I remember my OL leader told us to “embrace Facebook” way back during freshman year. As a Canadian, I didn’t even know what this thing was but my friends signed me up anyways. Now, Facebook is used internationally, and it’s an extreme oddity for someone not to have an account. My subject for this assignment is a good friend that I’d known since freshman year. He’s also quite honest so I was expecting a similarly truthful Facebook profile. These were his results:
Name: 5
Sex: 5
Interested In: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Looking For: 3
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Political Views: 4
Contact Info (Email, Mobile, Residence): 5
Interests: 2
Favorites: 3
Education Info: 5
Work Info: 5
Profile Photo: 1
Networks: 5
Friends: 3
Groups: 2
He was mostly truthful about the information he provided in his profile. At least his basic information, such as his name, gender and hometown were accurate. His educational and work information were also correct. Furthermore, he was surprisingly honest when it came to his contact information, even his current address. When it came to more personal categories, his lies – or rather – exaggerations were mostly for fun, not to fool others. For instance, he wasn’t “looking for” anything specific, but a friend modified that part and he thought it funny enough to leave it unchanged. He wrote his interests to entertain, not to inform, so most of his activities and favorite things are very random and plain strange. Similarly, his groups were also outrageous-sounding, with a few that he was actually serious about joining. The least honest part was his profile photo, but it was just an icon he made himself, and not to be taken seriously.
Using Donath’s identity-based signals, it is clear that he rarely lied under the assessment signals. With Facebook, it is rather difficult to lie about one’s college, year and email address, though altering one’s name is more simple. Since conventional signals are low cost, he was able to not be truthful about his interests, likes, and other personal information. Despite Facebook being a lean media, these results do not follow the Social Distance Theory, which states that the percentage of lies increase with more distance. His lies are more related to the self-presentation theory, since he wants to appear to be a humorous and fun guy. Therefore, his favorite things contain jokes and ridiculous items, creating a picture of a comical person. Also, his profile photo, the type of relationship he was looking for and his groups all contribute to this desired impression.
These results partially follow the Media Richness Theory, since he chose a lean medium to communicate himself which is the optimal match in this case. After all, he only uses Facebook as a very basic form of interaction; friending only people he knew and updating his information sporadically. The communication is efficient, since there are less cues than a face to face interaction but more than simple emailing or IMing, which suits the needs of some Facebook users.
Comment 1: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=2955048155215071736
Comment 2:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=1133022364718501909
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Angela,
I chose to study facebook as well, but came to somewhat different results. As you found, I discovered my friend did not lie on the assessment signals. However, our difference is found in the conventional signals- my roommate did not lie. I believe this variation is most related to the fact that your friend was joking around. Had he been serious, he probably would have answered 5 to every category in the conventional signals as well.
I like your analysis of the self-presentation theory, which I feel applies well to your experience. I think you could elaborate on your description of Media Richness Theory and its application to your findings. Good job.
Post a Comment