Assignment #4 Option 2: Facebook Deception

Communication technologies affect deception production. While there are theories of communication deception that involve e-mail, instant message, telephone, and ftf interaction, there are no theories that seek to explain the frequency and magnitude of deception on Facebook. The current theories of communication deception are the Social Distance Theory, Media Richness Theory, and most recently, the Feature-Based Approach. While the Social Distance Theory hypothesizes that individuals seek a “leaner” medium to deceive given the uncomfortable nature of lying, the Media Richness Theory claims that individuals will lie most in “rich” media. Lastly, the Feature-Based Approach claims that communication technology deception involves more than the question of richness. Focusing on the synchronicity, recordlessness, and distribution of communication media, the feature-based approach hypothesizes that individuals will lie most on the telephone, a medium that is neither the leanest nor the richest.
Given that neither the Social Distance Theory nor the Media Richness Theory includes Facebook, it is necessary to consider both how lean or rich Facebook is, and to analyze it in consideration of the three features of the Feature-Based Approach: synchronicity, recordlessness, and distribution. Analyzing Facebook in consideration of the Feature-Based Approach, it is evident that it is recordable, asynchronous, and distributed. According to this Feature-Based Approach, therefore, it is likely that deception takes place on Facebook. Taking into account the radical dynamics of Facebook, in relation to the other analyzed forms of communication media, it is necessary to further examine what type of deception is possible on Facebook. As a dynamic impression management tool, Facebook offers users a wide arrange of self-presentation tools, one of which being the ability to alter one’s profile. Considering such dynamics, and the theories of deception it is evident that Facebook deception varies on both assessment and conventional signals.
Assessment Signals, which are costly displays that are directly related to an individual’s characteristics, such as one’s university are much harder to successfully deceive, than conventional Signals, which are low cost displays that are only conventionally associated with a characteristic. It is reasonable to assume that individuals on Facebook can successfully alter conventional signals, but not assessment signals. Taking these ideas into consideration, I approached my friend’s Facebook profile believing that there would few, if any lies.
In the interview, my friend was confident that everything presented in his profile was presented truthfully. He rated each element as completely accurate. After analyzing his profile, I concluded that it was nearly entirely accurate. While my friend did not lie about anything insignificant, such as his interests, or other conventional signals, he surprisingly lied about his major. Though my friend has not yet been admitted to the major that he put on his profile, he is working towards this goal, and therefore it is not entirely a lie. Overall, given the lack of research on Facebook, it is difficult to determine where this medium lies on the “rich” spectrum. Given this uncertainty, it is difficult to determine which theory best applies to deception on Facebook. Given the parameters set forth by the feature-based approach, it is reasonable to assume that there will be, if any, only moderate and infrequent lies. My interview supports this reasoning.