#4 -- Facebook and self-presentation

For this assignment I chose option 2. The most obvious difference between a Facebook profile and one found on a dating site is the basic intent of the profile. Thus, Facebook profiles exclude information about height, weight, and other physical descriptions relevant to dating, though it is in many ways still conducive to online romances and related to Catalina’s research. Mostly, however, Facebook is geared toward social networking with friends. It allows for very selective self-presentation (in line with Hyperpersonal Theory), particularly since most fields are not required and one can choose/control what is displayed, what pictures are shown, and who can look at various aspects of the their profile, or any part of their profile at all. In other words, it is editable, asynchronous, and has reduced cues.

The only assessment signals Facebook includes are one’s network, and possibly pictures. Furthermore, this only applies to specific network types (like college networks) that require a valid email address – something quite difficult to fake. Pictures provide visual assessment signals, but only assuming they are actual photos of the person. In this sense, gender is probably also an assessment signal on Facebook. Everything else may be faked, lied about, or altered in some way. This includes name, religion, relationship status, “interested in”, “looking for”, hometown, political views, interests, activities, favorites (music, TV shows, movies, books), “about me”, work and some education information (high school, or major), etc. These are thus conventional signals.

I had my apartment-mate rate the accuracy of her Facebook profile. Her ratings were actually quite honest from what I know about her, and the results were similar to Catalina’s study. She was deceptive in her online profile, but in subtle ways. Her residence was inaccurate for example, but this was actually an inside joke rather than an intentional lie. Her “looking for” field was also inaccurate, but mostly to avoid conflict with her boyfriend. Other than that, her deceptions were related to self-presentational goals (Hyperpersonal Theory). Thus, she added certain interests, movies, TV shows, and books to her profile that were not necessarily her favorites. Perhaps she was attempting appear more versatile, unique, or intellectual – or perhaps more like her “ideal self”.

I think online deception in Facebook profiles is related to several theories, though the Hyperpersonal Model’s idea of selective self-presentation seems especially applicable. But firstly, the deception is subtle, perhaps because it is recordable, and asynchronous which – according to the Feature based model – would deter a lot of deception; it is distributed too, which might explain the occurrence of subtle lies. Back to Hyperpersonal Model: Facebookers tend to interact with their friends face-to-face, so they would want to appear honest in terms of self-presentational goals. However, they may also want to appear attractive or cool in accordance with the same Theory, so they choose to be slightly deceptive via Facebook. Perhaps they choose this mediated channel because it is easier. As Social Distance Theory points out (and the Feature based model supports in terms of distribution), lying face-to-face is uncomfortable so a leaner channel may be more favorable. People aren’t likely to question you about the interests you listed on your Facebook in face-to-face conversation, so one can avoid questions that could reveal their deception, while maintaining certain self-presentational goals online.

comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2331078527778557961

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=5217005122030357269