete alone (35%), and scenery/food photos (353) made up the remaining 26%.
In order to get an accurate representation of the self-presentation of the athletes,
the researchers removed all photographs of scenery/food/other objects from the
analysis. This left 1,063 photographs that featured either the athlete or another
person. For the subject, 986 of the photos featured the athlete (93%), with the
remaining 7% (77) being a non-athlete. When looking at who was in the photo, 45%
of the photos were of the athlete alone (477), 48% were a group photo including the
athlete (515), and the remaining 7% were designated as other individuals (71). Forty-
seven percent of the photographs were of males and 53% were of females. Forty-six
percent of the subjects were White, 45% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. Sixty-
nine percent were American, and 31% were of a non-American nationality.
RQ1 asked how athletes used the photographs on their Instagram as a form of self-
presentation. To answer this question, the researchers examined the sample of 1063
photographs that did not include scenery/food/other objects. For the 11 categories
that examined self-presentation through Goffman’s scheme, the following revealed
the majority result in each category: 77% of the photographs were found to be
passive, not in sport, 77% were found to feature athletes in non-revealing clothing,
94% of photos featured the athletes in an upright or active pose, 94% of the photos
were not found to emphasize the chest area, 99% showed no emphasis on the butt
area, 51% showed the athlete casually touching either an object or another person,
92% framed the athlete in a normal size, 95% of photographs showed no suggestion
of sex, 98% of photographs framed athletes in a normal stance, 99% did not show
the athletes taking instruction of any kind, and 45% of photographs showed the
athlete’s entire body.
RQ2 asked what the major differences were in the gender displays of the self-
presentation behaviors between the genders. Though there was no significant dif-
ference found in the number of photographs between the two genders (x2 D 2.641,
(df ) D 1, p > .05), several significant findings emerged from the different cate-
gories—active, clothing, pose, breast, touch, size, and withdrawal.
In the active category, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference
(F (3,1059) D 4.535, p D .004). Females accounted for 60% of the active, in sport
photographs, while males accounted for 62% of the passive in-sport photographs.
Bonferroni post-hoc tests found significant differences between active in sport and
passive in sport (M D .126, SD D .069) with males having more photos, and passive
in sport and passive in non-sport (M D .159, SD D .048), with females having
significantly more photos.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 351
For clothing, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference (F (3,1059) D
26.050, p < .001). Females had significantly more unrevealing and slightly revealing
photos than males (68% and 24%, respectively) but both genders were equal in the
amount of revealing and swimsuit photos. Bonferroni post-hoc tests found significant
differences between unrevealing clothing and slightly revealing clothing (M D .366,
SD D .042), with females having significantly more of each. For pose, a one-
way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the genders (F (3,1059) D
2.821, p D .038). The majority of photographs in this category were equal in the
upright/active category, which a 48:52 male: female split between the genders. The
significant difference came in the suggestive/inviting category, where females had
double the amount of suggestive photographs (6%) of males (3%).
For breast, a significant finding was found through one-way ANOVA, (F (3,1059) D
3.820, p D .010). Females had significantly more photographs that somewhat em-
phasized their breasts. A difference was found between somewhat emphasized
and focal point (M D .388, SD D .140) through Bonferroni post-hoc tests; in this
finding, however, it was males who had significantly more photographs with their
chest as a focal point. For touch, one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference
(F (3,1059) D 22.927, p < .001), with Bonferroni post-hoc testing finding differences
between no touch and casual touching (M D .199, SD D .030). Males were found
less likely to be touching something, and females more likely to be engaged the
casual touch of another person or an object.
A significant difference was found by one-way ANOVA in the category of size
(F (3,1059) D 4.216, p D .015). Bonferroni post-hoc testing found a difference
between the larger than life and small categories (M D .398, SD D .139), and the
small and normal categories (M D .346, SD D .125), with females having the greater
amount of small photographs. The final significant finding was for withdrawal,
(F (3,1059) D 4.595, p D .010), with Bonferroni post-hoc testing finding a difference
between no suggestion of sex and somewhat sexual (M D .188, SD D .074).
Here again, females had the greater number of photographs that were somewhat
sexual.
RQ3 examined the captions used by the athletes with their Instagram photos. After
analysis, six prominent themes emerged from the captions. The themes were used
fairly equally between the genders; no theme emerged as being used predominantly
by one gender over the other. The first theme was termed ‘‘Humanitarian’’ and could
be seen in the form of doing charitable work or advocacy. The second prominent
theme that emerged was ‘‘Family Driven.’’ This theme was when an athlete shared
family moments or glimpses in to their home life—Christmas, birthdays, holiday
traditions, or weekend activities. The third theme was deemed to be ‘‘Personality
Traits and Interests,’’ and involved the athlete giving a glimpse in to their non-athlete
side; them being funny, being snarky, making a joke, or showing humility in some
form. The fourth theme that emerged was ‘‘Dedicated Athlete,’’ which involved the
athletes sharing their workout regiments, training, or practice routines. Theme five
was ‘‘Endorser,’’ and was where the athlete pitched a sponsor of theirs in some
way (#nike, #lovegatorade). The final theme that emerged from the analysis was
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
352 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
‘‘Socialite,’’ and mainly showcased the athletes at events such as galas, parties, or
high profile events. Each of these themes is discussed, with examples drawn from
the data. Exemplars were taken exactly as the appeared in the data, spelling and
grammatical errors were left intact.
Humanitarian.
Athletes were very civic-minded and utilized Instagram to promote their charitable
work and community advocacy. Elena Delle Donne commented, ‘‘I had a great time
playing in the @NBACares Unified Sports Game on Sunday;’’ and Allyson Felix
noted, ‘‘Loved being with my fellow athletes & @BillClinton discussing why it is so
important to be active. A topic I’m very passionate about #kids and sports.’’
Family Driven.
Many of the athletes shared events with family members and emphasized how
much they cherished these times and relationships. Ryan Lochte posted, ‘‘Me and
my two nephews making our ginger bread house. #familytradition #jeah #messy
#cleanup #unconditionallove’’ and Mo Farah commented, ‘‘It’s been close to 4 weeks
now and I miss my 3 girls : : : !!! Daddy is working hard : : : !!! #onemile #family
#mobot.’’
Personality Traits and Interests. Athletes also expressed personality characteristics
in their posts, which enabled audiences to see them in ways not typically depicted in
mainstream media coverage. For instance, Megan Rapinoe humorously commented
about another person, ‘‘Instagram is too easy in Europe. #Sheanoldlady’’ and Usain
Bolt observed, ‘‘That kind of day : : : chill at the pool reflecting on my journey thus
far and being thankful for my blessings : : : #blessed #grateful #humbled #peaceof-
mind #thankful.’’ Athletes also shared their fandom of other sports such as this post
by Ricardo Koka, ‘‘Are u ready? #SuperBowl #Seahawks vs. #Bronocs #NYC’’ and
this one by Missy Franklin, ‘‘Cheering on my Broncos from Hawaii today! Let’s go
boys! #unitedinorange.’’ Athletes also shared their hobbies and interests, such as
when Adam Jones conveyed, ‘‘In my down time I do appreciate learning how to
make Pasta #StayHungry.’’
Dedicated Athlete.
Athletes also showcased the training and work they were putting in to excel in
their sport. For example, Maria Sharapova posted, ‘‘Core workout..#mariasharapova
#sharapova #sharafamily #training #workout’’ and Lexi Thompson shared, ‘‘Warmup
in the dark this morning before pro am @hbscwomensgolf #hbscwomenschampi-
ons14.’’ This also included athletes expressing passion for competition, such as
Kevin Durant stating, ‘‘Thanks for another opportunity to go to War tonight : : :
#bangBang #letitfly #Letskidddditttt.’’
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 353
Endorser.
Sponsorship and endorsement is a major part of most athletes’ careers and they
employed self-presentation to highlight this role. For example, Rickie Fowler posted,
‘‘Hanging at Red Bull HQ Santa Monica working out the brain #Neurtopia #Focus
#Concentration @redbull #givesyouwings;’’ and Janko Tipseravic stated, ‘‘Thank
you Regensburg Mercedez-Benz for letting me have some fun this week :).’’ This
also included inviting and encouraging fans to take part in promotions, such as
when Alex Morgan shared, ‘‘In honor of the launch of my new soccer training app,
@trainfivestar is giving away an autographed ball. Follow them on Instagram for a
chance to win #EarnYourStars.’’
Socialite.
Athletes also conveyed that they were active in social parties, galas, and events.
For instance, Robinson Cano posted, ‘‘On my way to the Grammys;’’ Sonya Richards-
Ross posted, ‘‘Hosting the #Esquire Super Bowl party with my love @Rossboy31
#ThisIsGonnaBeAGreatGame;’’ and Stephanie Rice commented, ‘‘It was fantastic
meeting @dannygreenboxer last night at the Crown Sports Bar opening. I love
meeting people and hearing that their kids love swimming.’’
Discussion
Using Goffman’s (1959, 1979) work to guide the analysis, this study was an
examination of how athletes engaged in self-presentation using Instagram, and the
gender differences that emerged from their self-presentation behaviors. Previous
research has found gender differences in self-presentation behaviors online; this re-
search sought to expand on the literature regarding the self-presentation of athletes,
specifically focusing on a visual social media medium.
When looking at the results of the analysis, several noteworthy points emerge.
One interesting point revolves around Goffman’s (1979) point of ritualistic touching.
As Goffman noted, this type of touching is generally a feminine behavior. In this
sample, half of the athletes were engaged in a form of touch of some type. Consistent
with past research, the females were the athletes more likely to be engaged in this
type of behavior. The most common form of touch was found in photos of female
athletes with their friends. They commonly posed with arms around shoulders, or
hugging individuals in some way. If an object was featured in the photograph with
a female, she typically would be hugging it in to her body in some way, such as
hugging in a stuffed animal, or hugging in a trophy that was won. When male
athletes were found to engage in ritualistic touching in photographs, it was most
often in photographs with friends or family members, posed with arms slung around
each other’s shoulders.
When looking at the size of the athletes in the photographs, the majority of
the photographs showed the entire body of an athlete. Past research has concluded
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
354 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
power is generally conveyed through photos framed in a close-up manner, resulting
in men being framed more close in headshots, and women framed from a more
distant perspective (e.g., Archer, Iritani, Kimes, & Barrios, 1983; Reichart Smith &
Cooley, 2012). In this analysis, the majority of the photos framed the athlete from
a distant perspective, showing off the entire body. This may be attributed to the
vanity of an athlete. Most have physical physiques that they are proud of and work
hard to attain. An athlete may be more likely to go against past research findings
in this vein and be more likely to show off their entire body. Another point to
note on photograph size was that of the ‘‘selfie.’’ Though a popular photograph
phenomenon in Instagram’s culture, it was not a popular photograph type for the
athletes examined. It was the least popular photograph athletes chose to include
on their feed. This may again go back to the fact that athletes seemed to use their
Instagram to present a visual representation of a different side of their lives. A selfie
is often limiting, focusing solely on the subject of the photograph. By taking a selfie,
a lot of context is lost, which in this instance, may be going against what an athlete
is trying to show.
RQ2 focused on the gender differences that appeared in the gender displays of the
self-presentation within the photographs. Even though an equal number of male and
female athletes were chosen for the sample, the possibility existed that the athletes
themselves could skew the number through their choice of male and female subjects
in the photographs. Overall, this did not happen. There were slightly more females
than males as the subjects of the photographs, but not enough to make a significant
difference. What is most interesting to note is females did account for the majority
of the active, in sport photographs. This finding is not in line with past research,
which finds female athletes are typically shown on the sidelines and in passive
poses. When given control, female athletes may be taking this opportunity to buck
the trend of visual representations found in the media, and present themselves as
athletes first, females second.
Given that finding, the females did have more suggestive photographs. It is im-
portant to note the number was small (only 6% of the total photographs), and the
question should be raised whether it is in inherent, instinctive, and expected for a
woman to pose in a suggestive manner when dressed up. The photographs in which
this occurred for the female athletes occurred most often when they were dressed
up for an event or gala, and moreover, posing with other females. Their pose may
be the result of cultural norms more than the conscious decision to look suggestive.
Conversely, males were found to have significantly more photographs with their
chest as the focal point, likely attributed to their posing in bathing suits. That result
should be considered in that context; are the eyes are drawn to their chest naturally,
or because they are exhibiting a sexually suggestive behavior.
The final point that fell in line with Goffman’s ideas of gender display was the
notion of licensed withdrawal. As noted in the literature, this is characterized by a
female gazing away or removing herself psychologically from the social situation.
Within the context of this study, females were found to be significantly more likely to
exhibit this behavior than males. This behavior was seen most often as gazing off in
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 355
to the distance, focusing a gaze downward instead of straight on at the camera, lying
back and looking withdrawn, or being in a group of people but not seeming to be
engaged with them socially. By these characteristics, the female exhibits behaviors
of being slightly withdrawn, unfocused, not in control, and not active, supporting
the notion of licensed withdrawal.
A third implication from the current research centers on the predominance of
athletes using Instagram and other social media platforms to self-present in personal
ways. That is, very little of the self-presentation here was focused on athletics
and competition. Rather, the athletes tended to be using Instagram to showcase
their personal likes, interests, families, and charitable work. Given the chance to
showcase a different element of their lives and personalities, the athletes seem to
use Instagram to do this in a visual manner. The findings here align with other self-
presentation research on athletes and social media (Sanderson, 2013, 2014) and
this raises a compelling point about athletes social media use. One of the trendy
buzzwords surrounding athletes’ social media usage is ‘‘strategic.’’ Yet, it appears
that for the most part, athletes are using these platforms for the ‘‘social’’ function
inherent to these mediums. Athletes did pitch their corporate relationships at times
and did demonstrate their training and commitment levels, but only in moderation
to more personal self-presentation that occurred.
What is important to note in the context of this strategic use of social media
is potential social media policies that may have been imposed on the athletes
by coaches, team owners, NCAA compliance officers, or agents. Not knowing if
policies are in place for the athletes examined, we do not know if the Instagram
feeds are 100% true self-presentation or have some form of brand management
intertwined within them. On the flip side, the argument could be made that the
athlete themselves are the brand, so even pure self-presentation could be considered
a form of brand management.
This focus on personality and ‘‘away from the game’’ self-presentation offers sev-
eral avenues to consider. First, perhaps ‘‘strategy’’ is not so much about purposeful
driven content as it is about authenticity. That is, the more genuine an athlete
appears, or the more they appear to share similar interests and characteristics with
audiences, that may be more fruitful than tactical driven self-presentation. Second,
there has been an increase in fans sending hateful and abusive messages to athletes
on social media (Kassing & Sanderson, 2012) and perhaps this ‘‘status leveling’’
wherein athletes appear to be more like the public, contributes to this behavior.
While perceived ‘‘similarity’’ can lead to productive outcomes for athletes, it also
may invite negative behavior and interaction as well.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
As with any study, this research had limitations. The first limitation was with the
sample and data collection. The sample was a convenience sample, selected based
on an athlete’s popularity and activity level on Instagram. Additionally, we selected
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
356 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
photographs based on recency; a true random sample selecting photographs from
different points in time, or a cross sectional sample may have yielded different
results. Finally, the researchers did not have knowledge of any social media policies
or product endorsement deals that may have influenced the type of photograph or
content of photograph posted by the athlete.
As research continues to move forward, there are several different directions for
future research. The first would be an examination of the effect athletes becoming
more personal on social media has on fans. Questions that could arise from this
potential effect could examine the development of parasocial relationships, as well
as the interactions fans may have with athletes—would they be more likely to send
critical or hate messages? A second direction would be to interview athletes directly
about their motivations for posting, and any potential strategy they engage in when
deciding which photographs to post. Further, discussing the impact of enforced so-
cial media policies and/or endorsement requirements may allow additional insights
into posting motivations. Such work will shed more light on the effects of athletes
showing more of their human side and to what extent ‘‘strategy’’ is something
that is more goal-driven or something that results from an athlete embracing and
showcasing what they perceive to be the salient aspects of their ‘‘true’’ identity.
References
Archer, D., Iritani, B., Kimes, D. D., & Barrios, M. (1983). Face-ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 725– 735.
Bishop, R. (2005). The wayward child: An ideological analysis of sports contract holdout coverage. Journalism Studies, 6, 445–459.
Bortree, D. S. (2005). Presentation of self on the Web: An ethnographic study of teenage girls’ Web logs. Education, Communication, & Information, 5, 25–39.
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, D. (2011, August 14). Shocking demotion: Marlins send Logan Morrison to minors. Re- trieved from: http://www.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/nog_league_ste/post/Shocking-%09demotion- Marlins-send-Logan-Morrison-t?urnDmlb-wp-15874
Browning, B., & Sanderson, J. (2012). The positives and negatives of Twitter: Exploring how student-athletes use Twitter and respond to critical tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 503–521.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of Communi- cation, 55, 721–736.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation pro- cesses in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Double Day.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
Smith and Sanderson/INSTAGRAM SELF-PRESENTATION 357
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London, UK: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books. Hambrick, M. E., & Sanderson, J. (2013). Gaining primacy in the digital network: Using social
network analysis to examine sports journalists’ coverage of the Penn State football scandal via Twitter. Journal of Sports Media, 8, 1–18.
Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. N. (2011). Equal opportunity objectification? The sexualization of men and women on the cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15, 256–278.
Hutchins, B. (2011). The acceleration of media sport culture. Information, Communication, & Society, 14, 237–257.
Kang, M. E. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. Sex Roles, 37, 979–996.
Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2012). Playing in the new media game or riding the virtual bench: Confirming and disconfirming membership in the community of sport. Journal of Sport & Social Issues. doi:10.1177/0193723512458931.
Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2015). Playing in the new media game or riding the virtual bench: Confirming and disconfirming membership in the community of sport. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 39, 3–18.
Kim, H., & Papacharissi, Z. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in online self-presentation: A content analysis of personal Korean and US home pages. Asian Journal of Communication, 13, 100–119.
Kim, K., & Sagas, M. (2014). Athletic or sexy? A comparison of female athletes and fashion models in Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues. Gender Issues, 31, 123–141.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.
Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The role of status seeking in online communities: Giving the gift of experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 100–121.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Lebel, K., & Danylchuk, K. (2012). How tweet it is: A gendered analysis of professional tennis players’ self-presentation on Twitter. International Journal of Sports Communication, 5, 461–480.
Lindner, K. (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion magazine advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex roles, 51, 409–421.
Lunden, I. (2014, January 21). Instagram is the fastest-growing social site globally, mobile de- vices rule over PCs for access. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/21/instagram- is-the-fastest-growing-social-site-globally-mobile-devices-rule-over-pcs-for-social-access/
Meraz, S. (2009). Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 682–707.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal home pages. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 643–660.
Pronschinske, M., Groza, M. D., & Walker, M. (2012). Attracting Facebook ‘‘fans’’: The importance of authenticity and engagement as a social networking strategy for professional sport teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21, 221–231.
Reed, S. (2013). American sports writers’ social media use and its influence on professionalism. Journalism Practice, 7, 555–571.
Reichart Smith, L., & Cooley, S. C. (2012). International faces: An analysis of self-inflicted face-ism in online profile pictures. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 279–296.
Reichart Smith, L., & Smith, K. D. (2012). Identity in Twitter’s hashtag culture: A sport-media- consumption case study. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 539–557.
Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1–18.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
358 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2015
Sanderson, J. (2008). The blog is serving its purpose: Self-presentation strategies on 38pitches. com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 912–936.
Sanderson, J. (2011). It’s a whole new ball game: How social media is changing sports. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Sanderson, J. (2013). Stepping into the (social media) game: Building athlete identity via Twit- ter. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Handbook of research on technoself: Identity in a technological society (pp. 419–438). New York, NY: IGI Global.
Sanderson, J. (2014). Just warming up: Logan Morrison, Twitter, athlete identity, and building the brand. In B. Brummett & A. W. Ishak (Eds.), Sport and identity: New agendas in communication (pp. 208–223) New York, NY: Routledge.
Sanderson, J., & Browning, B. (2013). Training versus monitoring: A qualitative examination of athletic department practices regarding student-athletes and Twitter. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14, 105–111.
Sanderson, J., & Hambrick M. E. (2012). Covering the scandal in 140 characters: A case study of Twitter’s role in coverage of the Penn State saga. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5, 384–402.
Sanderson, J., & Kassing, J. W. (2011). Tweets and blogs: Transformative, adversarial, and inte- grative developments in sports media. In A. C. Billings (Ed.), Sports Media: Transformation, integration, consumption (pp. 114–127). New York: Routledge.
Schwämmlein, E., & Wodzicki, K. (2012). What to tell about me? Self-presentation in online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 387–407.
Shorr-Parks, E., & Perez, A. J. (2014, March 28). DeSean Jackson’s gang connections troubling to Eagles. Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/03/eagles_desean_jack son_off-the-field_troubles.html
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suter, E. A., Bergen, K. M., Daas, K. L., & Durham, W. T. (2006). Lesbian couples management of public-private dialectical contradictions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 349–365.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37, 335–351.
Trammell, K. D., & Keshelashvili, A. (2005). Examining the new influences: A self-presentation study of A-list blogs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 968–982.
Van Der Heide, B., D’Angelo, J. D., & Schumaker, E. M. (2012). The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook. Journal of Commu- nication, 62, 98–116.
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 451–470
Walsh, P., Clavio, G., Lovell, M. D., & Blaszka, M. (2013). Differences in event brand personality between social media users and non-users. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 214–223.
Weathers, M., Sanderson, J., Matthey, P., Grevious, A., Tehan, M., & Warren, S. (2014). The tweet life of Erin and Kirk: A gendered analysis of sports broadcasters’ self-presentation on Twitter. Journal of Sports Media. 9, 1–24.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
B os
to n
U ni
ve rs
it y]
a t
10 :5
8 30
A ug
us t
20 17
