My friend has a very honest Facebook profile. Both her assessment and conventional signals are all surprisingly truthful. I don’t know why I was expecting there to be false information in her profile, but apparently I thought that the more “socially distant” Facebook media would encourage my friend to somewhat alter the truth. When I interviewed my friend, she rated each element of her profile as a 5 for completely accurate. Later when I analyzed her profile to verify the actual accuracy level, I found that she had not deceived me. The conventional features of her profile, including Activities, Interests, Favorite Music, TV Shows, Movies, Books, and Quotes, were exactly how I would define my friend and her selections. Her education and work information were also straightforward and factual. She had even honestly listed Jessica Simpson as one of her favorite artists and “Newlyweds” as a favorite television show, even though she is somewhat embarrassed by it since she is a junior in college. Though her Facebook profile picture and the other album pictures could be examples of conventional signals because they can be so easily changed, she uses actual pictures of herself. She doesn’t de-tag pictures often, so her albums are filled with many candid shots that actually represent her. These actual pictures therefore portray biologically derived assessment signals. As would be expected, her cornell.edu email address is listed on her profile, which is also an example of an assessment signal because it is difficult to alter.
My friend’s relationship status was the only aspect of her profile that was a lie. While she is actually single, it says on Facebook that she is married to another girl, which is just a joke between friends. I would have to rate the frequency of her deception as very low because the only lie in her entire profile was just a joke about her relationship status. The magnitude of her deception was also extremely low because being jokingly married on Facebook tends to be a common lie, which is not severely deceiving anyone. Though it seems that many people selectively choose what and how to present themselves on Facebook for self-enhancement purposes, my friend has not fallen into that category. I think she has chosen to follow an extremely honest route because of the high likelihood of actually meeting and interacting with other Facebook members in real life at Cornell. While appearing attractive is important, appearing honest due to anticipated real life future interactions is also important according to Walther. In terms of lying predictions, my friend’s minimal deception is not indicative of the Social Distance theory. According to this theory, deception is most predominant in distant forms of media because lying is uncomfortable. Facebook is considered a more distant form of communication because when viewing someone’s profile or communicating through messages there is a great space and an asynchronicity factor between those who are interacting. Despite the distance between my friend and those who view her profile, she maintains her honesty instead of lying about her personal characteristics as the Social Distance Theory suggests would have been more common.
Comments:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-option-1-deception-detection.html
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-lying-on-facebook.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Megan. I enjoyed reading your blog about Facebook Deception and I agree with many of the things that you said. The person whom you interviewed, like my friend, was confident that her profile was presented truthfully. From the description of your friend, it appears that she does not engage in manipulative self-presentation tactics. Either she is confident with herself, or she is well-aware of how difficult it is to get away with deception on Facebook. Since Facebook has not been categorized as either a lean or rich medium in the way that Ftf, telephone, IM, and e-mail have been, it is appropriate to consider Facebook’s position on the richness spectrum. Additionally, it could be beneficial to consider Facebook using the three features from the feature-based approach: synchronicity, recordability, and distribution. Perhaps you could have added this analysis to your blog because it definitely sheds light on the likelihood of deception on Facebook. Though you claim Facebook is considered to be a more distant form of communication, in many ways Facebook does not fit the traditional definition of lean media. While it is asynchronous and distributed, traits that would lead to deception according to the Social Distance Theory, it is also recordable, which deters individuals from lying. Ultimately, it seems that research directed specifically at the dynamics of Facebook will shed light on the magnitude and frequency of deception.
Hey Megan, I really enjoyed your post! I liked that you considered listing Jessica Simpson as a favorite artist was a clear-cut sign that your friend was being on honest.
In terms of your friend's deception, the relationship status, there are a couple things to consider. First, I agree that this is not much of a deception, since it is clearly a joke among friends and is not meant to really deceive anyone. Secondly, do you think this in itself could be considered selective self-presentation. Your friend, though maybe not consciously, could be attempting to appear more attractive by showing she has friends, some good enough to be in a fake relationship on Facebook with.
Post a Comment