I have a close friend at Binghamton University which is an hour away from my location, Cornell University. We emailed each other because we were both in the same sorority, and we met once or twice at national meetings or conventions. We did not become close, however, until I started instant messaging her more frequently because her blog and away messages seemed to indicate her sad mood. Over the course of a month, we learned more about each other and became close. We would communicate mostly through instant messaging, though we would call eachother randomly. When it came time for another national meeting, I even stayed at her place because I was not from the area. We still keep in close contact, though the distance does not allow us to talk very frequently.
Wallace's factors can be attributed to the reasons why my relationship with my friend remained strong despite the distance. The following are the two main factors of Wallace's attraction factors that pertain to the relationship I have with my friend.
Proximity: The proximity effect says that those who have greater proximity have more opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Those with great proximity in CMC experience greater intersection frequency where they "run into" each other online.
My friend and I experienced the proximity effect. Our schools are close to each other, and our sorority chapters interact frequently. A big reason why I continued keeping in contact with my friend was because I expected future interactions with her. I would not have put in the same effort if she had been from Massachusetts. We also used similar online forms of communication such as our sorority meetings, online blog circles, and AOL Instant Messenger. We were also both very active in contributing and participating in these activities. This furthered our relationship development because our intersection frequency was high.
Common Ground: Wallace states that "people tend to like those with similar attitudes and ideas". The law of attraction is based off the proportion of shared commonalities. The level of interaction is proportional to the proportion of shared attitudes.
In the case of my friend and I, we started off with a huge common ground, our sorority. We were both very enthusiastic in contributing and participating to upcoming events. As we got to know eachother, we both realized that we were pensive and spent a lot of time reading interesting articles online. We were also both sarcastic and able to joke around. Our relationship development also followed the expected outcomes for CMC relationships. It seemed me and my friend had infinite amounts in common. When we met FTF I could tell we had less in common than I had presumed, but our strong common ground helped perpetuate our relationship.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
I Think I Kinda Like You-#5
This assignment brings me back in time to the summer before freshman year, the summer where "Facebooking" Cornell '10 students was only third next to breathing and eating. Back then it was like the amazing race to friend as many Cornellians as possible or risk getting to college and not "knowing" anybody! I never intended to "talk" to anyone before meeting them, but then one day one of my new "friends" IM'ed me.
The conversation started off polite, we talked about our shared excitement on going to Cornell. We weren't really looking forward to all the work, but definitely ready to leave home and be independent for once. We connected on our common background, protective Asian parents that expected straight A's and what do you know, we both love partying and hanging out with friends too! Wow, this was too great! Who would ever guess that I would meet another guy who was smart, Asian, loved hanging out with friends and going to Cornell! As time went on we constantly IM'ed each other and talked about whatever was on our minds. Eventually, we exchanged numbers too. I absolutely loved to talk and he seemed to love listening to me talk. I made sure never to reveal too much about my past though, didn't want to scare the guy away. Things were going great though and orientation was going to start soon! We could not wait to meet each other and...
During my interaction with this guy I always made sure to be careful about how much information I shared. I did not want him to think I was this crazy Asian girl who liked to party just a little too much. Also, I did not want him to know about some of my past relationship experiences because I was afraid he would think less of me. I even found myself editing my facebook because I knew that was how he found me, so I wanted to present the best me. I really enjoy talking on the phone and I think it's a great way to show off my personality and warmth, so I always told him to call me if he got the chance. I was definitely controlling what he knew about me through self-presentational tactics and it seemed to work, so I continued to do it.
Connecting to Similar Others- Based on the common ground principle, it is easy for us to identify with people who share the same similar interests and experiences as ourselves.
I know that one of the reasons I enjoyed talking to him so much was that I had never actually spoken to another Asian guy who was not a relative. Also, since we could only talk about so much, our conversation always seemed to lead back to our similar interests and we ignored the comments we made about dissimilar tastes. The fact that we were talking online made it easy to switch topics versus face to face where sometimes it's awkward to do such a change. Our relationship seemed to progress based on the few things we knew about each other, but they were things we shared in common so I thought this must mean we have a lot of other things in common too.
...yeah, things were much better in our computer mediated world than face to face. After orientation week we never talked or saw each other again. I think it had something to do with the fact that he was much more shy and reserved in person (There must have been a removal of gating features, i.e. shyness, on his part.) and I was much more outgoing. Our personalities seemed to clash once the screen and phone disappeared. I guess online relationships sometimes stay online for a reason!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8945242770163585420
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=385623541247901584
The conversation started off polite, we talked about our shared excitement on going to Cornell. We weren't really looking forward to all the work, but definitely ready to leave home and be independent for once. We connected on our common background, protective Asian parents that expected straight A's and what do you know, we both love partying and hanging out with friends too! Wow, this was too great! Who would ever guess that I would meet another guy who was smart, Asian, loved hanging out with friends and going to Cornell! As time went on we constantly IM'ed each other and talked about whatever was on our minds. Eventually, we exchanged numbers too. I absolutely loved to talk and he seemed to love listening to me talk. I made sure never to reveal too much about my past though, didn't want to scare the guy away. Things were going great though and orientation was going to start soon! We could not wait to meet each other and...
McKenna's Relationship Facilitation Factors:
Interactional Control- We control what people know about us and use self-presentational tactics to preserve our appearance. If we're good at synchronous chat we will choose to do so because it also shows the positive about us.During my interaction with this guy I always made sure to be careful about how much information I shared. I did not want him to think I was this crazy Asian girl who liked to party just a little too much. Also, I did not want him to know about some of my past relationship experiences because I was afraid he would think less of me. I even found myself editing my facebook because I knew that was how he found me, so I wanted to present the best me. I really enjoy talking on the phone and I think it's a great way to show off my personality and warmth, so I always told him to call me if he got the chance. I was definitely controlling what he knew about me through self-presentational tactics and it seemed to work, so I continued to do it.
Connecting to Similar Others- Based on the common ground principle, it is easy for us to identify with people who share the same similar interests and experiences as ourselves.
I know that one of the reasons I enjoyed talking to him so much was that I had never actually spoken to another Asian guy who was not a relative. Also, since we could only talk about so much, our conversation always seemed to lead back to our similar interests and we ignored the comments we made about dissimilar tastes. The fact that we were talking online made it easy to switch topics versus face to face where sometimes it's awkward to do such a change. Our relationship seemed to progress based on the few things we knew about each other, but they were things we shared in common so I thought this must mean we have a lot of other things in common too.
...yeah, things were much better in our computer mediated world than face to face. After orientation week we never talked or saw each other again. I think it had something to do with the fact that he was much more shy and reserved in person (There must have been a removal of gating features, i.e. shyness, on his part.) and I was much more outgoing. Our personalities seemed to clash once the screen and phone disappeared. I guess online relationships sometimes stay online for a reason!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8945242770163585420
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=385623541247901584
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Assignment 4 ----option 2 facebook
For assignment number four, I chose to analyze the truthfulness of my friend's facebook page. I chose a very close friend of mine to make sure that the information I got from her will be as accurate as possible.
First of all, I request her to rate each elements in her facebook profile on a scale from 1 (completely inaccurate) to 5 (completely accurate). She responded with either 4 or 5 for every part of her profile. And she claims that for everything that she would lie about, she just chose not to show it in her profile. The reason for rating some elements as address, courses, and interests was because she had not updated her profile, or some of her preferences have since changed. Based on my knowledge of her, my own observations have confirmed that her facebook profile information is very accurate.
It’s interesting that while social distance theory suggests people will use most “socially distant” media to lie, facebook, as a relatively more distant media, is more honest than assumed. I think this is because of its social-network-based nature. We register with our school’s email address, which is hard to fake, and we add friends that we have in real life, thus, lying in profile information can be easily found out. While media richness theory, suggests that people will more likely to lie in rich media. Considering Facebook as a relatively rich media, I think feature based approach might be more suitable in this case. Facebook is an asynchronous space, high in recordability, and users are distributed. These all suggest that people are not likely to lie on Facebook.
4: Deception Experiment
I recently met Zack on campus. Our friendship is just beginning to move beyond that superficial stage, so Zack does not know a lot about me, putting him at a disadvantage for deception detection. Initially, I did not tell him he was my subject for this assignment.
Thursday night we went out for drinks and I told Zack a true story about a trip I recently took to Ireland. I found it much easier to pair the truth portion of this assignment with a rich channel. Telling the truth using a rich medium supports the Social Distance Theory because I was more comfortable, given the nonverbal social cues and the synchronicity of the interaction. If I had more intense feedback while lying, I would have worried more about the quality of my impression management.
I based my fictional travel story off of a vague recollection of an old friend’s experiences as an exchange student in Germany, in an effort to make it as believable as possible. I selected e-mail as my means of telling this lie, figuring it would better enable me to thoroughly explain the experience and minimize Zack ability to detect the lie based on the lack of nonverbal cues. With additional time to logically and convincingly tell my lie, I effectively deceived my friend, although he mentioned he thought it awkward that I went into such a long description of a trip via e-mail. He said that he believed me because he had no reason to suspect I was lying.
Choosing e-mail instead of richer channel supports the Social Distance Theory. If I had to lie I felt much easier to lie at a distance. The type of lie required for this assignment did not warrant that emotional need to “thoroughly convince” my friend which eliminated the need to do it face-to-face. In a way, this situation supports Daft and Lensel’s Media Richness Theory because the equivocality of the task was not so great that I needed a rich medium, although it was also not so small that a particularly lean medium would do. Fewer cues were desired to make the task easier which had little to do with efficiency but more with comfort thus leading to also support DePaulo’s Social Distance Theory. Telling this lie certainly took me out of my element, but doing so from a distance made it easier. Overall, while there were aspects of MRT that support the means of this interaction, face-to-face cues were not going to make my lie more convincing thus negating this aspect of the theory. The fact that I lied about my “actions” and the explanations surrounding my trip via email further supports Social Distance Theory. Had I told the story in person, I feel confident that my friend would have sensed my lie, which leads me to realize that there was some impression management involved in the experiment. I figured that telling the lie in person would have a negative impact on my friend’s perception of me, and there was some thought invested in my self-presentation.
Thursday night we went out for drinks and I told Zack a true story about a trip I recently took to Ireland. I found it much easier to pair the truth portion of this assignment with a rich channel. Telling the truth using a rich medium supports the Social Distance Theory because I was more comfortable, given the nonverbal social cues and the synchronicity of the interaction. If I had more intense feedback while lying, I would have worried more about the quality of my impression management.
I based my fictional travel story off of a vague recollection of an old friend’s experiences as an exchange student in Germany, in an effort to make it as believable as possible. I selected e-mail as my means of telling this lie, figuring it would better enable me to thoroughly explain the experience and minimize Zack ability to detect the lie based on the lack of nonverbal cues. With additional time to logically and convincingly tell my lie, I effectively deceived my friend, although he mentioned he thought it awkward that I went into such a long description of a trip via e-mail. He said that he believed me because he had no reason to suspect I was lying.
Choosing e-mail instead of richer channel supports the Social Distance Theory. If I had to lie I felt much easier to lie at a distance. The type of lie required for this assignment did not warrant that emotional need to “thoroughly convince” my friend which eliminated the need to do it face-to-face. In a way, this situation supports Daft and Lensel’s Media Richness Theory because the equivocality of the task was not so great that I needed a rich medium, although it was also not so small that a particularly lean medium would do. Fewer cues were desired to make the task easier which had little to do with efficiency but more with comfort thus leading to also support DePaulo’s Social Distance Theory. Telling this lie certainly took me out of my element, but doing so from a distance made it easier. Overall, while there were aspects of MRT that support the means of this interaction, face-to-face cues were not going to make my lie more convincing thus negating this aspect of the theory. The fact that I lied about my “actions” and the explanations surrounding my trip via email further supports Social Distance Theory. Had I told the story in person, I feel confident that my friend would have sensed my lie, which leads me to realize that there was some impression management involved in the experiment. I figured that telling the lie in person would have a negative impact on my friend’s perception of me, and there was some thought invested in my self-presentation.
Assignment#4:
I thought it'd be interesting to review a facebook profile of a friend I made over the summer.
For the self-assessment, he judged his profile fairly accurate.
Name: 5
Profile Photo: 5
Sex: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Mini-Feed: 5
Contact Info (Email and Residence): 5
Website: 1
Interests: 5
Favorite Music: 5
Favorite Quotes: 5
Favorite Movies: 5
Education Info: 5
Work Info: 5
Networks: 5
Friends: 5
Groups: 5
After reviewing his profile, I made an assessment myself.
Name: 5
Profile Photo: 3
Sex: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Mini-Feed: 5
Contact Info (Email and Residence): 5
Website: 3
Interests: 5
Favorite Music: 5
Favorite Quotes: 3
Favorite Movies: 5
Education Info: 5
Work Info: 5
Networks: 5
Friends: 4
Groups: 4
His profile picture is ambivalent, because he's standing with his two brothers without tags. I also feel that while his profile picture is neutral, it doesn't represent his appearance in person well. However, his intentions are not to false image: he never untags himself from photos other people upload or deletes mini feed items.
Considering the fact that he is an engineer and has been constantly on a job market looking for internships, he selectively shares personal information. His interested sex, political and religious views are not listed, while more than 20 of his obscure favorite bands and movies take up most of the profile. Although I have not heard of most bands listed, I believe it's pretty accurate, because bands he went to concerts over the summer are included. In my knowledge, the only faulty information he gives is his website. He lists his favorite bakery as one. However, I believe even that bit of information reveals who he is: he loves eating pastries and the jokes how he wants to quit engineering and open a bakery.
Blatant deception on facebook is rare within a relatively small network, because the information shared is available for verification by other members. However, members are allowed to adjust the amount of information available. Hancock's Feature-Based Model seems to be at work in this case. Selective representation of informaion is the most powerful tool in asynchronous, tractable environment.
For the self-assessment, he judged his profile fairly accurate.
Name: 5
Profile Photo: 5
Sex: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Mini-Feed: 5
Contact Info (Email and Residence): 5
Website: 1
Interests: 5
Favorite Music: 5
Favorite Quotes: 5
Favorite Movies: 5
Education Info: 5
Work Info: 5
Networks: 5
Friends: 5
Groups: 5
After reviewing his profile, I made an assessment myself.
Name: 5
Profile Photo: 3
Sex: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Mini-Feed: 5
Contact Info (Email and Residence): 5
Website: 3
Interests: 5
Favorite Music: 5
Favorite Quotes: 3
Favorite Movies: 5
Education Info: 5
Work Info: 5
Networks: 5
Friends: 4
Groups: 4
His profile picture is ambivalent, because he's standing with his two brothers without tags. I also feel that while his profile picture is neutral, it doesn't represent his appearance in person well. However, his intentions are not to false image: he never untags himself from photos other people upload or deletes mini feed items.
Considering the fact that he is an engineer and has been constantly on a job market looking for internships, he selectively shares personal information. His interested sex, political and religious views are not listed, while more than 20 of his obscure favorite bands and movies take up most of the profile. Although I have not heard of most bands listed, I believe it's pretty accurate, because bands he went to concerts over the summer are included. In my knowledge, the only faulty information he gives is his website. He lists his favorite bakery as one. However, I believe even that bit of information reveals who he is: he loves eating pastries and the jokes how he wants to quit engineering and open a bakery.
Blatant deception on facebook is rare within a relatively small network, because the information shared is available for verification by other members. However, members are allowed to adjust the amount of information available. Hancock's Feature-Based Model seems to be at work in this case. Selective representation of informaion is the most powerful tool in asynchronous, tractable environment.
4- No Deception in Facebook?
Facebook and Myspace are two places to keep in touch with old friends, students in your school and also a place to meet someone new. Due to the advancement of Facebook with more of a user friendly applications as well as a more private profile page the popularity of Facebook took off. Since this explosion of users occurred more people have joined and it’s not as private as it used to be. This could possibly be the reason someone would lie about himself or herself when filling out a profile. I decided that I would ask a roommate of mine that I met through the Cornell ’11 network through the Low Rise 6 Group.
To start off this experiment I logged into Facebook and viewed what can actually be filled in for the profile and started to list them for my survey. After compiling a list of different categories I decided to narrow the list down to the 10 categories that I would check if I were going to meet someone new. The categories I choose were: Name, Photos, Networks, Sex, Relationship Status, Birthday, Hometown, Contact Info, Personal Info: Music, TV Shows, Movies, Books, and Groups. They were chosen because the truth can be revealed about these topics when talking Face to Face.
I decided to log into her profile first and look at each item and then make my grade from what I knew about her from the last 3 weeks that we have been together here at cornel and this is how the results went:
Name: 5
Photos: 4
Networks: 5
Sex: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Contact Info: 5
Personal Info
• Music: 5
• TV Shows: 4
• Movies: 5
• Books: 3
Groups: 4
After I finished the survey about her profile, I then gave her the survey to fill out to see what she actually lied about if she did at all and her response was as follows:
Name: 5
Photos: 5
Networks: 5
Sex: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Contact Info: 5
Personal Info
• Music: 4
• TV Shows: 5
• Movies: 5
• Books: 5
Groups: 5
When she asked me that question I knew that I was not going to get the response that I was looking for because of the implication that its stupid to lie on Facebook. The one category I thought she might have added some flavor to was the books but after having a discussion with her about some of the books that she listed I later came to the conclusion that everything she said was true. The outcomes of this experiment are going to be interesting to read because I think Facebook is a space where you don’t really need to lie about anything because the people you are going to be friends with will know you. If this was a dating site like match.com or something along those lines we would probably have seen some stretching of information in order to look good in their profile page, but since its more of a social thing lying doesn’t make sense.
I believe that the only real theory used for Facebook is deception. We have access to different types of photos of the person that we are looking at, but the person whos profile it is has the ability to choose which go up. Facebook combines both rich and lean media together. The thing with Facebook is that if you are just meeting a person on your network for the first time your impression management will be based on the pictures and hopefully the truthfulness of their profile.
To start off this experiment I logged into Facebook and viewed what can actually be filled in for the profile and started to list them for my survey. After compiling a list of different categories I decided to narrow the list down to the 10 categories that I would check if I were going to meet someone new. The categories I choose were: Name, Photos, Networks, Sex, Relationship Status, Birthday, Hometown, Contact Info, Personal Info: Music, TV Shows, Movies, Books, and Groups. They were chosen because the truth can be revealed about these topics when talking Face to Face.
I decided to log into her profile first and look at each item and then make my grade from what I knew about her from the last 3 weeks that we have been together here at cornel and this is how the results went:
Name: 5
Photos: 4
Networks: 5
Sex: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Contact Info: 5
Personal Info
• Music: 5
• TV Shows: 4
• Movies: 5
• Books: 3
Groups: 4
After I finished the survey about her profile, I then gave her the survey to fill out to see what she actually lied about if she did at all and her response was as follows:
Name: 5
Photos: 5
Networks: 5
Sex: 5
Relationship Status: 5
Birthday: 5
Hometown: 5
Contact Info: 5
Personal Info
• Music: 4
• TV Shows: 5
• Movies: 5
• Books: 5
Groups: 5
When she asked me that question I knew that I was not going to get the response that I was looking for because of the implication that its stupid to lie on Facebook. The one category I thought she might have added some flavor to was the books but after having a discussion with her about some of the books that she listed I later came to the conclusion that everything she said was true. The outcomes of this experiment are going to be interesting to read because I think Facebook is a space where you don’t really need to lie about anything because the people you are going to be friends with will know you. If this was a dating site like match.com or something along those lines we would probably have seen some stretching of information in order to look good in their profile page, but since its more of a social thing lying doesn’t make sense.
I believe that the only real theory used for Facebook is deception. We have access to different types of photos of the person that we are looking at, but the person whos profile it is has the ability to choose which go up. Facebook combines both rich and lean media together. The thing with Facebook is that if you are just meeting a person on your network for the first time your impression management will be based on the pictures and hopefully the truthfulness of their profile.
Assignment 4--The Complete Truth on Facebook
Facebook in very recent years has become an almost incomprehensible phenomenon for high school and college students. Students spend hours on the site looking at profile pages of friends, events, and groups they belong to. Many update their profile pages religiously--one friend on Facebook I have updates her profile once a day, and her status (a quick "Name" is doing _____ at the top of the profile page) multiple times a day.
The type of information put into Facebook profiles can be categorized according to definitions by Donath of conventional signals (costly displays directly related to the person's characteristics) and assessment signals (characteristics which have lower cost to lie about, and are only associated with the person). Assessment signals one might send on Facebook include name, pictures (direct representations of the person's appearance), gender, religious and political views, networks, some groups (depending on if membership to that group requires administrative approval of the crerator), screename, and e-mail. Conventional signals include major, favorite music, movies, About Me section, interests, activities, and favorite quotes.
I chose a close friend to interview in my experiment so that I could assess the accuracy of what she posted in her Facebook profile. I asked her to rate her name, birthday, political views, religious views, Instant Messanger screenname, activities, interests, music, about me, pictures (i.e did they look like her and accurately depict her life), groups (i.e do they portray who you really are), and added applications. Overall, she believed that she depicted herself very accurately, with an average of 4.41. Having known her a while, I rated her accuracy on the 1-5 scale with an average of 4.25. I believe that although she didn't outright lie, she may have included only positive information about herself in the About Me section, portraying her in a more favorful light. In addition, I have known her to "detag" Facebook pictures, de-associating herself from pictures that do not portray how she wants to appear appearance-wise. Another subtlety that was not completely true was her name. Although her profile name was the name most people call her, she still hadn't legally changed it to the name on the profile. Also, under favorite music she included one artist that she was "obsessed" with at the moment but I have known her to listen to many other artists.
On the whole however, my friend lied more subtly and more frequently in the conventional signals rather than the assessment signals, confirming Donath's Theory. According to Goffman, the goals on online dating websites (Facebook is similar in many ways in that it contains profile information a user is encouraged to self-disclose information) are to appear attractive and honest. To do this, according to the Self Presentation Goals Theory, one must lie frequently and subtly. According to my friend's profile, she certainly lied subtly. There were no outright untruths (all information on her profile was 3 or above). I think part of her motivation was, as the theory predicts, to appear more honest, but also since her Facebook account is mostly viewed by her friends, she would have no choice in many cases but to tell the truth to avoid detection. For instance, since those viewing her profile generally knew what she looked like, she couldn't put up pictures of Heidi Klum and get away with people thinking she was Heidi Klum's sister. Instead, she did a more subtle form of deception, associating herself with pictures that made her look more attractive by tagging the "good" ones and untagging the "bad" ones.
Although I wouldn't say her lies were frequent, they all conformed to a positive image she wanted to portray on her Facebook account. I think this is how many people tailor their Facebook profiles: they alter each signal (most often the conventional signals) subtly and frequently to portray a slightly modified self to those able to view their Facebook profiles. This strategic deception is something we all seem to be guilty of, and conform to the Selective Self-Presentation part of the Hyperpersonal Model in which we emphasize those characteristics that portray us in a positive light, and mitigate those that we do not want to portray.
The type of information put into Facebook profiles can be categorized according to definitions by Donath of conventional signals (costly displays directly related to the person's characteristics) and assessment signals (characteristics which have lower cost to lie about, and are only associated with the person). Assessment signals one might send on Facebook include name, pictures (direct representations of the person's appearance), gender, religious and political views, networks, some groups (depending on if membership to that group requires administrative approval of the crerator), screename, and e-mail. Conventional signals include major, favorite music, movies, About Me section, interests, activities, and favorite quotes.
I chose a close friend to interview in my experiment so that I could assess the accuracy of what she posted in her Facebook profile. I asked her to rate her name, birthday, political views, religious views, Instant Messanger screenname, activities, interests, music, about me, pictures (i.e did they look like her and accurately depict her life), groups (i.e do they portray who you really are), and added applications. Overall, she believed that she depicted herself very accurately, with an average of 4.41. Having known her a while, I rated her accuracy on the 1-5 scale with an average of 4.25. I believe that although she didn't outright lie, she may have included only positive information about herself in the About Me section, portraying her in a more favorful light. In addition, I have known her to "detag" Facebook pictures, de-associating herself from pictures that do not portray how she wants to appear appearance-wise. Another subtlety that was not completely true was her name. Although her profile name was the name most people call her, she still hadn't legally changed it to the name on the profile. Also, under favorite music she included one artist that she was "obsessed" with at the moment but I have known her to listen to many other artists.
On the whole however, my friend lied more subtly and more frequently in the conventional signals rather than the assessment signals, confirming Donath's Theory. According to Goffman, the goals on online dating websites (Facebook is similar in many ways in that it contains profile information a user is encouraged to self-disclose information) are to appear attractive and honest. To do this, according to the Self Presentation Goals Theory, one must lie frequently and subtly. According to my friend's profile, she certainly lied subtly. There were no outright untruths (all information on her profile was 3 or above). I think part of her motivation was, as the theory predicts, to appear more honest, but also since her Facebook account is mostly viewed by her friends, she would have no choice in many cases but to tell the truth to avoid detection. For instance, since those viewing her profile generally knew what she looked like, she couldn't put up pictures of Heidi Klum and get away with people thinking she was Heidi Klum's sister. Instead, she did a more subtle form of deception, associating herself with pictures that made her look more attractive by tagging the "good" ones and untagging the "bad" ones.
Although I wouldn't say her lies were frequent, they all conformed to a positive image she wanted to portray on her Facebook account. I think this is how many people tailor their Facebook profiles: they alter each signal (most often the conventional signals) subtly and frequently to portray a slightly modified self to those able to view their Facebook profiles. This strategic deception is something we all seem to be guilty of, and conform to the Selective Self-Presentation part of the Hyperpersonal Model in which we emphasize those characteristics that portray us in a positive light, and mitigate those that we do not want to portray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)