There isn't a better way to put it- facebook is magical.
With facebook, you can do things that you may have never dreamed of doing before. You can count exactly how many friends you have, observe the six degrees of separation in digital form, or seek out potential boyfriend or girlfriend material without ever meeting them in person. Plus, you get to describe and display yourself with the help of about 20 preset categories.
I sent my close friend, Mr. Wiggles, a survey to determine how much truth there was in his facebook profile. I also completely the same survey about his facebook profile before I saw his results and most of the answers corresponded. The results show that there was a clear distinction between the categories that were completely accurate (which were rated a 5) and not completely accurate (rated anything lower than a 5). Sections that we both rated as 5’s included his birthday, hometown, sex, networks, address, relationship status, education info, and work info. These answers are assessment signals since a stipulation of sending assessment signals is that the person actually has the trait and otherwise would be hard to back up.
All other categories were rated lower than a 5, and while our numbers did not match up exactly for all these categories, we both rated them somewhere lower than a 5. These answers, called conventional signals, were included in the categories that showed what he liked or not, which on Facebook is the “Personal Info” section. This includes categories such as movies, music, interests, and quotes. Obviously, such categories are harder to prove whether or not you actually like what you listed. For example, it would be hard to actually prove that Mr. Wiggles is interested in Led Zeppelin, even if you knew him well. However, it is easier to disprove an incorrect response in the category of his sex (plus, he has plenty of pictures to prove that he was male if instead he was answered female). One reason I propose for this deception in the personal info section is that people are complex, and lots of answers end up omitted- it would be impossible to include every single thing that you like within the categories listed. Plus, one does not necessarily update their facebook profile every day (or every moment) and people do not necessarily like the same things as much day to day.
None of the categories were rated any lower than a 3, which indicates that all descriptions had some accuracy to it. The feature-based model best explains why Mr. Wiggles’ answers were mostly accurate on two features. Facebook is asynchronous, and people are less likely to lie in spontaneous situations. Facebook maintains a record of your answers, and while profiles can be updated, whatever updates you make are are available for viewing and the less likely users will lie. However, facebook is distributed, which indicates that the users are not in the same physical space, and as predicted by the feature based model, this indicates that users will lie more. Since this is a multidimensional theory, however, one cannot separate the influence of all three categories that define a setting. And while lies would be more apparent in distributed media (such as the phone), the influence of the other two factors make Facebook a comparatively truthful space.
The feature based model is the best theory to explain deception on Facebook in comparison with the social distance theory and media richness theory because, as indicated in the reading, they latter two only look at one characteristic of the space. Social distance theory would predict that people lie more when they are more “socially distant” and since Facebooking is based on social interactions, this could be reason to think that people would not lie as much as say in a chat room. However, it would have to be compared to more socially close situations in order to measure the relative amount of deception. For instance, face to face conversations are less socially distant and therefore people should lie less than on Facebook. Media richness theory least explains deception on Facebook, because Facebook is not a rich medium (it lacks social cues and synchronicity) and therefore more deception should take place. As shown by the survey completed by Mr. Wiggles (and in looking at many of my other friends facebook profiles), people generally tend to reveal more accurate information than not.
comments
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/this-one-timein-florida-4.html#comment-3922108290491382399
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3503255274952514317
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Diane,
I really liked your post! You established the criteria for your "experiment" and then very clearly explained it using the theory we learned in class.
My favorite part was definitely your explanation on why people appear less than 100% truthful on their interests. I found the same thing as well, but you make a great point saying that interests and tastes change, so the band or movie somebody likes today does not mean that they will necessarily like it tomorrow.
I think this is especially true in a college environment, where we are constantly exposed to new things and forced to change our tastes and preferences.
Overall great post, thanks for the read!
Hey Diane,
I loved the fact that you decided to look at all three theories and how the all apply to your situation instead of just focusing on one and tailoring specifics of your experience to that theory.
This shows that you have a clear understanding of the theory and how they are ambiguous.
Although I feel that facebook is a medium that has not really been addressed by any of the traditional theories that we are studying in class so it would be extremely hard for any of them to apply completely since when they were constructed, facebook did not exist.
Diane,
First of all, I want to commend you on your writing. While your post was long it was extremely interesting; the introduction even made me laugh! In addition to this you explained what you did in detail as well as why you did it.
Secondly, I think you definately display a good understanding of all the theories. I was impressed you took the time to apply your situation to more than one; this really shows you thought about the experience from many different angles.
The only suggestions I have would be to be even more detailed on the layout of facebook. Also, towards the end I was a little bit confused which theory you were supporting and not supporting. Maybe I read it wrong but there was a spot I think you may have contradicted yourself. In addition I'm not positive if you would say hometown,status and birthday are assessment signals....maybe I have it wrong I just feel people could easily lie about those aspects of themselves. Thoughts?
That being said I think this is a fabulous post and you did an excellent job addressing all aspects of the assignment.
"Facebook maintains a record of your answers, and while profiles can be updated, whatever updates you make are are available for viewing and the less likely users will lie."
You know, when I read this, I thought to myself, wouldnt it be interesting if facebook had a feature where you could see a drop down menu of the persons' old answers? It could be like Time Machine for Facebook. The could even put all the answers in a timeline. It would be like the ultimate make you tell the truth machine. I mean, who would even want to post anything on there if there was the chance that it would never be erased.
Interestingly enough, this has already happened in a way. As soon as facebook released their records to Google, Google's cache started picking up profiles. This ment that some users who had their profiles searchable by the public now also had their profiles in Google cache. It will be interesting to see if those people ever get mad at facebook for that. I havent heard any uproar yet, but who knows.
Post a Comment