Assignment 4: The Truth About Facebook

For assignment four I decided to do the second option and use Catalina's study against a friend and their Facebook profile. I had decided that I wanted to base this assignment on someone who fulfilled these necessary requirements: i) that I knew the person fairly well, and ii) they had a certain amount of information about themselves on their page.

Meet Subject X. Subject X was put through the “Two-step Approach” where she did a self-report of herself regarding her Facebook profile and then I conducted a cross-validation from the information she gave me with the facts I knew about her to check if it all matched up.

Subject X’s information given was as follows and is rated on the scale of 1 (completely inaccurate) -5 (completely accurate):

• Relationship status: 3 (nothing was posted)
• Political views: 5
• Hometown: 5
• Interests: 4.5
• Favourite Music/Movies/Books: 4.5
• Quotes: 4
• Groups: 1
• Wall Posts: 4
• Pictures: 5
• Friends: 5
• Other Applications: 2

My findings are as follows:

• Relationship status: 3 (nothing was posted)
• Political views: 5
• Hometown: 5
• Interests: 3.5
• Favourite Music/Movies/Books: 3.5
• Quotes: 3
• Groups: 1
• Wall Posts: 4
• Pictures: 3
• Friends: 3.5
• Other Applications: 3

For the most part I felt Subject X was fairly honest with her profile except there was always room for deception. Since there was no relationship status it is hard to argue she is lying but she is being deceitful because people who do not know her are forced to make assumptions based on their own observations. As far as her favourite music/movies/books and her interests she selected only a handful of what she really does like and the information she put up were all fairly common to see. To name a few examples: stilettos, best friends, Wedding Crashers, Justin Timberlake, etc. Another area where I actually found the most deception was her pictures. She would detag pictures she did not like of herself and keep all the pictures where she looked good in. The pictures in her profile are also predominantly of her “party side” which is inaccurate because she only spends a fraction of her (lets say week) out partying; so this too is very deceiving. I guess the best way to describe her Facebook profile is to say it is just a snapshot of her personality: you do not see it all and there are many assumptions left for interpretation and what she decided to put up ultimately means, from what I gather, she wants people to think of her in that matter and see that side of her.

Side Note: according Catalina's study most people are very truthful about their relationship status on dating websites. Although Facebook is regarded more as a networking site versus an online dating site I do not know if this behaviour would be part of the norm for this study. Would this same rule apply for sites like Facebook?

4 Facebook profile interview

In my subject's analysis of his own profile, he rated personal details very truthful, with an average of 5. These included sexual orientation, relationship status, birthday, hometown, and all contact details. He rated his interest areas, which included actives, music, TV, movies, and the about me section, much lower. On average, this section was rated 3.4. This rating may be misleading because the subject gave his “about me” section a rating of 1, when for the purposes of this class it was no so much deceptive as it was sarcastic. Neglecting this section, the average rating for interests rises to 4.

While none are truly assessment signals, the personal facts would be more difficult to keep a deception up about on Facebook than the interests categories. They can be part of a deception, but they would not be subtle, in the sense that some of them are not difficult to corroborate. Goffman and Baumeister's notion of Self-Presentation goals suggests that people will lie in order to project a better image of themselves, but they prefer to do it in ways that are subtle. Deceiving about interests is one way to do this, as they are not readily verifiable, unless one has prior knowledge of the participants.

In class we looked at a study of online dating profiles and how truthful users were when using them. The study found that gender differences were most often the subject of lies in such profiles. While Facebook isn't explicitly a dating site, some parts of the study are supported by the subject's rating. In the study, the most truthful thing people put on their profile was their relationship status. Likewise, the subject gave his relationship status the highest rating of truthfulness.

Another study we have looked at in class was one about the frequency of deception compared in different media. Using the media features analysis of this study, Facebook would be asynchronous, have records, and be distributed, which is the exact profile of email. The results of the study could be extended to say that Facebook would have a similar deception frequency as email, the lowest of the four medium compared in the study (FtF, phone, IM, email). The subject's lower rating of his interest section may seem to be in conflict with this conclusion, but having prior knowledge of the subject, the deception there may not have been more due to lack of updating his profile than deliberate deception.

comments:
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-41-i-am-terrible-liar-online.html#links

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/a42-facebook-speaks-truth.html#links

4 A Loveable Little Girl...

Our generation knows everything about one another. How can we not? With websites such as Xanga, MySpace and Facebook, our profiles are splashed across the Internet for nearly everyone to see. Facebook, in particular lends itself to be the most inviting since it has become the "cool" site where you can secretly stalk any of your friends without them even knowing it. Facebook also allows for easy access to digital deception. There is nothing on Facebook that cannot either be left out or changed completely, including your name and your picture. Anyone can change their display name on Facebook so the idea that Facebook correctly shows everyone's real name is false. A part of your personality such as a name which would normally be an assessment signal since it is directly related to a person's character, can easily be changed in a format such as Facebook. We have the ability to be whomever we want, even on Facebook.

I interviewed one of my friend's about her profile only to find out that she was extremely truthful in what she wrote. Like myself, she kept her details to a minimum, but she did share certain personality characteristics with the rest of the Facebook world. Her contact information was rated as a 5 because her name, email address, IM screenname and residence were all correct. She felt no need to lie about information like this because she does not mind if people contact her in a lean mediium such as email or IM, and she felt that putting her sorority house as a residence would help let people know how to contact her along with a little bit of an idea as to what type of person she is. However, when I asked why she did not put her phone number on her profile, she quipped that she does not want random people that are not her close friends to have her phone number. Understandably so, she is worried that putting her phone number on Facebook for all to see would be too invasive of her privacy. I know that she is generally a very open person, but she is definitely not the type of person who would give her phone number out to someone without actually telling them face to face. Telephone conversation is a richer medium than either email or IM and she does not want people contacting her by phone unless she really knows them. My friend's relationship status is posted on Facebook as well, but it is listed as, "In a Relationship With..." and the person is one of her best friends who happens to also be female. Anyone who knows my friend would see this as just part of her funny and sarcastic personality, so she is being extremely truthful in the way that she portrays this type of information on Facebook.

When it comes to my friend's interests, she was a little less accurate and truthful simply because some of the information was posted in a joking manner. Like her relationship status, my friend posted some funny quotes that really encapsulate her sarcastic personality. She rates her books, movies, music, etc. at 4's simply because they are conventional signals that are constantly changing as time goes on as she listens to, reads and sees new material. The information that she has on her profile now completely describes her actual personality. She is funny and eclectic, and her "Favorites" section definitely accurately reflects this. However, it is definitely true that she still wants to make herself look good as everyone does when they have the ability to control what people see about them. The selective self presentation model fits really well here because my friend is choosing what information or photos to post about herself so that other people will see her in a good light. Her photo right now is a picture of when she was five years old, and when I asked her why she chose to post this picture, she asserted to me that it makes her look cute. She chooses to have everyone see a picture of her when she was extremely innocent and adorable. After all, no one can make fun of a five year old little girl without feeling a little guilty. Even though the Facebook picture is an assessment signal since our appearence does not really change, she chose to post a picture of herself as a child which does in fact portray to others a very different persona of herself.

When it comes to my friend, her Facebook profile was extremely small in magnitude because she really did not lie at all. She was very honest in how much information she chose to divuloge about herself, and other than the picture which was chosen to elicit an engaging response from others, the magnitude of her lies was very minute. She also had a very low frequency of lies since she barely lied at all. My friend is happy with the way she created her Facebook profile, and I am as well because it truly does show the real her. It is an accurate portrayal of the fun, interesting and adorable girl that I know and love.

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-cancun-or-bahamas.html
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-little-black-facebook.html

4 - The lies and truths of travel

In order to attempt this assignment, I needed to find a friend who didn't know the extent of my travels. After doing so, I decided to first tell a false travel tale over Instant Messenger after setting up a dinner date. Then, over dinner, I told my second, this time true, travel memory about a trip to Disney in Florida.

Initially, I decided to lie online because I thought that my facial and other physical cues would more likely give away the fact that I was making the memory up. For a similar reason, I thought that the physical cues I showed would confirm the fact that the memory I shared face to face with my partner was in fact a true memory.

There wasn't any specific way I tried to lie over instant messenger. I stayed consistent with how I normally would IM with this person (or any other friend, for that matter). I did, however, use additional online resources such as an image search on Google or Wikipedia articles to supplement my fake memories of my family trip to Chicago. I tried to insert as many obscure details as I could (like which hotels we stayed at, what restaurants we ate at, etc.), assuming that this would make the story seem more legitimate.

After dinner, I told my partner about this assignment and asked if he could tell which story was true and which was false. He thought for a while, and decided that the story about my trip to Chicago was false. When asked why, he said that I provided more uninteresting details about Chicago that most people would probably leave out, whereas with my true memory, I focused on stories involving my family's adventures in Disney (like how disappointed I was over a certain attraction being shut down, and my mom writing a letter of disapproval after our trip--it resulted in free admission tickets which we still haven't used).

Given the theories we've learned about thus far, I'd have to say that my experience best reflects Social Distance Theory simply because I did exactly as the theory predicts--I chose IM to lie because it is more socially distant than lying in person. However, one thing this theory doesn't cover is intent. It suggests that lying is uncomfortable, so we will pick a way to communicate to be more comfortable. I didn't choose IM to lie because I was uncomfortable to lie face to face, I chose IM to lie because I thought it would be easiest to disguise the falsehood of my story with fewer cues for my partner to use. In other words, I went into the communication knowing I was going to lie, so I chose the medium with which I thought would be easiest to deceive my partner (which kind of supports the notion of Media Richness Theory). It makes me wonder if any studies have been done on intentional lying as opposed to psychological lying (telling white lies, etc.)...

Assignment 4: Lack of Anonymity

For Assignment #4, I chose to investigate the second option, analyzing deception in Facebook. Facebook is an online social networking site in which users can share their lives and connect with others. A users profile page contains a number of features including a default picture, additional tagged pictures and photo albums, basic details, contact information, a list of friends and a wall with friends’ comments just to name a few. One of the most significant features of Facebook is its lack of anonymity. This lack of anonymity sets Facebook apart from almost every other online social networking site. For example, the majority of Facebook users that use Facebook to connect with their “real-life” friends register under their full first and last names—Facebook doesn’t have a nickname option like Myspace or Xanga. Additionally, any small change you make to your Facebook profile is broadcasted to your entire list of friends through Facebook’s distinctive “News-feed” feature. This leaves little room for deception when those you have added as friends are also your “real-life” friends.

Unlike other online sites, Facebook is jam-packed with assessment signals. Many people voluntarily share their full names, phone number, home address and email address. Although these features can be easily edited, omitted and/or forged, in any typical “university network” (such as Cornell University), they reflect upon a users’ “real-world” identity. Facebook’s conventional signals, on the other hand, are much more transient. These signals include the text one may write on a friend’s wall, one's interests, favorite quotes, or relationship status. These “low-cost” features do not necessarily define one’s “off-line” identity and can be easily edited at the click of a mouse without needing much explanation.

After administering Catalina’s method of rating to my friend, I discovered that she didn’t lie at all on her Facebook. Her contact information (assessment signals) mirrored her actual residence, email address and IM name. Her personal information (conventional signals) reflected her interests, activities and favorite quotes quite accurately. Additionally, the groups she belonged to reflected things she felt passionately about and her pictures accurately helped to display what her day-to-day life was like.

Although my friend didn’t place anything in her Facebook profile to intentionally deceive, like any other online profile, she did have similar goals of “appearing attractive and appearing honest” in mind. By using selective self-presentation, she didn’t include any information in her profile about herself that may make her seem ignorant or uninviting, nor did she tag any pictures of herself that may have made her look physically unattractive. Although she wasn’t exactly lying about herself in her Facebook profile, she was deceiving others by intentionally omitting parts of herself from her profile.

The communications that take place through my friend’s profile are always asynchronous, allowing her time to construct the manner in which she puts her message across. Since everything she writes on someone’s wall or sends in a message leaves a trace, I would consider her Facebook to be a recordable media. Therefore, according to Hancock et al.’s feature-based model, my friend would not be expected to deceive over a media such as Facebook because it is asynchronous and recordable (for the most part). However, since the people that my friend communicates with over Facebook are physically distributed for the most part, she has a small opportunity to deceive and selectively self-present herself.

http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/part-i-this-weekend-i-resolved-to.html
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2.html

assignment number 4, option 2

After asking my friend about her facebook profile and seeing other people’s profiles, I came to realize that many people do not lie about their interests, hometown, activities, relationship status etc. Lots of my friends joke about being “in a relationship” with their best friend, or “married” to their housemate, but it is all in good fun and not meaning to be deceiving. The facebook profile I decided to assess was 100% honest. My friend passed Catalina’s scale test with flying colors, giving herself all fives. “Why would I lie about my interests and music taste?”, she asked me after I was done quizzing her about how honest she actually was. This was a good point and I told her that it probably happens more on dating website profiles than on facebook. Since I live with the girl I interviewed, I know her well and was able to verify that she did in fact like the movies and tv shows and music she put down. She is in a relationship with a kid who goes to Hobart College. It says this under her “relationship status”. She is clearly not in the market for a boyfriend and so this makes it publicly known who she is dating and where he is from. From the theory standpoint, this does not really support any of the theories we learned about in class. People do not usually lie on facebook, but they just simply leave things out. For example, you have this weird obsession with pogs, but if they are not cool or hip at the time, chances are you will not put it down under interests. You are not lying, you are just not telling the whole truth. If there was a height and weight section, I bet many people would leave it blank, unless your height and/or weight was ideal and you wanted to brag about it. So the whole O’Sullivan and Media Richness Theories are not really appropriate for this situation because they talk about where people lie most and being efficient vs. not being efficient. A facebook account is something which can be changed and is not permanent. This means that people may take chances to see if saying a certain thing is working and getting people’s attention in a positive way. If they don’t get good feedback, a simple click of the mouse will take it away forever. This creates more of a conducive environment for lying and being sneaky with what you say and how you say it. The rich vs lean media comes into play and causes the atmosphere of facebook to be casual and easy to lie on. This being said, it is interesting that more people don’t lie about themselves and their habits. It is probably because people who you are friends with on facebook see you often and so you would not be able to get away with much. It is such a small world that eventually, no matter what you say or do, it always comes back to get you.