4- Facebook: Truthfulness v. Ambiguity

Facebook has become a huge success among college students. It provides web space for personal profiles, allowing individuals to list various details. One problem with facebook is that each person has the ability to lie about certain information, leading many to question users’ credibility. For this assignment, I decided to interview my roommate to ascertain whether or not he was being truthful.

Information I questioned included assessment signals, which have a higher cost to lie (mainly because it is difficult to fake), such as his network, sex, birthday, hometown, religion and email. I also asked him about conventional signals, which have a lower cost (easy to fake), such as activities, interests, personal information (movies, music, etc,…). After the interview, both he and I rated 5’s for every aspect of both signals, indicating that he had not lied at all. However, selective self-presentation was apparent, as he excluded his relationship status (ambiguous meaning) and his high school from his networks (which he told me that he did not want to be affiliated with the school).

After finding that my roommate had not lied on any information in his profile, I believe Media Richness Theory (MRT) best predicts my outcome. MRT argues that there should be an optimal match between the equivocality of a communication task and the richness of the medium. In other words, the ambiguity of communication will differ depending on the richness of the medium in use. Differing with the Cues Filtered-Out theory, MRT asserts that fewer cues in certain cases are better. Although facebook certainly has more cues and more opportunities for feedback than email, its richness is still far less than face-to-face interaction.

With respect to my experience, my roommate took advantage of the fact that facebook offers fewer cues and feedback, but was wary of its recordability. With fewer cues, facebook allows its users to state information that may be understood several ways, such as my roommate stating as his first two activities procrastinating and chilling with friends. Is he really lazy, or does he manage time well and have fun? Additionally, although facebook gives its users many options for giving information, the user does not have to state certain details, which leaves some ambiguity. For example, my roommate has no information on his relationship status (perhaps he wants people to think he is in and out of relationships fast, or maybe he is embarrassed, or perhaps he is not sure?). These ideas fit with the Media Richness Theory, as facebook, with its limited cues and feedback, is not an incredibly rich (but much more so than email) medium. Thus, leaving much room for equivocality. Also, my roommate realized that facebook is very recordable, and consequently was careful to give correct information (hence why all sections of his profile were rated at 5).

With regards to selective self presentation, my findings are also supported by O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model, in which equivocation is an everyday thing. Additionally, when the locus (or focus) is on the self, people (including my roommate) often prefer a mediated interaction (facebook) to have maximum control over what information is given.

#4 Op. 2: Don't lie on facebook... it's not healthy.

Facebook, for most of my friends at least, is a place to keep in touch with old friends and occasionally meet someone new, so it is important that whatever information in their profile doesn't deviate too much from their personalities in "real life." As opposed to myspace, facebook requires a few assessment signals that can be too revealing to be anonymous. The network access needs valid e-mail addresses, and that confirms both the network and the e-mail addresses, so it's pretty hard to pretend to be from Cornell if you are not. The networks also confirm the information on education. Together these make up the main assessment signals on Facebook.

But on the other hand, an e-mail address doesn't really tell the specifics about the person. The person could be a student or professor or a staff member at Cornell, so there is still some room for lying. The other aspects of the profiles are basically all conventional signals, especially the personal info section. Those represent the attitude expressions (one of the self-presentational tactics), and we have a fair amount of freedom with what we say in there.

As I interviewed a friend about her profile, I was surprised to realize how little both of us lie in our facebook. Facebook would be a lean medium, but contrary to the Social Distance Theory, we do not take advantage of the distance to lie. But it isn't exactly Media Richness Theory either, because the reason we don't lie is not that lies are equivocal and need richer media. Facebook is a unique internet social network where elements of FtF and CMC are combined. It's definitely over a leaner medium (the Internet), but it has pictures of the person and of his/her friends, categorized by their respective networks. There is a strong sense of social association (another self-presentational tactic) here, and we don't want to blur that association by lying to our friends, many of whom we know FtF.

Below is her evaluation of her profile:
Name: 5
Photos: 4
Networks: 3
Sex: 5
Interested In: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 3
Political Views: 4
Contact Info: 5
Work Info: 3
Causes: 5
Groups: 4

She rated that her profile is fairly accurate, and the aspects that got a "3" were more because she withheld information rather than actively lying. Overall, I believe it's a fair portrait of her, except of course there is information missing here that you would be able to receive in the FtF situation. She also doesn't have a personal info section at all, so this evaluation is not that accurate because it doesn't take into account the information she doesn't reveal in her profile.

Since most of her friends know her FtF, she can't lie about most things. But she also has higher inhibitions for the same reason. Perhaps she doesn't have a person info section precisely because she doesn't want us to know what band she loves the most. Trying to keep the distance, you know.

Assignment #4: Deception on Facebook

The anatomy of a facebook profile consists first of basic information including network, sex, birthday, and hometown. Next, contact information is listed, including email, screen name, and phone number or address. The following section consists of more personal information like activities, interests, TV shoes, books, quotes, and an about me section. There is also an education and work section where you list where you go to school and present and past employers. And the last part of the facebook anatomy includes all of the “extremities” like profile picture, photo albums, wall posts, and other applications. The signals on facebook that I would say are assessment signals include the network because you have to have a valid email address to get into certain networks. I also think that to some degree your pictures are also assessment signals. Although you could theoretically put up a picture of someone who is not you, there are people on facebook who know you personally can already know what you look like; so in this sense it is very difficult to put up pictures that are not you. In accordance with this thought, sex, is also an assessment signal. There are many conventional signals on facebook. Some of them include interests, favorite books TV shows, movies, and quotes. You can adjust these signals at any time and it is very easy to lie about them.

I interviewed my house mate about her profile. Since we are close friends, it was easy to tell what on her facebook pages is not completely accurate. She rated everything that had to deal with assessment a 5. These categories included network, sex, relationship, birthday, hometown, email, etc. The section where her number started to vary and the deception started to increase was when you go to the personal information. She rated her interest, music, and TV shows all a 3 or 2. These signals, which are conventional, were easy for her to lie about. Another aspect of her facebook that had deception was her pictures. There were a lot of pictures of her partying and going out, when in fact she is very much a homebody. And the last part of her facebook profile where there was deception was areas where she had not updated the information, like her work information. She was no longer working at the place her facebook indicated, so in this sense it was not really deception; but on the other hand, if someone had asked her face to face where she worked, she would not say this specific company because that would be a lie.

Looking at the Feature Based Approach, I saw that my findings related to the theory. The lying that occurred on facebook was not excessive, and this can be explained by the fact that it is a synchronous and not recordless. It makes it more difficult to lie on facebook because you do not have people responding to you and giving you feedback immediately, also everything you put on facebook is somewhat recorded, because if you put something on your profile one day, someone can look at it tomorrow and see it again (unless of course you update it within the given amount of time). Another theory that jumped out of me was self presentation. I found that the lies that were made on facebook, were subtle, but were also strategic. They were made in order to portray a certain image of yourself. My friend wanted to look like she was a fun person, so she put a lot of pictures of her with friends and laughing. She also wanted to show that she was eclectic, so she put down that liked all music, when in fact she does not. When we do lie on facebook, we are lying in subtle and strategic way in order to manage our self presentation and depict a certain character.

#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

Assignment 4- Honest Facebookers

The anatomy of a Facebook profile has greatly changed even in the past few months. It used to contain only pictures, a list of friends, a brief section for personal information, a place for contact information, and a venue to list favorite activities, interests, music, movies, books, and quotes. There is a place to list your school and major. You can join groups, which will appear on your profile. Of course, the original Facebook profile contains the Wall, where friends can leave messages. In the past few months, the addition of the news feed and now applications, everyone’s profile can be customized to the point that almost no two are the same.

Conventional signals can be shown through different shows of interests. For example, my subject mentions that he enjoys parties and sports in his interests section. He has various applications that feature sports teams, and he is a member of many anti-Yankees/pro-Red Sox groups. These all suggest that he is a very masculine person. He also hints toward his sense of humor through quotes and references to different comedic TV shows and movies. Other conventional signals can be found in photo albums, and any type of group or application one decides to display on his or her profile.His assessment signals show his appearance (in his picture). They also brand him as being in a committed relationship. His profile picture features both him and his girlfriend. His girlfriend is the sole person featured in his “Favorite Peeps” application. She is also the most frequent poster on his wall. Other assessment signals can be found in an e-mail address ending in “@cornell.edu” or a membership in a certain geographical network.

My subject showed very little frequency or magnitude of dishonesty. The lowest he ranked any of his profile features was a “3” on his interests and favorite music. Beside his notation, he wrote “(dated)” because he had not updated his profile in quite some time. He still had some high school activities listed, as well as bands and singers he no longer listens to as frequently. My rankings of accuracy showed no discrepancies with his, and I know my subject on a very intimate level.

His honesty is consistent with Media Richness Theory because revealing his personality on Facebook is a minimally equivocal task, as he has expressed to me before I even began this class. Media Richness Theory states that a person will use less “rich” media (media with fewer cues, little opportunity for feedback, lack of message personalization, and no langage variety) for less equivocal tasks (for example, confirming a lunch date). He is not concerned with being vague or deceptive because his purpose on Facebook is to remain in touch with current friends; his goal is not to make new friends or appear a certain way to acquaintances. However, there are enough cues available on Facebook that he doesn’t appear cold or unapproachable. Since Facebook does allow a certain degree of customization of profiles, it is easy to argue that it is a much richer media than e-mail, text messages, or other asynchronous media. But since he is not attempting to convey himself to unfamiliar parties, he has little occasion to deceive through Facebook. According to the chart comparing frequency of dishonesty through different media, Media Richness Theory predicts lies to happen face to face. In this way, my subject’s profile is consistent with the theory.

4, Option 2: Deception

In recent years, Facebook has become extremely popular amongst college students. Almost everyone I know has an account and checks or updates it daily. Facebook allows its members to list information such as their interests, favorite music, favorite TV shows, favorite movies, etc. Each account also has a space for contact information, where people can show their phone numbers, addresses (residence), and screename. Since these characteristics of Facebook can easily be altered by the users, they are called conventional signals. Facebook also contains many assessment signals, which are characteristics that cannot be easily changed once a profile is made. For example, a Facebook profile revolves around what college or university the user attends, so it is near impossible to change the college name and year (unless the member transfers). It would also be hard to change his or her email address, unless the member uses one that differs from the one issued by the college. Altering photographs and wall posts is not an option, unless certain sections are deleted or Photoshop is used to change size or color (perhaps to black and white).

I asked my friend to evaluate her Facebook profile for me, and she did, claiming everything she had to be completely true. I was not surprised by her answers, because she is not the type of girl to go out of her way to try and impress someone by being different then she really is in person. She doesn’t take Facebook too seriously and just listed her interests, music, TV shows and movies so that her friends could see the specifics.

Under the Hyperpersonal Model, my friend has used selective self-presentation by listing things are true about her, but she also selectively chose which bands and movies she wrote down for everyone to see. Since she only chose a few things to list, someone could perceive her as something she is not (as explained by the ‘Over-attribution process’).

Since she does not have a Facebook in order to try and make friends or other possible social scenarios, she does not find it necessary to try and deceive anyone who looks at her page.

#4 - the facebook dimension

Facebook is a recent development on the Internet that allows people to become friends, creating a network of internet users with a detailed profile of each user. A profile has a variety of attributes each user can choose to fill out in order to expand their profile. These entry fields provide signals about the user; its level of validity however is questionable. Certain fields are more viable; these assessment signals have a higher cost to falsify. The assessment signals listed below are also more costly since it can be verified by the people in the actual network or know the actual person. The following are assessment signals provided on the Facebook profile:

Assessment signals:

• name
• network
• birthday
• hometown
• contact info:
  email
  mobile
  current address
  residence
  school mailbox
  website
• Education
• Work Info

Other less credible fields are conventional signals. These signals have a lower cost and are easier to fake. Conventional signals on Facebook include:

Conventional Signals:

• profile pictures
• pictures
• groups
• interests
• "looking for" (in other users of Facebook)
• political views
• religious views
• friends list
• screenname for instant messaging program
• personal info:
  activities
  interests
  fav music
  fav tv shows
  fav movies
  fave books
  fav quotes
  about me
• applications
• status

Each of these fields are optional and can be removed from the user's profile except for List of friends, network(s), name, and email address. These fields are mostly assessment signals.

Based on these fields, I questioned my friend on the validity of his facebook profile. Not every field was shown. The following are the ratings he assigned along with my own ratings of the accuracy of his posted information.

Scale: 1(inaccurate) - 5(accurate)

Format: field name: his rating, my rating

networks: 5, 5
bday: 5, 5
hometown 5, 5
religious views: 5, 3
emails: 5, 5
profile pic: 5, 5
tagged pictures: 5, 5
interests: 5, 5
fave music: 5, 5
fave book: 2, 2
about me: 5, 5

groups: 5, 5
friends: 3, 3
name: 5, 3
fb apps:5, 4
education: 5, 4

In most instances, my friend gave himself a very accurate rating. The reason why he didn't give himself a 5 was for the sake of a joke, a harmless form of deception. When I decided to rate the accuracy of his profile, I felt some of the information was inaccurate because he presented certain aspects that portrayed him a different light than he really is.

The difference in ratings supports the Feature Based Approach. Facebook is asynchronous, keeps a record through mini-feed and news-feed, and most people in the Facebook network are not highly distributed. Due to these qualities, Feature Based Approach states that people are less likely to lie, which is the case for my friend's Facebook profile. Any lies that did occur were harmless lies intended as jokes and were obviously more of a joke than a lie, especially to his closer friends. This result also supports the Social Distance Theory since people who would view his profile are mostly friends nearby.

This does not follow the Media Richness Theory which states that people tend to lie in richer forms of media. Facebook is highly dense and rich but not many people lie about themselves.