Friends, lovers, risk and intimacy: risk-taking as a socially meaningful practice

  • Anne Mette Thorhauge
  • Mareike Bonitz
Keywords: Sexting, intimacy, risk, self-disclosure


In this article we aim to analyse and discuss the notion of risk in photo-sharing practices and the purposes risk serves in the development of intimate relationships. We will argue that risk in the form of self-disclosure is an inseparable aspect of intimate photo-sharing rather than an undesirable side-effect, and that a broader analytical perspective on the role of risk in the development of intimate relationships allows us to understand risky photo-sharing as socially meaningful practice. We will unfold and elaborate this theoretical perspective on the basis of five focus-group interviews with 21 German high schools students aged 14 to 17. The interviews focus on the participants’ sharing practices, and the role risk plays in relation to these practices. The data indicates that risk does indeed serve a social purpose as a way of ‘proving friendship’. Yet, it also indicates that the young people in question are more willing to accept risk related to ‘friendly intimacy’ as compared to ‘romantic intimacy’. We will discuss the possible background for this difference as well as its wider methodological and theoretical implications. 


Albury, K., & Crawford, K. (2012). Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: Beyond Megan’s Story. Continuum, 26(3), doi:10.1080/10304312.2012.665840.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernisation. London: SAGE.

Bräuchler, B., & Postill, J. (2010). Theorising Media and Practice (Vol. 4). New York: Berghahn Books.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115-132.

Davidson, J. (2015). Sexting: Gender and Teens. Berlin: Springer.

Demant, J. (2012). Natural interactions in artificial situations: Focus groups as an active social experiment. In L. Naidoo (Ed.), An Ethnography of Global Landscapes and Corridors (pp. 57-88). Rijeka: Intech.

Despret, V. (2004). Our Emotional Makeup: Ethnopsychology and Selfhood. New York: Other Press.

Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), Art. 9.

France, A. (2008). Risk factor analysis and the youth question. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(1), 1-15.

Giddens, A. (1990). Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Graham, L., Jordan, L., Hutchinson, A., & de Wet, N. (2018). Risky behaviour: A new framework for understanding why young people take risks. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(3), 324-339.

Green, J., & Hart, L. (1998). Th e impact on context on data. In R.S. Barbour, & B.J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice (pp. 21-35). London: Sage.

Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., de Crespigny, C., & Delmar, C. (2011). Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1), 16-30.

Habuchi, I. (2005). Accelerating refl exivity. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (pp. 165-182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halkier, B. (2010). Focus groups as social enactments: Integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Research, 10(1), 71-89.

Halkier, B. (2011). Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(9), 787-797.

Hart, M. (2017). Being naked on the internet: Young people’s selfi es as intimate edgework. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(3), 301-315.

Hjorth, L., & Lim, S. S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of aff ective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies,12(4), 477-484.

Jamieson, L. (2011). Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentricism? Sociological Research Online, 16(4), 1-13.

Jensen, K.B. (2002). Th e complementarity of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in media and communication research. In K.B. Jensen (Ed.), A Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies (pp. 254-272). London/New York: Routledge.

Joinson, A.N., & Paine, C.B. (2007). Self-disclosure, privacy and the Internet. In A.N. Joinson, K.Y.A. McKenna, T. Postmes & U. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (pp. 237-252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kofoed, J., & Larsen, M.C. (2016). A snap of intimacy: Photo-sharing practices among young people on social media. First Monday, 21(11).

Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L.F., & Pietromonaco, P.R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238-1251.

Lippman, J.R., & Campbell, S.R. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t… if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371-386.

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.

Livingstone, S., & Mason, J. (2015). Sexual Rights and Sexual Risks among Youth Online: A Review of Existing Knowledge Regarding Children and Young People’s Developing Sexuality in Relation to New Media Environments. Rome: European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online.

Lomborg, S. (2011). Social media as communicative genres. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 27(51), 48-64.

Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 851-886.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Morgan, D. (2002). Sociological perspectives on the family. In A. Carling, S. Duncan & R. Edwards. (Eds.), Analysing Families Morality and Rationality in Policy and Practice (pp. 147-164). New York: Routledge.

Morrissey, S. A. (2008). Performing risks: Catharsis, carnival and capital in the risk society. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(4), 413-427.

Park, N., Jin, B., & Annie Jin, S.-A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on relational intimacy in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1974-1983.

Reis, H.T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S.W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 367-389). West Sussex: Wiley & Sons.

Ringrose, J., Harvey L., Gill, R., & Livingstone S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14(3), 305-323.

Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(3), 233-260.

Rubin, Z., Hill, C.T., Peplau L.A., & Dunkelschetter, C. (1980). Self-disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 305-317.

Sørensen, A.S. (2012). Facebook selvfremstilling, small talk og social regulering. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 28(52), 132-152.

Tiidenberg, K., & Cruz, E.G. (2015). Selfi es, image and the re-making of the body. Body & Society, 21(4), 77-102.

Turnbull, G., & Spence, J. (2011). What’s at risk? The proliferation of risk across child and youth policy in England. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(8), 939-959.

Van House, N.A. (2009). Collocated photo sharing, story-telling, and the performance of self. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(12), 1073-1086.

Van House, N.A. (2011). Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies, 26(2), 125-134.

Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Van Gool, E. (2014). Sexting: Between thrill and fear—How schools can respond. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(5), 204-212.

Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Heirman, W. (2015). The association between adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior: Integrative review. The Journal of School Nursing, 31(1), 54-69.

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2017). Sexting: adolescents’ perceptions of the applications used for, motives for, and consequences of sexting. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(4), 446-470.

Villi, M. (2007). Mobile visual communication. Nordicom Review, 28(1), 49-62.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 177-199). London: SAGE.

How to Cite
Thorhauge, A. M., & Bonitz, M. (2020). Friends, lovers, risk and intimacy: risk-taking as a socially meaningful practice. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 36(67), 037-054.