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
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
#4 - Biking across Korea and Japanese Flute Lessons
I decided to do option #1, telling a friend two travel experiences over rich and lean media with one of them being a lie. I met up with So Young, who is also taking this class, and we decided to exchange stories. So, I started first on chat.
I told So Young over AIM that I went to California Disney Land when I was 14 with my Mom and Dad to meet my Uncle and Aunt who are obsessed with all things Mickey Mouse. I told her that my Uncle Collects Disney character pins, so we spent most of our time in little shops looking for the pins and trying to find all the really rare ones. A marketing tactic that Disney has is that all of the park staff where pins on their staff lanyards, and they have to trade with you if you ask. So, my brother and I wondered around the park getting the best pins to sell on ebay.
My second story I told over the phone. I told So Yong that when I was 16 I was a Rotary Exchange Student to Japan. When I got there, my host family was really nice and they signed me up for traditional Japanese flute and drum lessons. The problem was, I couldnt really speak or understand much Japanese, so when I got there I couldnt really follow the instructions of the class. So, the teacher told me to come back the next week at a different time. When I came back the next week, I realized everyone in my class were 4-6 year olds! They had moved me to the little kid class because I was so incompetent. So, in our year end performance, I got to perform on stage with a bunch of little kids in front of a whole crowd of people. It was a little embarrassing.
So which one was a lie? The lie was the Disney land one. In fact, I did go to Japan and play flute and drums with little kids.
So, did So Young find out? She said she didn't know which one was a lie at first, but after I told her it was the Disney one she said that she thought it might be because I kept saying "So... yeah..." a whole bunch. Also, I consciously made the decision to lie over AIM because I didnt want to have to try to make my self seem reasonable over the phone when she might be able to detect my voice wavering.
So Young also told me two stories as well. She told me a story over AIM that was about her and a friend bike riding from Pusan to Seoul in South Korea. I didnt know how far that was, so I asked, and she said about 5 hours by car! She said it took her and her friend a week to do it and they stayed in little country inns. I thought this story was the lie because I knew So Young from before this class, and I didnt know thats she was in to bike riding at all. Plus, I think that you would have to be pretty in to bike riding to do a week long trip across South Korea.
So Young and I both chose to lie over AIM, interestingly enough. This correlates well to Social Distance Theory. Social Distance Theory says that we will pick the leanest media in which to lie because lying through richer media is perceived as increasingly uncomfortable and difficult. I definitely chose AIM over the phone because I knew that I would have more to hide over the phone, such as my voice and the way that I would have had to think up a story on the phone. Another thing that I think supports the Social Distance Theory is that on AIM it is acceptable to have long pauses in your chat because maybe you were busy or talking to someone else. One could use this time to formulate a story if needed. However, on the phone, long pauses are usually seen as strange, so people would usually question you more about them, and become suspicious.
I think some thing we have to think about though, is how lying usually occurs online. I dont think usually if we are going to be lying to a close friend (like I did) that we usually come up with another story on the spot, especially if we are going to be telling a lie about a travel trip. (I mean, if you are going to lie about travel, you might as well think of a good lie.) A lie about a travel trip is certainly a long and drawn out lie that you would probably not want to talk about over the phone because it would be so long. However, I could see and equal amounts of lies being told over the phone and over Aim if the lie was only one word or only a couple of words, or maybe a lie you tell often. That way you wouldn't have to worry about the cues you might be giving away.
I told So Young over AIM that I went to California Disney Land when I was 14 with my Mom and Dad to meet my Uncle and Aunt who are obsessed with all things Mickey Mouse. I told her that my Uncle Collects Disney character pins, so we spent most of our time in little shops looking for the pins and trying to find all the really rare ones. A marketing tactic that Disney has is that all of the park staff where pins on their staff lanyards, and they have to trade with you if you ask. So, my brother and I wondered around the park getting the best pins to sell on ebay.
My second story I told over the phone. I told So Yong that when I was 16 I was a Rotary Exchange Student to Japan. When I got there, my host family was really nice and they signed me up for traditional Japanese flute and drum lessons. The problem was, I couldnt really speak or understand much Japanese, so when I got there I couldnt really follow the instructions of the class. So, the teacher told me to come back the next week at a different time. When I came back the next week, I realized everyone in my class were 4-6 year olds! They had moved me to the little kid class because I was so incompetent. So, in our year end performance, I got to perform on stage with a bunch of little kids in front of a whole crowd of people. It was a little embarrassing.
So which one was a lie? The lie was the Disney land one. In fact, I did go to Japan and play flute and drums with little kids.
So, did So Young find out? She said she didn't know which one was a lie at first, but after I told her it was the Disney one she said that she thought it might be because I kept saying "So... yeah..." a whole bunch. Also, I consciously made the decision to lie over AIM because I didnt want to have to try to make my self seem reasonable over the phone when she might be able to detect my voice wavering.
So Young also told me two stories as well. She told me a story over AIM that was about her and a friend bike riding from Pusan to Seoul in South Korea. I didnt know how far that was, so I asked, and she said about 5 hours by car! She said it took her and her friend a week to do it and they stayed in little country inns. I thought this story was the lie because I knew So Young from before this class, and I didnt know thats she was in to bike riding at all. Plus, I think that you would have to be pretty in to bike riding to do a week long trip across South Korea.
So Young and I both chose to lie over AIM, interestingly enough. This correlates well to Social Distance Theory. Social Distance Theory says that we will pick the leanest media in which to lie because lying through richer media is perceived as increasingly uncomfortable and difficult. I definitely chose AIM over the phone because I knew that I would have more to hide over the phone, such as my voice and the way that I would have had to think up a story on the phone. Another thing that I think supports the Social Distance Theory is that on AIM it is acceptable to have long pauses in your chat because maybe you were busy or talking to someone else. One could use this time to formulate a story if needed. However, on the phone, long pauses are usually seen as strange, so people would usually question you more about them, and become suspicious.
I think some thing we have to think about though, is how lying usually occurs online. I dont think usually if we are going to be lying to a close friend (like I did) that we usually come up with another story on the spot, especially if we are going to be telling a lie about a travel trip. (I mean, if you are going to lie about travel, you might as well think of a good lie.) A lie about a travel trip is certainly a long and drawn out lie that you would probably not want to talk about over the phone because it would be so long. However, I could see and equal amounts of lies being told over the phone and over Aim if the lie was only one word or only a couple of words, or maybe a lie you tell often. That way you wouldn't have to worry about the cues you might be giving away.
My Life is a Rap Music Video (Assignment 4.2)
The Facebook profile- everything you need to know about anyone. Or so you may think. Because of the regularity of online deception, we cannot truly rely on Facebook to paint us an accurate picture of an individual. I was once again reminded of the truth to this statement this weekend when I interviewed one of my friends about his profile.
In his profile picture, he is staring off into the distance with a beer in his hand. He said many things factored into his decision to choose this picture. He said it made him look cool (I personally told him I thought he looked weird, but I guess he is entitled to his own opinion). He is also short, so he chose a picture where he was alone so people couldn’t compare his height to other people’s. Finally, he said the fact that he was drinking beer was good because it “shows the ladies he can party”. I then proceeded to slap him in the face (just kidding but I had to hold back with all the strength in my body). He told me that the picture was a 4 on Natalie’s accuracy scale because he thought that it, for the most part, was a good picture that captured who he was. I disagree, as I would probably rate the picture between a 2 and 3. He does not spend much of his time standing alone, reflecting on life with a beer on his hand. Therefore, one might get a different idea of who he is and what he enjoys just based on his picture.
His “Basic Info” was very accurate. This information is difficult to lie about since it is basically factual. He displayed that he is a Male who is interested in women and looking for “anything he can get.” It showed his birthday, hometown, and his religion. Most of your friends will know this information, so lying about it probably doesn’t make sense to most people. My friend rated this section a 5 on Natalie’s scale, and I agree with him.
His “Personal Info” is a different story. Here is where most people take advantage of Facebook. My friend’s list of Favorite Music is basically a list of the today’s top twenty rap artists. I personally know that he does not really listen to music to often. Yet by putting all the rap artists, he is clearly inreasing his "coolness" level tremendously (in his eyes at least). In addition, under his Interests, he wrote “Nets, Cowboys, Yankees,” among others. Yet this bothered me also because he is an extremely casual sports fan- he does not now what happens unless other people tell him. I would not have expected these sport teams to be listed under his interests because to be honest, he could care less about sports. He said this section was a 5 on Natalie’s scale. I disagree and give him a 3 because his Activities, TV Shows, and Movies are accurate to my knowledge. Yet by putting every rap artist known to man in order to look cooler than he actually is, he is deceiving. In my opinion, by putting the sports teams in his interests, he is trying to show other guys that he is a man’s man and loves sports. These are clear attempts at blasphemy and deception if I could say so myself.
Overall, my friend rated his Facebook profile a 4.5 on Natalie’s accuracy scale. I gave him a 3.5 because of blatant “alterations” that were an attempt to look tough and cool. While most of his information is correct, such as his sex, birthday, email address, and some of his interests, his profile picture, music, an interests may lead others into thinking of him in the wrong light.
My experience with my friend supports the Social Distance Theory. If I were to ask him the same questions personally that he was asked on Facebook, I think he would be honest with me. He gets nervous when he tries to lie and starts blinking heavily, so it would be pretty obvious that he was not being straightforward. Yet on Facebook, a more socially distant, Internet outlet with no visual or verbal cues to indicate lying, he found it much easier to alter his appearance and personally in order to benefit himself. Therefore, my friend took advantage of the more socially distant communication method, and, in my eyes, turned himself into a monster…
In his profile picture, he is staring off into the distance with a beer in his hand. He said many things factored into his decision to choose this picture. He said it made him look cool (I personally told him I thought he looked weird, but I guess he is entitled to his own opinion). He is also short, so he chose a picture where he was alone so people couldn’t compare his height to other people’s. Finally, he said the fact that he was drinking beer was good because it “shows the ladies he can party”. I then proceeded to slap him in the face (just kidding but I had to hold back with all the strength in my body). He told me that the picture was a 4 on Natalie’s accuracy scale because he thought that it, for the most part, was a good picture that captured who he was. I disagree, as I would probably rate the picture between a 2 and 3. He does not spend much of his time standing alone, reflecting on life with a beer on his hand. Therefore, one might get a different idea of who he is and what he enjoys just based on his picture.
His “Basic Info” was very accurate. This information is difficult to lie about since it is basically factual. He displayed that he is a Male who is interested in women and looking for “anything he can get.” It showed his birthday, hometown, and his religion. Most of your friends will know this information, so lying about it probably doesn’t make sense to most people. My friend rated this section a 5 on Natalie’s scale, and I agree with him.
His “Personal Info” is a different story. Here is where most people take advantage of Facebook. My friend’s list of Favorite Music is basically a list of the today’s top twenty rap artists. I personally know that he does not really listen to music to often. Yet by putting all the rap artists, he is clearly inreasing his "coolness" level tremendously (in his eyes at least). In addition, under his Interests, he wrote “Nets, Cowboys, Yankees,” among others. Yet this bothered me also because he is an extremely casual sports fan- he does not now what happens unless other people tell him. I would not have expected these sport teams to be listed under his interests because to be honest, he could care less about sports. He said this section was a 5 on Natalie’s scale. I disagree and give him a 3 because his Activities, TV Shows, and Movies are accurate to my knowledge. Yet by putting every rap artist known to man in order to look cooler than he actually is, he is deceiving. In my opinion, by putting the sports teams in his interests, he is trying to show other guys that he is a man’s man and loves sports. These are clear attempts at blasphemy and deception if I could say so myself.
Overall, my friend rated his Facebook profile a 4.5 on Natalie’s accuracy scale. I gave him a 3.5 because of blatant “alterations” that were an attempt to look tough and cool. While most of his information is correct, such as his sex, birthday, email address, and some of his interests, his profile picture, music, an interests may lead others into thinking of him in the wrong light.
My experience with my friend supports the Social Distance Theory. If I were to ask him the same questions personally that he was asked on Facebook, I think he would be honest with me. He gets nervous when he tries to lie and starts blinking heavily, so it would be pretty obvious that he was not being straightforward. Yet on Facebook, a more socially distant, Internet outlet with no visual or verbal cues to indicate lying, he found it much easier to alter his appearance and personally in order to benefit himself. Therefore, my friend took advantage of the more socially distant communication method, and, in my eyes, turned himself into a monster…
Assignment 4 opt 1 – True or False? - The type of lie/subject of lie counts?!
This past weekend I visited with a friend from home. I thought it would be a perfect chance to try out assignment 4. Much of our weekend was spent laughing about and telling stories from the past and some stories from our college experiences. While communicating ftf, I told him a hysterical story about my ride up with my parents to orientation during my freshman year…this one was true. To be honest I didn’t remember all of the details, but I got the majority of the story right, and from his reaction, the story seemed to be a success.
Next, I waited until my friend was back at his own school. While chatting online, as we frequently do, I pulled out another story, this time the story was completely made up. I started tell him about the time I went to Costa Rica with my family. Another mutual friend had actually been to Costa Rica recently, so I knew I could answer some questions, if he pried further into my story.
Now, onto the results…but first I noticed something interesting. Upon telling him my made up story, and now needing to know which of the stories he believed and which he did not, I stopped using the semi rich media channel (AIM) and reached for my cell phone, a more rich media channel. I did this completely randomly and unknowingly, yet I suppose this transfer of media could have occurred since I needed to get as much data from him to write this assignment. In order to do so, a richer form of media would get me the most information with the least amount of distraction, confusion, or lack of cooperation. Anyway, I briefly explained the assignment, then quickly reminded him of the two stories and asked which one was false and which one was true. He said had I not told him that I had this assignment, he never would have suspected me to lie about some random story I decided to tell, and thus he believed both stories as fact. There was no reason to doubt my stories since there was no reason to make up a story which I decided to share. The subject matter (A family vacation) was not conducive to or worthy of a lie. Had he asked about a test grade that I was clearly unprepared for, and I responded that I got a 100, then he would have a reason to doubt my truthfulness, but not in a good hearted family vacation. For the sake of forcing an answer out of him, I asked, “Well which story was more convincing as truth.” He interestingly explained that the first story (the one in person) was more convincing. Despite it not having all the details and facts as my second story did, I showed much more enthusiasm and interest. I didn’t focus so much on the details as I did on the general story and experience, but again he explained both were accepted by him as truth. This is better understood through the Social Distance Theory (Depaulo et al, 1996). Without thinking, it was simply easier to lie and more comfortable to lie with a more lean type of media. I was able to disguise my lie through aim since it wasn’t 100% synchronous and he wasn’t receiving so many vocal or facial cues. In addition, I was able to explain myself, look up information, or hide in the event he found out I was lying. The media I choose and, interestingly, the subject matter both seemed to effect his perception of lies.
Next, I waited until my friend was back at his own school. While chatting online, as we frequently do, I pulled out another story, this time the story was completely made up. I started tell him about the time I went to Costa Rica with my family. Another mutual friend had actually been to Costa Rica recently, so I knew I could answer some questions, if he pried further into my story.
Now, onto the results…but first I noticed something interesting. Upon telling him my made up story, and now needing to know which of the stories he believed and which he did not, I stopped using the semi rich media channel (AIM) and reached for my cell phone, a more rich media channel. I did this completely randomly and unknowingly, yet I suppose this transfer of media could have occurred since I needed to get as much data from him to write this assignment. In order to do so, a richer form of media would get me the most information with the least amount of distraction, confusion, or lack of cooperation. Anyway, I briefly explained the assignment, then quickly reminded him of the two stories and asked which one was false and which one was true. He said had I not told him that I had this assignment, he never would have suspected me to lie about some random story I decided to tell, and thus he believed both stories as fact. There was no reason to doubt my stories since there was no reason to make up a story which I decided to share. The subject matter (A family vacation) was not conducive to or worthy of a lie. Had he asked about a test grade that I was clearly unprepared for, and I responded that I got a 100, then he would have a reason to doubt my truthfulness, but not in a good hearted family vacation. For the sake of forcing an answer out of him, I asked, “Well which story was more convincing as truth.” He interestingly explained that the first story (the one in person) was more convincing. Despite it not having all the details and facts as my second story did, I showed much more enthusiasm and interest. I didn’t focus so much on the details as I did on the general story and experience, but again he explained both were accepted by him as truth. This is better understood through the Social Distance Theory (Depaulo et al, 1996). Without thinking, it was simply easier to lie and more comfortable to lie with a more lean type of media. I was able to disguise my lie through aim since it wasn’t 100% synchronous and he wasn’t receiving so many vocal or facial cues. In addition, I was able to explain myself, look up information, or hide in the event he found out I was lying. The media I choose and, interestingly, the subject matter both seemed to effect his perception of lies.
Facebook (Do people really show face?)- Assignment #4
Hi!
I chose to do option #2 in assigment #4. I am fascinated by the facebook phenomena and an chance given to me to explore it in further depth is exciting.
While Facebook started as just a websit for college students that gave their name, major, age and a few other basid facts; the site has evolved into much more with applications such as "what do you think of me?" , "quote of the day", "advanced wall" and the all knowing "news-feed." The most basic Facebook preofiles include a picture of the person (however this picture is not necessarily a self portrait), and below the picture are more options such as viewing other pictures of the person, "poke-them", "message them,'' and "add as a friend." On the left hand side of the page we start with personal information" age, sex, interested in, hometown, looking for, birthday and religious views. Below this is the mini-feed which provides an outline of the person's recent activity on the site (including new friends, groups joined and events attending).
The next section of the page allows the person to give contact information such as email, screen name, phone number and address. Below this section one can provide further personal information such as activities, interests, favorite music, TV-shows, movies and books, quotes and "about me." Next the person can provide education information such as where they went to high-school and where they go to college and in addition can provide information about past/current work experience.
Relating the Facebook site to the signals of identity discussed by Donath (1999), one could say that assessment signals (those difficult to manipulate) would be email address, phone, and your picture. It is scary to realize that most of the options on Facenook would be categorized as conventional signals. One can lie (or tweak) their birthday, name, hometown, cell phone, interests, job experience, highschool and sometimes even picture. While many people may not actually lie about this information the ability to do so directly correlates to the Social Distance Theory which posites that lying is uncomfortable so we use more "socially distant" media to lie. Facebook allows people to lie about small aspects of who they are and if taken to its full potential one can pretend to be almost a completely different person (if they don't put lots of extra pictures up). Similarly the medium allows people to have full ability to self- present..e.g. one can be extremely funny, serious, religious, crazy or sober on Facebook. In addition on can select certian pictures to present in an effort to show relationship they believe will make them appear more attractive.
I looked at one of my close friends Facebook profiles and had them rate their honesty on a scale of 1-5 ( 5 being completely honest) on each element of their profile. The results are as follows: education-5, sex-5, name-5, hometown-1, religious view-1, interested in-5, relationship status-5, email/aim/mobile-5, activites-3, interests-3, favorite music-2, TV-shows and movies-1, books-4, and finally major-1. What I find particularly interesting is that not knowing this person someone might actually believe some of the facts they wrote in their additional personal information which do seem a bit odd when looking at the other information on the profile. However, knowing this person well it is obvious that the lies they told were more to give their profile a humorous affect rather then pretend to be someone they weren't. Given this I raise the question as to whether we should be more careful about how we assess lies eg...are the subjects trying to deceive or just crack a joke? Should we look at each situation differently? Are people really likely to deceive Facebook, or is it more common in instant-messaging and chat rooms? Why/Why not?
I chose to do option #2 in assigment #4. I am fascinated by the facebook phenomena and an chance given to me to explore it in further depth is exciting.
While Facebook started as just a websit for college students that gave their name, major, age and a few other basid facts; the site has evolved into much more with applications such as "what do you think of me?" , "quote of the day", "advanced wall" and the all knowing "news-feed." The most basic Facebook preofiles include a picture of the person (however this picture is not necessarily a self portrait), and below the picture are more options such as viewing other pictures of the person, "poke-them", "message them,'' and "add as a friend." On the left hand side of the page we start with personal information" age, sex, interested in, hometown, looking for, birthday and religious views. Below this is the mini-feed which provides an outline of the person's recent activity on the site (including new friends, groups joined and events attending).
The next section of the page allows the person to give contact information such as email, screen name, phone number and address. Below this section one can provide further personal information such as activities, interests, favorite music, TV-shows, movies and books, quotes and "about me." Next the person can provide education information such as where they went to high-school and where they go to college and in addition can provide information about past/current work experience.
Relating the Facebook site to the signals of identity discussed by Donath (1999), one could say that assessment signals (those difficult to manipulate) would be email address, phone, and your picture. It is scary to realize that most of the options on Facenook would be categorized as conventional signals. One can lie (or tweak) their birthday, name, hometown, cell phone, interests, job experience, highschool and sometimes even picture. While many people may not actually lie about this information the ability to do so directly correlates to the Social Distance Theory which posites that lying is uncomfortable so we use more "socially distant" media to lie. Facebook allows people to lie about small aspects of who they are and if taken to its full potential one can pretend to be almost a completely different person (if they don't put lots of extra pictures up). Similarly the medium allows people to have full ability to self- present..e.g. one can be extremely funny, serious, religious, crazy or sober on Facebook. In addition on can select certian pictures to present in an effort to show relationship they believe will make them appear more attractive.
I looked at one of my close friends Facebook profiles and had them rate their honesty on a scale of 1-5 ( 5 being completely honest) on each element of their profile. The results are as follows: education-5, sex-5, name-5, hometown-1, religious view-1, interested in-5, relationship status-5, email/aim/mobile-5, activites-3, interests-3, favorite music-2, TV-shows and movies-1, books-4, and finally major-1. What I find particularly interesting is that not knowing this person someone might actually believe some of the facts they wrote in their additional personal information which do seem a bit odd when looking at the other information on the profile. However, knowing this person well it is obvious that the lies they told were more to give their profile a humorous affect rather then pretend to be someone they weren't. Given this I raise the question as to whether we should be more careful about how we assess lies eg...are the subjects trying to deceive or just crack a joke? Should we look at each situation differently? Are people really likely to deceive Facebook, or is it more common in instant-messaging and chat rooms? Why/Why not?
4: Option 2; My Friend Can Only be Tough on Facebook (To Get Girls)
For this assignment I chose to interview a close friend, Ben. Ben was a good subject because I know him well and can easily detect some of his identity-based deception in his Facebook profile. Ben averaged a 4 on Catalina’s “accurate-inaccurate” scale.
When I asked Ben to rate his profile picture he settled with a 4, explaining that his hair was a bit long and that it is an older picture. Knowing his perception about his “ideal self,” I would say that he had some self-presentation goals in mind. Despite having newer, more accurate pictures at his expenditure, this older photo includes a pair of drumsticks crossed in front of his face as he stares into the camera lens. To me, this is important to Ben because he is attempting to portray an image; an image that portrays him as a sort-of “tough guy” when, in fact, he is one of the more sensitive people I know (I would give him a 2 or a 3 in this case). I considered this to be an assessment signal because of the many inferences one could make based on his profile picture (“tough guy”, “drummer”, “unruly” etc.). Aside from this and his e-mail address, I thought the rest of his deception fell under conventional signals.
One conventional signal was Ben’s “T.V. shoes category which he rated a 1. He explained that this was because he doesn’t watch any of the shows that he listed and that he doesn’t watch much T.V. at all. Although I didn’t disagree with him because I know that Ben doesn’t watch much T.V., I questioned whether he was still trying to contribute to his masculine image by including “Monday Night Football” as one of his favorites.
Finally, if we jump to Ben’s “Favorite Music” section we can confirm his reasons for personality deception. His music tastes are likened to hard rock bands like Stand, Metallica, and Breaking Benjamin, who have a stereotypic “callous personalities.” Because I understand his passion for this type of music and his dream to be like these bands (Ideal self), I understood his reasons for selective self-presenting his profile this way. However, if someone who didn’t know Ben glanced over his profile, the implications might suggest that Ben is a “tough guy” based on his assessment and conventional signals.
Hancock’s Feature-based model suggests that this asynchronous, identity-based deception allows Ben time to send a certain message to people that view his Facebook profile. Although I think some of his interests and activities accurately describe him, I think he is attempting to portray himself in a different light.
When I asked Ben to rate his profile picture he settled with a 4, explaining that his hair was a bit long and that it is an older picture. Knowing his perception about his “ideal self,” I would say that he had some self-presentation goals in mind. Despite having newer, more accurate pictures at his expenditure, this older photo includes a pair of drumsticks crossed in front of his face as he stares into the camera lens. To me, this is important to Ben because he is attempting to portray an image; an image that portrays him as a sort-of “tough guy” when, in fact, he is one of the more sensitive people I know (I would give him a 2 or a 3 in this case). I considered this to be an assessment signal because of the many inferences one could make based on his profile picture (“tough guy”, “drummer”, “unruly” etc.). Aside from this and his e-mail address, I thought the rest of his deception fell under conventional signals.
One conventional signal was Ben’s “T.V. shoes category which he rated a 1. He explained that this was because he doesn’t watch any of the shows that he listed and that he doesn’t watch much T.V. at all. Although I didn’t disagree with him because I know that Ben doesn’t watch much T.V., I questioned whether he was still trying to contribute to his masculine image by including “Monday Night Football” as one of his favorites.
Finally, if we jump to Ben’s “Favorite Music” section we can confirm his reasons for personality deception. His music tastes are likened to hard rock bands like Stand, Metallica, and Breaking Benjamin, who have a stereotypic “callous personalities.” Because I understand his passion for this type of music and his dream to be like these bands (Ideal self), I understood his reasons for selective self-presenting his profile this way. However, if someone who didn’t know Ben glanced over his profile, the implications might suggest that Ben is a “tough guy” based on his assessment and conventional signals.
Hancock’s Feature-based model suggests that this asynchronous, identity-based deception allows Ben time to send a certain message to people that view his Facebook profile. Although I think some of his interests and activities accurately describe him, I think he is attempting to portray himself in a different light.
Back up...you mean to tell me...that was all a lie? Assignment 4, Option 1
True friendship to me has always been defined as knowing someone else almost as well as you know yourself. To see if this idyllic version of friendship truly existed, i decided to try this assignment out on my best friend.
Before I delve into what took place this weekend, I want to give you guys some background, because as you know, the foundation of the story is everything. My best friend (Sonny) and I have known each other for years (since I was 12). We often refer to ourselves as twins, even though he's of a different ethnicity and more than a few years older than me. He somehow always knows what I'm thinking and feeling. Although we are close, we often don't get to talk as much due to the distance and the work that encompasses our lives.
In class, due to my last name, Catalina assigned me a rich medium for my lying to take place. I chose the telephone (although it was not exactly by choice since it was the richest medium available to me due to the fact Sonny lives in New Jersey). I decided to formulate my story beforehand, outlining a plausible story and writing a couple of options just in case Sonny decided to probe and figure out my lies. You might think that I went overboard, however, I am truly just that bad of a liar.
I called Sonny up on Saturday afternoon (our normal chatting time due to both of us having no prior commitments at that time). After the usual small talk, I dove into my lie. I decided to tell him about how I met my first boyfriend (he had always been curious, but I had never told him the truth). I made sure that the lie/story i was telling him took place before me and Sonny had ever met just so he wouldn't know right away that I was lying. I added in details (such as where we went sightseeing) and inserted a tone of nostalgia, accompanies with tons of mournful sighs etc. My outline was a great help since Sonny was so curious and was constantly asking me questions. More so, I have this habit of (when I'm lying) pausing and then going "Oooh, I totally forgot where I was going with that." It's my way of giving myself enough time to think a better lie. Since I had the outline, such pauses diminished.
I used the outline to help me form conventional signals that related to telling the truth (such as not having pauses mid-conversation, or talking too fast).
The next step was to tell him a traveling story that was actually true. I was somewhat stumped on what medium to actually choose since me and Sonny rarely talked on Facebook or even IM. I thought about e-mail, but decided that it was too impersonal for any type of story telling. I ended up writing a blog about my traveling experience to India when I was 14 and sent him the link. My reasoning behind this "random" way of expressing myself to him was that I didn't have time to tell the story again and again to all my friends so I chose a medium where they could all see it on their own time. And I could edit it whenever I wanted to. Again, I made sure that I included the same amount of details as I had before. It was much easier to formulate the story on the blog, although I don't know if i can attribute this to the medium or to the fact that it was a true story.
The next day, I told Sonny about this assignment, and asked him if he had any idea if either story was a lie. I was secretly rooting for him to get it right, since of course in my mind this would prove that our bond was stronger than the theories of deception. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Sonny got it wrong on both counts. He thought that the blog post was a lie, and the story I told him on the telephone the truth.
He thought my story on the telephone was the truth since when he poked and prodded at the story (not intentionally trying to find holes, but accomplishing that purpose anyway) I had answers ready. He also thought that since I had waited so long to tell him the story, that I wouldn't be so mean as to lie about it. On the other hand, he thought the blog post was a lie since he thought that I had written too many details. To him, that was automatically trying too hard and so therefore, had to be a lie. He also didn't rely buy my story for using the blog in the first place.
The Social Distance theory states that a person will lie the least in richer medium, the Media Richness theory states that a person will lie the least in a lean medium and the Feature based theory states that a person will lie the most on the phone, and least on e-mail. These theories somewhat do not apply to my situation since I was specifically given the medium where I had to lie. However, if we put aside the fact that I was given the medium in which to lie in, as shown by my experience above, it was much harder for me to formulate a lie on the phone (as shown by the amount of prep work that I had to go through). Since I had many more cues to cover up, I had to work twice at hard to make sure that all of them pointed to me telling the truth. My experience does not support any of the three theories, but neither does it disprove any of them.
Rather, my experience shows that the theories that people have come up with for digital deception do not take into account many things. For example, they don't consider people's backgrounds, or the idea that one can somewhat prepare in advance for a pre-meditated lie. It just shows how theories in social science exist because someone found another way of looking at the problem, and none are completely correct, nor are any of them completely wrong.
Before I delve into what took place this weekend, I want to give you guys some background, because as you know, the foundation of the story is everything. My best friend (Sonny) and I have known each other for years (since I was 12). We often refer to ourselves as twins, even though he's of a different ethnicity and more than a few years older than me. He somehow always knows what I'm thinking and feeling. Although we are close, we often don't get to talk as much due to the distance and the work that encompasses our lives.
In class, due to my last name, Catalina assigned me a rich medium for my lying to take place. I chose the telephone (although it was not exactly by choice since it was the richest medium available to me due to the fact Sonny lives in New Jersey). I decided to formulate my story beforehand, outlining a plausible story and writing a couple of options just in case Sonny decided to probe and figure out my lies. You might think that I went overboard, however, I am truly just that bad of a liar.
I called Sonny up on Saturday afternoon (our normal chatting time due to both of us having no prior commitments at that time). After the usual small talk, I dove into my lie. I decided to tell him about how I met my first boyfriend (he had always been curious, but I had never told him the truth). I made sure that the lie/story i was telling him took place before me and Sonny had ever met just so he wouldn't know right away that I was lying. I added in details (such as where we went sightseeing) and inserted a tone of nostalgia, accompanies with tons of mournful sighs etc. My outline was a great help since Sonny was so curious and was constantly asking me questions. More so, I have this habit of (when I'm lying) pausing and then going "Oooh, I totally forgot where I was going with that." It's my way of giving myself enough time to think a better lie. Since I had the outline, such pauses diminished.
I used the outline to help me form conventional signals that related to telling the truth (such as not having pauses mid-conversation, or talking too fast).
The next step was to tell him a traveling story that was actually true. I was somewhat stumped on what medium to actually choose since me and Sonny rarely talked on Facebook or even IM. I thought about e-mail, but decided that it was too impersonal for any type of story telling. I ended up writing a blog about my traveling experience to India when I was 14 and sent him the link. My reasoning behind this "random" way of expressing myself to him was that I didn't have time to tell the story again and again to all my friends so I chose a medium where they could all see it on their own time. And I could edit it whenever I wanted to. Again, I made sure that I included the same amount of details as I had before. It was much easier to formulate the story on the blog, although I don't know if i can attribute this to the medium or to the fact that it was a true story.
The next day, I told Sonny about this assignment, and asked him if he had any idea if either story was a lie. I was secretly rooting for him to get it right, since of course in my mind this would prove that our bond was stronger than the theories of deception. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Sonny got it wrong on both counts. He thought that the blog post was a lie, and the story I told him on the telephone the truth.
He thought my story on the telephone was the truth since when he poked and prodded at the story (not intentionally trying to find holes, but accomplishing that purpose anyway) I had answers ready. He also thought that since I had waited so long to tell him the story, that I wouldn't be so mean as to lie about it. On the other hand, he thought the blog post was a lie since he thought that I had written too many details. To him, that was automatically trying too hard and so therefore, had to be a lie. He also didn't rely buy my story for using the blog in the first place.
The Social Distance theory states that a person will lie the least in richer medium, the Media Richness theory states that a person will lie the least in a lean medium and the Feature based theory states that a person will lie the most on the phone, and least on e-mail. These theories somewhat do not apply to my situation since I was specifically given the medium where I had to lie. However, if we put aside the fact that I was given the medium in which to lie in, as shown by my experience above, it was much harder for me to formulate a lie on the phone (as shown by the amount of prep work that I had to go through). Since I had many more cues to cover up, I had to work twice at hard to make sure that all of them pointed to me telling the truth. My experience does not support any of the three theories, but neither does it disprove any of them.
Rather, my experience shows that the theories that people have come up with for digital deception do not take into account many things. For example, they don't consider people's backgrounds, or the idea that one can somewhat prepare in advance for a pre-meditated lie. It just shows how theories in social science exist because someone found another way of looking at the problem, and none are completely correct, nor are any of them completely wrong.
#4 Option 1: Lying is really uncomfortable at least for me.
I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I chose option #1 not #2. So, the title was supposed to be "#4 Option 1: Lying is really uncomfortable at least for me."
“Yo Brahh, on your profile you forgot to say you like Cher. Dude, I know you do man, you listen to her all the time.” - 4
Designing a Facebook profile is a fine art of selective self presentation. Now that Zuckerberg has opened his world of tagging and poking to everybody, users craft their profiles into the masterpieces that are displayed to their friends, family and even employers. In terms of sheer facts, Facebook does not give much leeway to deception as users normally have friends who can verify or disprove the facts. Identity based deception with assessment signals is harder to pull off due to validation by email address (though at one point I was friends with Sisqo). Conventional signals are where its at.
Interviewing my friend on her Facebook profile seemed to catch my friend off guard as it should. Knowing her as a pretty honest person I didn’t expect to find anything outrageous. As I expected, she gave herself 4s and 5s on most of the conventional signals with the lowest being her groups. However, if I analyzed her profile from a person who had not met her Ftf there are major differences. While they are not explicitly labeled as being listed in terms of importance, the order in which her interests led me to form a different image of her. Even though none of the items listed were false, I know for a fact that she does not like sports more than she likes eating food (if you are reading that does not mean you are fat). Maybe she wanted to appear more guy friendly or more athletic, two nontraditional gendered goals. I thought it was amusing that another post mentioned “...she failed to list her intense love for burping loudly” which definitely fits my friend as well. For some reason she is very liberal in joining groups and usually accepts any incoming group invitations. We had anywhere from “Crazy Frat PARTY 2007!!” to three “I’m a moron and I lost my phone again”. This combined with a disproportionally large number of pictures at social gatherings leads me to believe that her drunken, phone losing weekends start on Wednesday nights. Looking at her profile I would never have guessed that she is not photogenic (the magic of untagging). Also, on the contrary to her profile picture, she doesn’t normally wear that much makeup or crazy halter tops. As far as the attractiveness vs. honesty dialectic goes in this case, I would say that attractiveness rules with an iron fist.
In my experience, Facebook often has a polarizing effect supporting the hyperpersonal model. I can’t count how many profiles I’ve come across that might as well as have had “douchebag” stamped on their foreheads due to my biased opinion. It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between gender and hyperpersonal opinions. Even though Facebook has more closely linked friends than online dating profiles, subtle lies are still common which supports Catalina’s study. I suppose this is because you would have to be a total loser to call somebody out on their Facebook profile. “Yo Brahh, on your profile you forgot to say you like Cher. Dude, I know you do man, you listen to her all the time.”
Assignment 4 Which is true actually?
My plan is to let my friend believe a false story, and suspend a true one.
As there is always truth bias in ftf, I choose to tell a lie though ftf. The conversion happened on the way my friend and I went to dinner. I told her in this july, when I was home, I and some high shool friends went to seaside to swim and barbecue. I told her how we put up the tent, how we made and cooked pebabs ourselves, and how we competed swimming. I tried to tell every details I can image. Like how we couldn't make the tent at first, it fell a lot; like how we cooked the pebabs bad, and ate them when still raw. We walked and talked, when we arrived, I finish this lie by changing to what to have in dinner. I grow up at seaside, so I though she may think this was true.
Then I decided to tell her a truth through IM. And at same time I wanted to tell an unbelievable fancy thing. Just in the same day, at night, we talked online. I told her a true story. I went to Summer Palace last year. It was in early august,2 in the afternoon, and really very hot. I walked in the little Fu Hill tired and hot when I found a stone couch under a big tree. So I sat down. But I was too tired, so only after a while, I lied down on the couch. Unconsciously, I fell asleep. When I got up at 9 pm, the Summer Palace have already closed, so I was trapped in the park for a night. I walked along the 728 meter Long Corridor for a night. I got out until the next day. Though this was true(believe me), I thought this would be too unimaginable for her too believe.
The next day, I told her one of these stories was fake and I needed her to tell me which one was. She was surprised at first. Then she thought for a while and said"I don't know, I think they are both false". This was totally out of my mind, for I predicted she would take the first false one as a truth. So I asked why. She said, as the first one, she knew I didn't go back home this july, so she took it as false(I regeted for that for a long time....). As for the second one, she said "You know, a person with common sense won't believe that". Then I suddenly realized I've made a stupid mistake. So I said "Did I say it is this july?...Oh , it is my mistake, that seaside story happened last summer" She nodded, smiled and said"Then it is much easier to tell, you see, you shouldn't cheat people with this Summer Palace lie next time" I nodded,saying"Yes, yes", feeling really successful and happy.
So, you see, I succeed.
As there is always truth bias in ftf, I choose to tell a lie though ftf. The conversion happened on the way my friend and I went to dinner. I told her in this july, when I was home, I and some high shool friends went to seaside to swim and barbecue. I told her how we put up the tent, how we made and cooked pebabs ourselves, and how we competed swimming. I tried to tell every details I can image. Like how we couldn't make the tent at first, it fell a lot; like how we cooked the pebabs bad, and ate them when still raw. We walked and talked, when we arrived, I finish this lie by changing to what to have in dinner. I grow up at seaside, so I though she may think this was true.
Then I decided to tell her a truth through IM. And at same time I wanted to tell an unbelievable fancy thing. Just in the same day, at night, we talked online. I told her a true story. I went to Summer Palace last year. It was in early august,2 in the afternoon, and really very hot. I walked in the little Fu Hill tired and hot when I found a stone couch under a big tree. So I sat down. But I was too tired, so only after a while, I lied down on the couch. Unconsciously, I fell asleep. When I got up at 9 pm, the Summer Palace have already closed, so I was trapped in the park for a night. I walked along the 728 meter Long Corridor for a night. I got out until the next day. Though this was true(believe me), I thought this would be too unimaginable for her too believe.
The next day, I told her one of these stories was fake and I needed her to tell me which one was. She was surprised at first. Then she thought for a while and said"I don't know, I think they are both false". This was totally out of my mind, for I predicted she would take the first false one as a truth. So I asked why. She said, as the first one, she knew I didn't go back home this july, so she took it as false(I regeted for that for a long time....). As for the second one, she said "You know, a person with common sense won't believe that". Then I suddenly realized I've made a stupid mistake. So I said "Did I say it is this july?...Oh , it is my mistake, that seaside story happened last summer" She nodded, smiled and said"Then it is much easier to tell, you see, you shouldn't cheat people with this Summer Palace lie next time" I nodded,saying"Yes, yes", feeling really successful and happy.
So, you see, I succeed.
#4 Option 2: Lying is really uncomfortable at least for me.
For this week's assignment, I chose option #2. I thought it would be interesting to test myself how good I am at making and detecting lies. I conducted the experiment with my friend Jenna who is also in Green Blog. First, we talked on AIM. Jenna told me about her trip to
Our experiment supported Social Distance Theory. When we were giving feedbacks to each other after the experiment, both of us agreed on that it felt uncomfortable and awkward to lie to someone. When Jenna was telling me her fake traveling story, she relatively frequently paused with saying something like “so yeah.” Her story ended a bit abruptly and it made me think that she seems to be reluctant to talk in detail about her trip. When it was my turn to tell a story on AIM, I was not able to make up a lie, so I asked Jenna to give me more time to think. As Social Distance Theory says, I chose leaner media with higher social distance to tell a lie. This way, I can show that I am uncomfortable with topic I was talking about as small as possible. Both of us chose to tell real stories on the phone. Reason why I chose this was that if I tell her a fake story, there are too many cues that might be able to reveal whether I was lying or not such as the tone of my voice. I thought I’d rather talk about fake on online and real one on the phone, so there will be less chance for Jenna to detect my lies. Jenna had the same preference. She preferred the media with higher social distance to tell a lie.
I would not say Social Distance Theory is valid in all situations. However, it seems that for someone who is relatively a bad liar would agree with this theory and has had experiences supporting this theory.
Assignment 4- Humor me and tell me lies
This weekend, I took a trip to SUNY Albany to visit my best friend from high school. It was quite the eventful trip. When they say that
The second story I told Margaret via instant message was even more outlandish than the first. I made sure to include all of the improbable details in hopes that she would think that it was all too unrealistic to be true. I think in the end that strategy backfired on me because the extra details that were missing from the first story gave the second story more authenticity. I was at least partially successful in my lying because when I told her that one of the stories wasn’t true, she was surprised. However, after minimal deliberation, she guessed correctly that the first story was false. She cited the fact that it wasn’t as well-developed as the second story and the fact that I hadn’t mumbled at all when I was telling the story (which was very unusual for me). My roommate later pointed out that my voice was higher pitched when I was lying to Margaret than it normally was. Higher pitch is an important nonverbal leakage cue that can indicate that a person is being untruthful and on some level, Margaret may have picked up on it.
I think in this case, variables that have been theorized to interact with communication medium in the context of deception detection may have partially to blame. Margaret knows me so well that it wasn’t difficult for her to make a judgment about what sort of debauched behavior I was more likely to engage in. In addition, the motivational impairment effect may have played a role in my detection. I wanted to get away with lying and had spent time considering how best to do so. In the end, my increased behavioral rigidity gave me away. I told my fictional story unnaturally and with none of the usual embellishments that I would have ordinarily included. Perhaps, one day, the lessons about deception that I learn in this class will enable me to lie like a champ. Until then, I remain unsuccessful in my various deceptive adventures.
4.2 Anatomy of a (taken) Facebooker
According to Catalina's study of dating profiles, people tend to use small, subtle deceptions in an effort to present a more ideal online self to potential partners. We use these deceptions in an effort to garner more interest in ourselves. However, the deceptions are typically subtle enough so that others won't be let down or disappointed when they meet us face to face. This conclusion makes a lot of sense in the context of human interaction and is probably what most us would intuitively expect from singles. However, how does this theory hold up when we examine people with long term boyfriends and girlfriends?
The first person I chose to examine for my post had a long term boyfriend. After I had her rate the accuracy of each element of her (relatively minimalistic) profile, I was left with a very boring "all 5s"-meaning an entirely accurate profile. Upon further validating the information, I was once again left with the very boring and wholly accurate "all 5s."
I then chose to examine two other individuals- both of which had long term significant others. Interestingly enough the same thing happened. All three people had very lean, very accurate (and kind of boring from a research perspective) profiles. No subtle lies, no deceptions, and almost no subjective information were present. So why is that Catalina's theory seems to not ring true in these cases? Can we not port her findings from dating sites to and apply them to facebook?
My theory is that Catalina's theory works very well for people who are trying to attract significant others- especially those who are trying to attract others using online means. For this reason, porting Catalina's theory from a dating site to Facebook will deaden some of the effects as Facebook isn't used exclusively to attract people we have never met. Furthermore, if you examine someone who is in a relationship and therefore no longer "on the market" it's very doubtful that you will see any of the effects Catalina found. From my (largely anecdotal) experience, people who are in relationships have very lean and very accurate profiles. This is, perhaps, because they aren't trying to attract someone new.
I think this presents an excellent opportunity for research in the field of online impression management. How is digital deception affected by relationship status?
The first person I chose to examine for my post had a long term boyfriend. After I had her rate the accuracy of each element of her (relatively minimalistic) profile, I was left with a very boring "all 5s"-meaning an entirely accurate profile. Upon further validating the information, I was once again left with the very boring and wholly accurate "all 5s."
I then chose to examine two other individuals- both of which had long term significant others. Interestingly enough the same thing happened. All three people had very lean, very accurate (and kind of boring from a research perspective) profiles. No subtle lies, no deceptions, and almost no subjective information were present. So why is that Catalina's theory seems to not ring true in these cases? Can we not port her findings from dating sites to and apply them to facebook?
My theory is that Catalina's theory works very well for people who are trying to attract significant others- especially those who are trying to attract others using online means. For this reason, porting Catalina's theory from a dating site to Facebook will deaden some of the effects as Facebook isn't used exclusively to attract people we have never met. Furthermore, if you examine someone who is in a relationship and therefore no longer "on the market" it's very doubtful that you will see any of the effects Catalina found. From my (largely anecdotal) experience, people who are in relationships have very lean and very accurate profiles. This is, perhaps, because they aren't trying to attract someone new.
I think this presents an excellent opportunity for research in the field of online impression management. How is digital deception affected by relationship status?
4:2nd Option Put Your Best Photo Forward
Since Mark Zuckerberg’s creation of Facebook, the world of social networking has escalated into a way of life for many American teenagers. The way we connect with others has been reduced to a mere message, wall post or even a poke (whatever that means). We no longer are inclined to mail a letter, make a phone call or even send an e-mail when we can simply connect through Facebook. On this Facebook profile, not only can we connect with others, but others can gain access to a great deal of information about us and what our lives are like. Upon first glance, the most apparent aspect on a profile is that of the incredibly important profile picture located in the upper left hand corner. Individuals are left to their own devices to put up a picture of their choosing as long as it’s not pornographic. This ability to choose any picture to provide a visual representation of ourselves, enables a person to select an image that depicts him/her exactly the way he/she wants to be portrayed to others. This picture is something that will form a person’s first impression of you, because just as in FtF interactions, we often make our first judgments about a person based on their level of attractiveness.
Directly below the photograph are a number of links including the ability to view to other pictures of the person and to send a message. A little bit further down the page, mutual friends are displayed and below that, friends from their particular school are displayed. On the left side, we are also granted to access to the person’s photo albums and groups they are a member of. To the right of the photograph, a person can selectively disclose personal information (assessment signals) including their full name, networks, sex, relationship status, birthday, phone number, home address, e-mail address, year of graduation. In addition, you get to learn a lot about their personal preferences which are much more easy to manipulate (conventional signals); their favorite movies, their favorite music, favorite quotes and so on. Finally, below all this information, is a person’s Facebook wall.
Without anyone knowing, a person can change, alter or modify any aspect of his/her profile they don’t like, they can de-tag photographs, delete wall posts, and remove/add information. With such an ability to present yourself they way you want to be perceived, I wanted to see just how much my best friend was willing to deceive. For this assignment, I decided to analyze the profile of one of my best friends that I’ve known since elementary school. I knew I would be able to detect the accuracy of her profile, and why she chose to include the things she did on her profile.
After administering Catalina’s method of rating my friend, I discovered that she believed that her entire profile was completely accurate and not at all deceiving giving 5’s to all aspects. Since there isn’t really a sense of anonymity on Facebook, we connect with our real-life friends that we interact with face-to-face; it doesn’t really make sense to convey false information. However, we all want to present ourselves in the most positive of light, and tend to exaggerate a few details here and there. On the whole, my friend was very accurate in the information she displayed. Yet, in her music section, tended to include quite a few bands that simply “sounded cool” but were not a true representation of her musical taste (i.e. Jimi Hendrix, the Doors & Led Zeppelin). Although she can appreciate them, being the musician that she is, she has only listened to them a few times. Her photographs served to be the most deceptive devices on her profile, indicating so many untrue qualities about her and did not display her day-to-day life.
While my friend may have not intentionally put anything in her profile to deceive others, she of course wanted to “appear attractive and appear honest”. According to Catalina’s study of online dating, she found that women are more likely than men to like about their weight to select a photo where they look incredibly attractive. She also found that men are more likely to lie about their height than their weight and women are more likely to lie about weight than height. Men want to portray themselves as taller than they really are and women want to portray themselves as thinner than they really are. Catalina’s findings were consistent with the assessment of my friend’s profile. Although my friend thought her profile picture was an accurate depiction of herself, I beg to differ. While the photo does indeed look like her, it is the picture on her album cover to her first CD. Obviously, she had her makeup professionally done, a stylist dress her, and the picture professionally taken. This was clearly a picture that can hardly be considered a “general” photograph.
By following Walther’s concept of selective-self presentation, my friend did not include any information about herself that would make her seem ignorant or unattractive. She was sure to de-tag any photos of herself that portrayed her in as physically unattractive. This follows with the expectancy discordance model that says that men are attracted to physical attractiveness and youthfulness when looking for a mate. My friend is actively seeking a boyfriend, its no wonder she wants to appear so attractive. According to Hancock’s feature-based model, I would not expect my friend to deceive over an asynchronous and recordable media such as Facebook. The communication that takes place on Facebook is asynchronous by that a person has time to shape and alter their profile to send a particular message. In addition everything is recordable in that all your actions are shown and documented. Despite this, there is still an opportunity for my friend to deceive and selectively self- present, since most of the people she communicates with are distributed all over the country.
A:4O:1-Thanks COMM 245, For Forcing me to Experiment on, Lie to, and Irritate My Friends Enough to Leave me a Friendless, Lonely, and Broken Man
I want to preface my blog by saying I really don’t approve of COMM 245’s complete disregard for people’s feelings and their right to the truth—despicable. With that being said, let’s let bygones be bygones and discuss how I messed with my friend this weekend.
If you read my last post, you already know that I am almost completely incapable of lying. Keeping this trait in mind, I chose to lie to my friend via a lean media—Instant Messaging—and tell the true account through a richer medium—FtF. This is in accordance to the Social Distance Theory (SDT). Since lying can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience, especially when concerning close friends, SDT states that individual’s are more likely to select a leaner or more socially distant media.
I decided, for the good of the deception experiment, both travel stories, regardless of their validity, should be similar in nature. This would serve as a quasi, makeshift control to the experiment. In classic Matty Birnbaum fashion, this would require that both stories be just as ridiculous as the other. I will spare you the perhaps controversial, perhaps inappropriate, and what some may even describe as morally apprehensible details. However, you can be comforted in knowing that at least one of these ridiculous stories did in fact occur, leaving irreparable psychological damages. Since my fictitious story didn’t necessarily portray me in the most attractive manner, I feel that it contradicts Goffman’s Self Presentation Goal theory. Despite using CMC, which provides a more editable, asynchronous communication channel, I still chose to describe an outrageous travel experience. However, this may just mean that I am obnoxious rather than challenge the theory at all.
My friend recognized that my travel story, via CMC, was complete bologna very easily. This supports the 2nd Deception Hypothesis which asserts that deception detection is more readily achievable during CMC opposed to FtF because of the decrease in truth bias and the increased importance placed on message content and text. Since I was communicating through CMC, my friend was able to avoid people’s general tendency to assume others are honest and going to tell the truth. Additionally, CMC prevented my friend from relying on faulty non verbal cues such as eye contact and perceived nervousness. Another aspect I noticed concerning my interaction was that I fell victim to the anonymity and decreased inhibition characteristic of CMC. I was more likely to embellish and make ridiculous claims throughout my story because I was only communicating to a screen rather than looking into another person’s eyes. My friend picked up on these little nuances and called my bluff before my ridiculous charade could go on any longer without making me look like I was clinically insane.
In the FtF scenario, my friend was unable to decide whether my traveling debacle—which in actuality was true—was genuine or not. This may also support the 2nd Deception Hypothesis, because my friend may have been responding to my non verbal cues. I naturally am a very high energy individual. I talk fast and get distracted by even the slightest evidence of motion visible in my peripherals. This sometimes hinders my ability to keep long lasting, reassuring eye contact with my listener. I guess as long as there are pretty girls, butterflies, or anything else that whizzes by a lunch table that can be considered mildly entertaining, my friends are going to have settle with calling my bluffs via CMC.
If you read my last post, you already know that I am almost completely incapable of lying. Keeping this trait in mind, I chose to lie to my friend via a lean media—Instant Messaging—and tell the true account through a richer medium—FtF. This is in accordance to the Social Distance Theory (SDT). Since lying can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience, especially when concerning close friends, SDT states that individual’s are more likely to select a leaner or more socially distant media.
I decided, for the good of the deception experiment, both travel stories, regardless of their validity, should be similar in nature. This would serve as a quasi, makeshift control to the experiment. In classic Matty Birnbaum fashion, this would require that both stories be just as ridiculous as the other. I will spare you the perhaps controversial, perhaps inappropriate, and what some may even describe as morally apprehensible details. However, you can be comforted in knowing that at least one of these ridiculous stories did in fact occur, leaving irreparable psychological damages. Since my fictitious story didn’t necessarily portray me in the most attractive manner, I feel that it contradicts Goffman’s Self Presentation Goal theory. Despite using CMC, which provides a more editable, asynchronous communication channel, I still chose to describe an outrageous travel experience. However, this may just mean that I am obnoxious rather than challenge the theory at all.
My friend recognized that my travel story, via CMC, was complete bologna very easily. This supports the 2nd Deception Hypothesis which asserts that deception detection is more readily achievable during CMC opposed to FtF because of the decrease in truth bias and the increased importance placed on message content and text. Since I was communicating through CMC, my friend was able to avoid people’s general tendency to assume others are honest and going to tell the truth. Additionally, CMC prevented my friend from relying on faulty non verbal cues such as eye contact and perceived nervousness. Another aspect I noticed concerning my interaction was that I fell victim to the anonymity and decreased inhibition characteristic of CMC. I was more likely to embellish and make ridiculous claims throughout my story because I was only communicating to a screen rather than looking into another person’s eyes. My friend picked up on these little nuances and called my bluff before my ridiculous charade could go on any longer without making me look like I was clinically insane.
In the FtF scenario, my friend was unable to decide whether my traveling debacle—which in actuality was true—was genuine or not. This may also support the 2nd Deception Hypothesis, because my friend may have been responding to my non verbal cues. I naturally am a very high energy individual. I talk fast and get distracted by even the slightest evidence of motion visible in my peripherals. This sometimes hinders my ability to keep long lasting, reassuring eye contact with my listener. I guess as long as there are pretty girls, butterflies, or anything else that whizzes by a lunch table that can be considered mildly entertaining, my friends are going to have settle with calling my bluffs via CMC.
#4, Option 1: When I stole a duck...
A good liar, a “motivation impairment attenuated” kind of liar, would be wise to choose a rich medium for his deeds (see Hancock’s Digital Deception – model derived from the Interpersonal Deception Theory). Non-verbal cues, in accord with the Hyperpersonal Theory and the supporting theories outlined in Digital Deception, are most heavily relied upon to detect if a person is indeed lying. Yet, the receiver oft relies too heavily on these cues. As noted in last Thursday’s class, averting one’s eyes is a cue that’s actually over-ascribed to be false and thus proves to be a misleading mechanism of deception detection. (Further complicating detection channels in FtF, the deceiver is able to quickly respond to the non-verbal cues of the receiver, if, for example, they appear skeptical.) Still, a combination of non-verbal cues—clamminess, stuttering—will cumulatively prove most successful in confronting someone in a synchronous FtF conversation. So, if a liar can control his self-presentation under FtF circumstances, he should lie face-to-face, because he will disable the relied upon non-verbal cues used by the receiver.
I, however, do not trust my FtF lying skills. My writing ability would better suit my deception needs than any lying strategy in FtF (with all that unintentional “cue leakage”). I recounted a personal story to my friend—about a weekend in NYC—in a CMC. I attempted to conjure up a handful of quasi-believable lies: there was a duck stolen from the zoo, due to a dare, and a gift of $20 dollars from a random, neurotic stranger handing over the contents of his wallet. I was careful to write as I typically do—fairly cryptic—but, regardless, apparently he wasn’t willing to believe me. When I interviewed him, he said he thought my sentences were more serious and purposeful than usual. The Interpersonal Deception Model, found in Digital Deception article, accounts for “experience and familiarity” and their important role in molding the deception-detection interaction. I believe that my friend’s familiarity with my style of storytelling precluded much of my ability to lie. Perhaps, in a FtF environment, with more cognitive resources divided between different non-verbal cues, I might have been able to better lie.
When I told my friend, two days later, a true story that occurred last summer, I did so in the richer FtF medium. Expecting my friend to believe me, I chose a rich medium because I trusted my non-verbal cues to follow my verbal confidence (positive valence, self-locus = rich medium). I managed to not concern myself too much with the thought of telling the exact truth; instead, I simply recounted the story as I would any other day. My friend did not detect any deception, and, at times, supporting my story, asked, “really? Wow, that’s sweet.” It seems, that confidence in one’s story plays a large role in using a richer medium – for experienced liars only.
Assignment 4, Option 2. My friend "Boon"
The facebook profile is slowly becoming more real than your actual self - for example, you are only dating a person if facebook says so. Otherwise it’s not “official”. Because of this interesting change, people are starting to use facebook as a solid introduction to their own personality traits. The first thing new friends do is scavenge each other’s profiles for interesting information. What that means is there is now a huge new venue to easily exercise selective self presentation and subtle deception. Since there are no non-verbal or physiological cues on facebook, it’s easier to fool others.
To look at this further, I analyzed the profile of a good friend - let’s call him Boon. Boon is an average guy who has a lot of friends and uses facebook a lot as a communication tool so he was perfect for this. I did not tell him exactly what I was looking for, but he promised to honestly answer all my questions. First, he ranked all entries of his profile on a scale of 1-5. There were 15 areas to rank total and he chose 5 for 13 of those, and 3 for the remaining two. The first 3 was about height. While his profile says he is 6’1, he is actually closer to 5’11 in reality. He explained that in real life he wears boots a lot, and those easily add an inch or two to his height so he likes to appear taller. This fits perfectly with our class discussion - this lie was subtle as very few people can tell the difference when he has boots on and it was “frequent” in a sense that it appears on all his online profiles and to his friends that is his height. It’s a classic example of selective self-presentation and also showcases that males do in fact like to lie about their height. This probably occurs because such subtle lies are not noticed and facebook provides a huge medium for them to spread.
The other 3 was for his music tastes. While 8 of the 9 bands he had listed on his profile were indeed bands he liked, one was a blatant lie. As it turns out, a girl he has a crush on loves this band (pussycat dolls) and he listed it on his profile so they have something in common. This is a great example of the Self-Presentation Goals definitions by Goffman and Baumeister. Goal number one is to appear attractive, which Boon accomplishes because the girl likes him a lot more for that one little band addition. Goal two is to appear honest. This one is harder - Boon does not actually like the band. However, since he knows most of their contact is through facebook (an asynchronous method of communication) he can deal with it by reading up on the band if she ever inquires him about it. The other 8 bands listed are correct, so really it’s a very small lie that will probably go unnoticed. The last goal is gender differences, though this does not apply here. Both sexes enjoy partners who like similar music. However, the boot height example I described above fits that well.
So what conclusions can I draw from this one example? Well, first of all CMC communication offers more ways for us to lie. Because our profiles are now viewable by all, the theoretical number of people that will read and believe subtle lies regarding conventional signals goes up very high. Hyperpersonal theory says that people make much stronger first impressions in CMC communication. This means that we will want only our best to be on this “profile”. It actually gives us more incentive to lie because we can impress people who only communicate with us through CMC without any consequences. Yes, our real friends might point out some subtle things wrong with our profile but those can be brushed off in other subtle lies FTF. The second conclusion is that people won’t lie about everything. As the CMC self presentation goals we discussed in class indicate, we will lie very subtly and frequently online but, to use my friend Boon, never list 9 fake bands on our interests page. One is fine because it’s so subtle!
To look at this further, I analyzed the profile of a good friend - let’s call him Boon. Boon is an average guy who has a lot of friends and uses facebook a lot as a communication tool so he was perfect for this. I did not tell him exactly what I was looking for, but he promised to honestly answer all my questions. First, he ranked all entries of his profile on a scale of 1-5. There were 15 areas to rank total and he chose 5 for 13 of those, and 3 for the remaining two. The first 3 was about height. While his profile says he is 6’1, he is actually closer to 5’11 in reality. He explained that in real life he wears boots a lot, and those easily add an inch or two to his height so he likes to appear taller. This fits perfectly with our class discussion - this lie was subtle as very few people can tell the difference when he has boots on and it was “frequent” in a sense that it appears on all his online profiles and to his friends that is his height. It’s a classic example of selective self-presentation and also showcases that males do in fact like to lie about their height. This probably occurs because such subtle lies are not noticed and facebook provides a huge medium for them to spread.
The other 3 was for his music tastes. While 8 of the 9 bands he had listed on his profile were indeed bands he liked, one was a blatant lie. As it turns out, a girl he has a crush on loves this band (pussycat dolls) and he listed it on his profile so they have something in common. This is a great example of the Self-Presentation Goals definitions by Goffman and Baumeister. Goal number one is to appear attractive, which Boon accomplishes because the girl likes him a lot more for that one little band addition. Goal two is to appear honest. This one is harder - Boon does not actually like the band. However, since he knows most of their contact is through facebook (an asynchronous method of communication) he can deal with it by reading up on the band if she ever inquires him about it. The other 8 bands listed are correct, so really it’s a very small lie that will probably go unnoticed. The last goal is gender differences, though this does not apply here. Both sexes enjoy partners who like similar music. However, the boot height example I described above fits that well.
So what conclusions can I draw from this one example? Well, first of all CMC communication offers more ways for us to lie. Because our profiles are now viewable by all, the theoretical number of people that will read and believe subtle lies regarding conventional signals goes up very high. Hyperpersonal theory says that people make much stronger first impressions in CMC communication. This means that we will want only our best to be on this “profile”. It actually gives us more incentive to lie because we can impress people who only communicate with us through CMC without any consequences. Yes, our real friends might point out some subtle things wrong with our profile but those can be brushed off in other subtle lies FTF. The second conclusion is that people won’t lie about everything. As the CMC self presentation goals we discussed in class indicate, we will lie very subtly and frequently online but, to use my friend Boon, never list 9 fake bands on our interests page. One is fine because it’s so subtle!
Monday, September 17, 2007
#4,2: That's her default picture??
When my friend’s facebook profile first popped up on my computer screen for this assignment I thought, “How can she possibly lie about anything if that’s her default picture?” Her picture isn’t one of those glamour shots, but instead is of her with a weird face yelling about something: classic. Some of the assessment signals are her network, email address, and basic contact information. Also, she can’t hide what she looks like based on the pictures that have been tagged. The conventional signals are basically everything else on facebook. Anything else that is there has been chosen specifically to represent what she wants others to see.
When interviewing my friend about the accuracy of her profile, I initially thought everything would be completely true, based on my tendency to be in line with the truth bias and my initial reaction to her picture. However, as I interviewed her I began to realize there was no way to convey the whole truth on facebook and since she hadn’t updated her profile in a while, it led much of the content to be inaccurate or in need of an update. When rating the accuracy, she gave her contact information a 4, her pictures a 4, groups a 5, interests and personal information a 3 and anything else a 4. He contact information contained a website that she is only slightly affiliated with and her address and telephone number were missing. In regards to her pictures, she thinks that she isn’t photogenic and hates posing for pictures, leading to many awkward ones that don’t clearly display what she looks like in person. She thinks that she is very selective in groups and only joins those she is truly interested in, but this may also be a result of social associations, in which she only wants to be in the groups that are socially appropriate. The interests and personal information have not been changed in a long time, leading to unlisted favorite movies, tv shows, and music. Also, her friend added a quote, which she just kept there because she was too lazy to change it. She thinks everything else is relatively accurate and didn’t intentionally change anything to make herself seem different than she really is.
When looking at my friend’s profile it seems that there are some instances of selective self-presentation. The conventional signals are easily manipulated in order to show those things she thinks others want to know about her. Although she states that she likes basketball and the food network, she failed to list her intense love for burping loudly. Facebook is a recordable media leading to an increased ability to detect lies if listed so there is nothing on her profile that is an obvious lie. Instead, she has just used attitude expressions to show the public the certain attributes she believes she possesses and thinks others should know about.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5409244800368157381
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8920541093835041653
When interviewing my friend about the accuracy of her profile, I initially thought everything would be completely true, based on my tendency to be in line with the truth bias and my initial reaction to her picture. However, as I interviewed her I began to realize there was no way to convey the whole truth on facebook and since she hadn’t updated her profile in a while, it led much of the content to be inaccurate or in need of an update. When rating the accuracy, she gave her contact information a 4, her pictures a 4, groups a 5, interests and personal information a 3 and anything else a 4. He contact information contained a website that she is only slightly affiliated with and her address and telephone number were missing. In regards to her pictures, she thinks that she isn’t photogenic and hates posing for pictures, leading to many awkward ones that don’t clearly display what she looks like in person. She thinks that she is very selective in groups and only joins those she is truly interested in, but this may also be a result of social associations, in which she only wants to be in the groups that are socially appropriate. The interests and personal information have not been changed in a long time, leading to unlisted favorite movies, tv shows, and music. Also, her friend added a quote, which she just kept there because she was too lazy to change it. She thinks everything else is relatively accurate and didn’t intentionally change anything to make herself seem different than she really is.
When looking at my friend’s profile it seems that there are some instances of selective self-presentation. The conventional signals are easily manipulated in order to show those things she thinks others want to know about her. Although she states that she likes basketball and the food network, she failed to list her intense love for burping loudly. Facebook is a recordable media leading to an increased ability to detect lies if listed so there is nothing on her profile that is an obvious lie. Instead, she has just used attitude expressions to show the public the certain attributes she believes she possesses and thinks others should know about.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5409244800368157381
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8920541093835041653
4: Believe me, I'm lying.
I chose to do the first option of this assignment. I decided to lie to a friend via phone and then tell the truth via instant messaging. I talked to one of my good friends, Amanda, and put her to the test. She knows me very well, but I still believed I could get my fake story past her. I used the rich media (telephone) first to tell a lie about a deep sea fishing trip I went on with a friend over the summer. I told her that we went out deep into the ocean where the waves were huge and that I caught a very large fish. In my story, I got to keep the fish, and when I got home I ate it. Lie accomplished.
To switch the conversation over to AIM, I said my phone was dying, and we continued our talk through instant messaging. I kept the topic on fishing and I told her another (but this time true) story. I told her of a time when my brother and I were fishing and we both caught very large fish and had to pry the hooks out of them with pliers. We put the fish back, because we fish for fun, not for keeps.
Later in the day, I talked to my friend again, and told her that one of the two stories that I told her was false. She immediately guessed that the first one was a lie. She said I sounded awkward while telling it, and paused and said “um” a lot. She also mentioned that the deep sea fishing story was very vague and when she asked about details, I gave her short, quick answers. She said that the second story was very believable, and I gave precise details (specific place, time, who I was with) to solidify that it was true. Also, I typed a lot before she could respond, so it was clear that I did not pause between thoughts.
The experiment I conducted with Amanda verifies the proposal of rich and lean media selection. Amanda caught me in my lie on the phone easier because I gave her more cues and clues to detect my lie. The awkward pauses and the many “um”s in the conversation were enough for her to tell. The leaner media (AIM) would have allowed for easier lying, because it is harder to pick up on cues that a story is false. Thus, if I choose to lie in the future, I will use lean media, because digital deception is so easy.
To switch the conversation over to AIM, I said my phone was dying, and we continued our talk through instant messaging. I kept the topic on fishing and I told her another (but this time true) story. I told her of a time when my brother and I were fishing and we both caught very large fish and had to pry the hooks out of them with pliers. We put the fish back, because we fish for fun, not for keeps.
Later in the day, I talked to my friend again, and told her that one of the two stories that I told her was false. She immediately guessed that the first one was a lie. She said I sounded awkward while telling it, and paused and said “um” a lot. She also mentioned that the deep sea fishing story was very vague and when she asked about details, I gave her short, quick answers. She said that the second story was very believable, and I gave precise details (specific place, time, who I was with) to solidify that it was true. Also, I typed a lot before she could respond, so it was clear that I did not pause between thoughts.
The experiment I conducted with Amanda verifies the proposal of rich and lean media selection. Amanda caught me in my lie on the phone easier because I gave her more cues and clues to detect my lie. The awkward pauses and the many “um”s in the conversation were enough for her to tell. The leaner media (AIM) would have allowed for easier lying, because it is harder to pick up on cues that a story is false. Thus, if I choose to lie in the future, I will use lean media, because digital deception is so easy.
This one time...in Florida...-4
I tell my boyfriend random stories about traveling with my family all the time. I get really animated and excited whenever I relay my crazy family's humorous expeditions. Sometimes I'm crippled with laughter and have to regain my composure while he looks on with a bemused expression. When I did this experiment with him in a rich medium, face to face, I wanted my stories to be genuine, but not rehearsed. I made up my lie on the spot, saying the words as quickly as they came into my head. Somehow, I devised a tale about a bat flying between my mother's legs on the boardwalk at Disney in Florida. When the story didn't seem to have a "grand finale" I elaborated to say that the bat followed us like a dog to the outdoor ice cream parlor and swooped under the umbrella at our table amidst screams and laughter from my family.
When I told Mike a true travel story about eating in a restaurant in Florida, where there was a fiasco with the bathroom, a waiter and alligator strips (no details necessary...), he immediately knew I was telling the truth. My mannerisms gave away the genuine style of my stories, although I had tried to imitate this presentation style in my lie story. Of course, when I asked Mike which one was true and which story was false, he picked the first one without hesitation as the lie. He told me that with the first story my details were sketchy and muddled (unlike normal), I didn't laugh nearly as much and the story was unrealistic and unbelievable. This first element of the experiment coincides with the hypothesis that deception detection is more accurate in a rich medium. Although, I do feel that Mike would not have questioned the authenticity of either story if I had not asked which one he thought was the lie (truth bias). Like the first hypothesis states, Mike was able to pick up on minor verbal and non-verbal cues that are lost in CmC, and he was able to give me direct feedback.
When I communicated with Mike via CMC, I was able to tailor my stories much more so that the lie sounded like a story I had told him previously with details altered. Because Mike was familiar with me and trusts me (for the most part), he was not more or less skeptical of the truth via CMC, so the truth bias had not decreased with the leaner medium. CMC also gave me more control to edit my remarks before sending to that I made sure I didn't make a mistake in contradicting myself. With CMC, Mike chose the wrong travel experience as the lie. He said it was a coin toss. This experience also coincides with the hypothesis that deception detection will be more accurate in a richer medium (hypothesis 1).
When I told Mike a true travel story about eating in a restaurant in Florida, where there was a fiasco with the bathroom, a waiter and alligator strips (no details necessary...), he immediately knew I was telling the truth. My mannerisms gave away the genuine style of my stories, although I had tried to imitate this presentation style in my lie story. Of course, when I asked Mike which one was true and which story was false, he picked the first one without hesitation as the lie. He told me that with the first story my details were sketchy and muddled (unlike normal), I didn't laugh nearly as much and the story was unrealistic and unbelievable. This first element of the experiment coincides with the hypothesis that deception detection is more accurate in a rich medium. Although, I do feel that Mike would not have questioned the authenticity of either story if I had not asked which one he thought was the lie (truth bias). Like the first hypothesis states, Mike was able to pick up on minor verbal and non-verbal cues that are lost in CmC, and he was able to give me direct feedback.
When I communicated with Mike via CMC, I was able to tailor my stories much more so that the lie sounded like a story I had told him previously with details altered. Because Mike was familiar with me and trusts me (for the most part), he was not more or less skeptical of the truth via CMC, so the truth bias had not decreased with the leaner medium. CMC also gave me more control to edit my remarks before sending to that I made sure I didn't make a mistake in contradicting myself. With CMC, Mike chose the wrong travel experience as the lie. He said it was a coin toss. This experience also coincides with the hypothesis that deception detection will be more accurate in a richer medium (hypothesis 1).
#4 option 1: Digital Deception
When completing this assignment, I decided to tell one of my roommates a story about when I was traveling through Europe last semester. The first story I told her was in a face to face interaction over dinner about my experience traveling through Amsterdam. I thought that it would be much harder to lie when telling a story in person because my friends know me very well and are able to tell by my verbal and non-verbal tendencies whether I am lying or not. Face to face interactions are also synchronous so I wouldn’t have much time to think about what I was going to say, which makes lying much more difficult. The second story I told my friend was through Instant Messaging and I lied about visiting Budapest, (which I never ended up going to unfortunately). I thought that message based digital deception was much easier than face to face deception because the information was much easier to control via Instant Messaging since my friend was unable to see my non-verbal cues and I had time to think about exactly what I wanted to say. I believe that my experience relates most to the Social Distance Theory because I thought that lying (especially to a friend) is uncomfortable and it is much easier to lie through a socially distant medium. When I asked my friend which story she thought was a lie, she said that she thought I was telling the truth in the face to face interaction. When I asked her why, she said that my voice was steady, I didn’t say words like “um” a lot, it seemed like I knew what I was talking about, I seemed relaxed, and I maintained good eye contact. She also assumed that I was telling the truth and wouldn’t lie to her face. This confirms the idea of “truth bias”; that people assume one is telling the truth in a face to face interaction.
#4- The beauty of honesty
For this assignment, I chose the option of rating the accuracy of a friend’s profile. I asked one of my best friends to rate each aspect of his profile according to how truthful he thought it was, and then I myself evaluated the accuracy of his profile.
For the most part, my friend’s profile portrayed an accurate image of the kind of person he is. He was truthful with information such as his network, sex, and birthday. For Facebook, such information would be considered assessment signals, since the information is difficult to lie about. In a space like college Facebook, it is hard to lie about sex or birthday because people in the network are likely to know each other in real life.
My friend’s conventional signals, however, were somewhat mixed in their truthfulness. Conventional signals on Facebook include information such as activities, favorite movies, favorite TV shows, and anything written under the “About Me” section; these categories can all be easily manipulated or edited to convey a certain kind of personality. My friend believed that he represented himself accurately with his favorite TV shows, movies, and books, and I agreed with him. He liked everything that he listed under these categories, and he refrained from listing anything that he did not actually watch or read.
My friend did acknowledge that some aspects of his profile were misleading. For instance, for his activities, there were a couple of groups on campus he had listed that he was no longer a part of. He did not intend to be deceptive; he simply forgot to delete the activities from his profile when he quit the activities. In addition, his relationship status was deceptive since he was listed as “engaged,” even though he was not engaged to his girlfriend. The misleading relationship status was the result of a joke between him and his girlfriend.
Even with the “deceptive” elements of his profile, I do not think that my friend’s profile fits with the idea of self-presentation goals. His profile did have a couple of misleading elements that most people would not be able to detect, which relates to the idea of subtle deception strategy. However, the “deception” was either unintentional or simply meant as a joke. My friend did not frequently lie in his profile, which was the opposite of what self-presentation goals would predict. He also did not attempt to appear more attractive in his Facebook profile through lying; instead, he portrayed himself accurately.
The fact that my friend’s profile was on Facebook, as opposed to another networking site, may have played a factor in his truthfulness. Since he was in the Cornell network, the only people able to see his profile were other Cornellians. Thus, there was a good chance that he might know or eventually meet people who looked at his profile; these people would probably be able to detect if my friend had lied on his profile. They also would have been able to tell if my friend was trying to portray himself as more attractive than he actually was. On the other hand, if he had been on a different networking site where he was more anonymous, he might have tried to be more deceptive.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7206234105969121026
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7971293002846298978
For the most part, my friend’s profile portrayed an accurate image of the kind of person he is. He was truthful with information such as his network, sex, and birthday. For Facebook, such information would be considered assessment signals, since the information is difficult to lie about. In a space like college Facebook, it is hard to lie about sex or birthday because people in the network are likely to know each other in real life.
My friend’s conventional signals, however, were somewhat mixed in their truthfulness. Conventional signals on Facebook include information such as activities, favorite movies, favorite TV shows, and anything written under the “About Me” section; these categories can all be easily manipulated or edited to convey a certain kind of personality. My friend believed that he represented himself accurately with his favorite TV shows, movies, and books, and I agreed with him. He liked everything that he listed under these categories, and he refrained from listing anything that he did not actually watch or read.
My friend did acknowledge that some aspects of his profile were misleading. For instance, for his activities, there were a couple of groups on campus he had listed that he was no longer a part of. He did not intend to be deceptive; he simply forgot to delete the activities from his profile when he quit the activities. In addition, his relationship status was deceptive since he was listed as “engaged,” even though he was not engaged to his girlfriend. The misleading relationship status was the result of a joke between him and his girlfriend.
Even with the “deceptive” elements of his profile, I do not think that my friend’s profile fits with the idea of self-presentation goals. His profile did have a couple of misleading elements that most people would not be able to detect, which relates to the idea of subtle deception strategy. However, the “deception” was either unintentional or simply meant as a joke. My friend did not frequently lie in his profile, which was the opposite of what self-presentation goals would predict. He also did not attempt to appear more attractive in his Facebook profile through lying; instead, he portrayed himself accurately.
The fact that my friend’s profile was on Facebook, as opposed to another networking site, may have played a factor in his truthfulness. Since he was in the Cornell network, the only people able to see his profile were other Cornellians. Thus, there was a good chance that he might know or eventually meet people who looked at his profile; these people would probably be able to detect if my friend had lied on his profile. They also would have been able to tell if my friend was trying to portray himself as more attractive than he actually was. On the other hand, if he had been on a different networking site where he was more anonymous, he might have tried to be more deceptive.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7206234105969121026
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7971293002846298978
Assignment 4,2....His lying ass!
For this fourth assignment, I chose to do option 2. I'm not too good at lying, however, I enjoy confronting people with cold hard facts and making it impossible for them to talk their way out of a lie. The subject, who will be called Jack, had their entire facebook sifted through and examined right down to that embarassing naked baby photo, whom their friend (ME!) had posted because of a lost bet. As a side note, most of you would be like "Baby pictures are cute!", but I'm here to tell you, no kid is cute when they are rocking the mullet with blonde hair. Amazingly enough, my friend was all for this test, claiming he had nothing to hide. However, it turns out not everything on his profile was the truth. His facebook profile score goes as such!
Contact Information: 3
Photos: 5
General(interests, activities, music,books, etc): 3
About Me: 3
Applications that matched his personality: 4
Groups: 5
Contact information, namely an e-mail address is an assessment signal. It can be a dead giveaway related directly to the person. The only example I can remember going over in class is a school e-mail address. However, his e-mail address came from yahoo. Can yahoo honestly be a dead giveaway about a person's characteristics? Although we are not presented with as much cues as we would have been with a school e-mail, yahoo addresses still give a couple of cues.
The photographs are also assessment signals and there really is no need in explaining that.
The other items on a facebook profile can go either way I think. They could be assessment signals, if they are true. But if they are false then they are an even more low cost display of a person's characteristics, although one cue you have attained would be the fact that they were a liar.
I would say the grades he gave himself on each category were really accurate. For example, in his contact info he gave his correct mobile phone number, however, his e-mail address was one that he hasn't checked in years. His interests and music were up to par, however, some of the books that were on his list he either doesn't remember, or didn't even enjoy. He informed me he put them up there to make himself appear well-rounded.
I believe what occurred during this test is directly related to Media Richness Theory. Facebook would not be considered a very rich medium like telephone or FTF. Instead facebook is CMC so his frequency and magnitude of lies were conveniently proportioned to the medium in which he told them. For example, if he would have blatantly lied about his appearance, this lie can be brought into the open by simply clicking on his pictures.
Contact Information: 3
Photos: 5
General(interests, activities, music,books, etc): 3
About Me: 3
Applications that matched his personality: 4
Groups: 5
Contact information, namely an e-mail address is an assessment signal. It can be a dead giveaway related directly to the person. The only example I can remember going over in class is a school e-mail address. However, his e-mail address came from yahoo. Can yahoo honestly be a dead giveaway about a person's characteristics? Although we are not presented with as much cues as we would have been with a school e-mail, yahoo addresses still give a couple of cues.
The photographs are also assessment signals and there really is no need in explaining that.
The other items on a facebook profile can go either way I think. They could be assessment signals, if they are true. But if they are false then they are an even more low cost display of a person's characteristics, although one cue you have attained would be the fact that they were a liar.
I would say the grades he gave himself on each category were really accurate. For example, in his contact info he gave his correct mobile phone number, however, his e-mail address was one that he hasn't checked in years. His interests and music were up to par, however, some of the books that were on his list he either doesn't remember, or didn't even enjoy. He informed me he put them up there to make himself appear well-rounded.
I believe what occurred during this test is directly related to Media Richness Theory. Facebook would not be considered a very rich medium like telephone or FTF. Instead facebook is CMC so his frequency and magnitude of lies were conveniently proportioned to the medium in which he told them. For example, if he would have blatantly lied about his appearance, this lie can be brought into the open by simply clicking on his pictures.
Assignment 4: Getting Away with a Lie in AIM
We all know that lying is pervasive in our daily lives, with research showing that each of us tells 1-2 lies a day. This is why I chose to investigate the first assignment option this week because it’d give me the chance to see how successful I really was at online deception.
To start the assignment I thought back to fall break of last year in when my best friend and I went home and went around upstate New York on a few little road trips. I thought this would be the best trip to use for this assignment because there were a lot of stories involved and it was almost a year ago at this point. I began with talking with my friend, who I’ll just refer to as John to keep him anonymous, at dinner on Thursday about how last year’s fall break was a lot of fun. We started reminiscing about where we went and some of the funnier moments of the weekend like when we went on the bumper cars and were attacked by 12 year olds and when a six year old hit me at the baseball hall of fame.
Since all of these events really happened over fall break the conversation flowed really easily and we were able to give each other many cues about how we felt about the issues by smiling, nodding, and laughing.
Then, on Sunday night I was talking with John on AIM and as we were catching up on our weekends (because I had been away) I knew that I had to finish up the assignment and somehow pull off a lie during our conversation. Since we were in an online space I had many more cognitive resources available to me as the hyperpersonal model suggests. This allowed me to think a lot before I even messaged John about my weekend about how I would tell the lie.
I was trying to decide which form of communication would best be suited to pull off my lie and I eventually decided to use AIM because it has many features that would potentially benefit me in my deception. As the featured based model presented by Hancock and his colleagues states, instant messaging is nearly synchronous, is not always recordable, and is distributed. These three features of the technology make it very conducive to deception.
Also, according to the hyperpersonal model, in an online space I am able to selectively represent myself or ideas. I found myself planning what I’d say before I even began talking with John. I started talking to him and told him how I got lost on my way back this weekend (which was my first lie of the night) and I continued to lie and tell him how it reminded me of how we got really lost on the way home from the baseball hall of fame in Cooperstown.
At first John questioned my story and said he couldn’t really remember that. But I was ready for this questioning, again due to my preparation, the fact that I was only in a slightly synchronous space, and because I had more cognitive availabilities. I told John how we saw the sign for the highway, but it was at a really odd intersection and we weren’t sure which road we should take, that we decided to go to the left and ended up down a really long and lonely back country road and were driving around for about 20 minutes. John started saying “lol” and that he couldn’t believe he could forget something like that and he played it off because he said that he gets lost a lot when he’s driving and he must have just forgotten about that time.
I decided it was time to come clean and let him on the little experiment and told him it was all a lie and that I was doing it for this class. John acted pretty surprised and he claimed that he couldn’t tell that I was lying because I seemed really convinced that it happened and that I had a whole story to go along with it. He added that he thinks he can tell if I were to lie to him in person though because he claims I have the tendency to get really read and look down if I’m lying to him. I guess that part of the experiment will have to wait until another time.
Links to commetns:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/yo-brahh-on-your-profile-you-forgot-to.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/a4o1-thanks-comm-245-for-forcing-me-to.html
To start the assignment I thought back to fall break of last year in when my best friend and I went home and went around upstate New York on a few little road trips. I thought this would be the best trip to use for this assignment because there were a lot of stories involved and it was almost a year ago at this point. I began with talking with my friend, who I’ll just refer to as John to keep him anonymous, at dinner on Thursday about how last year’s fall break was a lot of fun. We started reminiscing about where we went and some of the funnier moments of the weekend like when we went on the bumper cars and were attacked by 12 year olds and when a six year old hit me at the baseball hall of fame.
Since all of these events really happened over fall break the conversation flowed really easily and we were able to give each other many cues about how we felt about the issues by smiling, nodding, and laughing.
Then, on Sunday night I was talking with John on AIM and as we were catching up on our weekends (because I had been away) I knew that I had to finish up the assignment and somehow pull off a lie during our conversation. Since we were in an online space I had many more cognitive resources available to me as the hyperpersonal model suggests. This allowed me to think a lot before I even messaged John about my weekend about how I would tell the lie.
I was trying to decide which form of communication would best be suited to pull off my lie and I eventually decided to use AIM because it has many features that would potentially benefit me in my deception. As the featured based model presented by Hancock and his colleagues states, instant messaging is nearly synchronous, is not always recordable, and is distributed. These three features of the technology make it very conducive to deception.
Also, according to the hyperpersonal model, in an online space I am able to selectively represent myself or ideas. I found myself planning what I’d say before I even began talking with John. I started talking to him and told him how I got lost on my way back this weekend (which was my first lie of the night) and I continued to lie and tell him how it reminded me of how we got really lost on the way home from the baseball hall of fame in Cooperstown.
At first John questioned my story and said he couldn’t really remember that. But I was ready for this questioning, again due to my preparation, the fact that I was only in a slightly synchronous space, and because I had more cognitive availabilities. I told John how we saw the sign for the highway, but it was at a really odd intersection and we weren’t sure which road we should take, that we decided to go to the left and ended up down a really long and lonely back country road and were driving around for about 20 minutes. John started saying “lol” and that he couldn’t believe he could forget something like that and he played it off because he said that he gets lost a lot when he’s driving and he must have just forgotten about that time.
I decided it was time to come clean and let him on the little experiment and told him it was all a lie and that I was doing it for this class. John acted pretty surprised and he claimed that he couldn’t tell that I was lying because I seemed really convinced that it happened and that I had a whole story to go along with it. He added that he thinks he can tell if I were to lie to him in person though because he claims I have the tendency to get really read and look down if I’m lying to him. I guess that part of the experiment will have to wait until another time.
Links to commetns:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/yo-brahh-on-your-profile-you-forgot-to.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/a4o1-thanks-comm-245-for-forcing-me-to.html
#4, option 2...a ginger spice
For this assignment I decided to have one of my best friends at Cornell rate the accuracy of all the elements of her facebook profile, we'll call her "Ginger Spice." I chose to study Ginger Spice because I know her so well, so I knew I would be able to tell if she was being honest with her ratings. Just as Catalina did with her study, I had Ginger Spice rate the accuracy of all the elements of her facebook profile on a scale of 1 (completely inaccurate) to 5 (completely accurate). Ginger Spice's average accuracy was a 4.1 throughout the levels of Profile Picture, General Information, Groups, Contact Information, Personal Information, and Education Information, and I found that her self-ratings seemed to be very accurate according to the information I know about her personally. According to Goffman and Baumeister's Self-Presentation Goals, the subject were most likely to lie frequently but subtly. The goal of lying frequently is to appear attractive to the viewer, and the goal of lying subtly is to appear honest to the viewer, which is for the most part consistent with what I found with Ginger Spice's facebook profile. While I found that Ginger Spice lied quite frequently throughout her profile, the lies were quite subtle for the most part (usually rated as a 3 or 4). However, there were a fair amount of 1's and 2's (enough for me to notice), and because of this I came to the conclusion that for Ginger Spice, appearing attractive is more important than appearing honest in the facebook environment.
In the facebook environment, there are very few assessment signals, and many conventional signals, as is typical with many online environments. As for the assessment signals, there were really only the profile picture and other photos, the email address (which confirmed the Cornell network), and the phone number. These are all assessment signals because they are the most closely linked with Ginger Spice's "real world" identity. What I found interesting with Ginger Spice's assessment signals, though, is that they were all completely accurate except her profile picture, which she ranked as a 1 (it's a picture of an ugly llama she found on google). I found this an interesting stray from the typical way we look at assessment signals online, because while this should be something linked to her identity to signify her real appearance, it was instead replaced with a gag photo, not to make herself seem more attractive physically, but perhaps to seem more attractive in terms of having a sense of humor about herself. I think it is easy to do this however, because she has 245 other photos which represent her accurately (rated a 5), which allows her to turn the profile picture into a conventional signal, really.
As for everything else in the profile, these were all conventional signals as well, because they are simply easy to manipulate text-based self-identification. However, the deception I noticed in these conventional signals as well is similar to the issue with the profile picture. There was frequent deception throughout the conventional signals of the profile, but they weren't necessarily kept close to the truth to appear honest, in fact, there were a few which were intentionally inaccurate (listed as a 1 or 2), the purpose of which was to appear more attractive (again, not attractive physically, but in terms of a sense of humor). For example, she listed her major as "History, Soul Decision," not because it's true, but because Soul Decision is a funny, fake major (check out their hit single "Faded," if you're not familiar).
So, because of the reduced cues and the editable nature of facebook, it is very easy to selectively self-present, and everyone can do it in their own way. Some people take facebook quite seriously as a way for them to network with others and identify themselves in an online social environment, and others see facebook as a kind of joke, where they aren't necessarily deceptive to put their best facebook-foot forward, but as a way of poking fun at the facebook profile and themself for having one (as Ginger Spice is doing). However, the interesting thing about being deceptive as a joke on facebook, is that it really is just another way of selectively self-presenting yourself to others as a person who has a good sense of humor, where you actually put quite a bit of thought into the profile, specifically so that it appears that you don't care about it at all. Therefore, Ginger Spice's facebook profile does align with the Self-Presentational Goals theory in that she used the reduced cues to selectively self-present herself in order to appear more attractive to the viewers who might over-attribute her qualities, but that appearing attractive to the viewer is more important than appearing honest to the viewer, and that in fact appearing dishonest is really just a way of appearing more attractive.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-he-didnt-lie.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-anatomy-of-taken-facebooker.html
In the facebook environment, there are very few assessment signals, and many conventional signals, as is typical with many online environments. As for the assessment signals, there were really only the profile picture and other photos, the email address (which confirmed the Cornell network), and the phone number. These are all assessment signals because they are the most closely linked with Ginger Spice's "real world" identity. What I found interesting with Ginger Spice's assessment signals, though, is that they were all completely accurate except her profile picture, which she ranked as a 1 (it's a picture of an ugly llama she found on google). I found this an interesting stray from the typical way we look at assessment signals online, because while this should be something linked to her identity to signify her real appearance, it was instead replaced with a gag photo, not to make herself seem more attractive physically, but perhaps to seem more attractive in terms of having a sense of humor about herself. I think it is easy to do this however, because she has 245 other photos which represent her accurately (rated a 5), which allows her to turn the profile picture into a conventional signal, really.
As for everything else in the profile, these were all conventional signals as well, because they are simply easy to manipulate text-based self-identification. However, the deception I noticed in these conventional signals as well is similar to the issue with the profile picture. There was frequent deception throughout the conventional signals of the profile, but they weren't necessarily kept close to the truth to appear honest, in fact, there were a few which were intentionally inaccurate (listed as a 1 or 2), the purpose of which was to appear more attractive (again, not attractive physically, but in terms of a sense of humor). For example, she listed her major as "History, Soul Decision," not because it's true, but because Soul Decision is a funny, fake major (check out their hit single "Faded," if you're not familiar).
So, because of the reduced cues and the editable nature of facebook, it is very easy to selectively self-present, and everyone can do it in their own way. Some people take facebook quite seriously as a way for them to network with others and identify themselves in an online social environment, and others see facebook as a kind of joke, where they aren't necessarily deceptive to put their best facebook-foot forward, but as a way of poking fun at the facebook profile and themself for having one (as Ginger Spice is doing). However, the interesting thing about being deceptive as a joke on facebook, is that it really is just another way of selectively self-presenting yourself to others as a person who has a good sense of humor, where you actually put quite a bit of thought into the profile, specifically so that it appears that you don't care about it at all. Therefore, Ginger Spice's facebook profile does align with the Self-Presentational Goals theory in that she used the reduced cues to selectively self-present herself in order to appear more attractive to the viewers who might over-attribute her qualities, but that appearing attractive to the viewer is more important than appearing honest to the viewer, and that in fact appearing dishonest is really just a way of appearing more attractive.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-he-didnt-lie.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-anatomy-of-taken-facebooker.html
4: RIP John Smith?
I interviewed my friend, who will go by the pseudonym of Audrey, about her Facebook profile. I’ve known her for quite a while and believe I would be fairly able to tell if she was lying to me. Audrey’s average accuracy rating (on a scale of 1 to 5) was around 4.
Audrey is a fairly relaxed individual, and her Facebook profile illustrates these characteristics quite accurately. For someone who does not know Audrey very well, one might mistake the conciseness of her profile for a lack of interest in Facebook, but because I know her well, I can argue the exact opposite. Just about every aspect of one’s Facebook profile is a Conventional Signal because filling out a text profile is so easy. The closest we get to assessment symbols on Facebook is probably Profile Pictures and Photo Albums.
Audrey only lists three Interests in her Facebook profile: green tea, avocado, and beef. She rated the accuracy of this section of her profile as 5, even though she clearly is interested in more than just those three things. One who doesn’t know better may take this piece of Self Presentation to mean that she really enjoys food and drink. Although this is quite true, the overall impression is deceptive because I know very well that she is interested in more than just food consumption.
Audrey’s Favorite Quotes have the potential to be quite deceptive. One quotation is from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. This author shows up again in a Note Audrey posted on her profile, which consists of a longer excerpt from this book. Audrey rated the accuracy of her Favorite Quotes and Notes sections as 5s, but surely there is some Selective Self-Presentation at work here. She might be trying to emphasize intellect. Given that her profile does not say that much about her, the things she chooses to put on display could potentially be Over-Attributed, due to lack of available cues.
Audrey’s Group affiliation section is the only part of her Profile that she admitted as deceptive. Giving her groups an accuracy rating of 3, she confessed that she often joins groups out of guilt, such as philanthropic ones, or groups dedicated to the memory of someone who died. Audrey blames the Facebook News Feed feature for her lack of action in portraying herself accurately here. She would not like to be caught on another person’s News Feed as part of a story reading “Audrey Gold has left the group RIP John Smith,” even though she never knew John Smith! Audrey would not like the Facebook community to think that she is insensitive, so to her, a little deception in the form of a false Social Association is fine with her.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-life-is-rap-music-video-assignment.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-thats-her-default-picture.html
Audrey is a fairly relaxed individual, and her Facebook profile illustrates these characteristics quite accurately. For someone who does not know Audrey very well, one might mistake the conciseness of her profile for a lack of interest in Facebook, but because I know her well, I can argue the exact opposite. Just about every aspect of one’s Facebook profile is a Conventional Signal because filling out a text profile is so easy. The closest we get to assessment symbols on Facebook is probably Profile Pictures and Photo Albums.
Audrey only lists three Interests in her Facebook profile: green tea, avocado, and beef. She rated the accuracy of this section of her profile as 5, even though she clearly is interested in more than just those three things. One who doesn’t know better may take this piece of Self Presentation to mean that she really enjoys food and drink. Although this is quite true, the overall impression is deceptive because I know very well that she is interested in more than just food consumption.
Audrey’s Favorite Quotes have the potential to be quite deceptive. One quotation is from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. This author shows up again in a Note Audrey posted on her profile, which consists of a longer excerpt from this book. Audrey rated the accuracy of her Favorite Quotes and Notes sections as 5s, but surely there is some Selective Self-Presentation at work here. She might be trying to emphasize intellect. Given that her profile does not say that much about her, the things she chooses to put on display could potentially be Over-Attributed, due to lack of available cues.
Audrey’s Group affiliation section is the only part of her Profile that she admitted as deceptive. Giving her groups an accuracy rating of 3, she confessed that she often joins groups out of guilt, such as philanthropic ones, or groups dedicated to the memory of someone who died. Audrey blames the Facebook News Feed feature for her lack of action in portraying herself accurately here. She would not like to be caught on another person’s News Feed as part of a story reading “Audrey Gold has left the group RIP John Smith,” even though she never knew John Smith! Audrey would not like the Facebook community to think that she is insensitive, so to her, a little deception in the form of a false Social Association is fine with her.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-life-is-rap-music-video-assignment.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/42-thats-her-default-picture.html
4,2: He didn't lie...
For this assignment, I investigated the accuracy of a friend’s Facebook, in its entirety. I made sure that my friend, who from this point forth will be referred to as “the subject”, had set a significant amount of time aside in order to take part in the in depth questioning. At first, the subject seemed reluctant to allot the requested amount of time for the interview but I kept insisting and eventually succeeded. The subject’s immediate response to my task at hand was, “I don’t know why you think, it’ll take that long, I don’t lie on my Facebook”. After a thorough sweep of the subject’s profile and life, I came to the conclusion that the subject’s first few words had not been a lie.
Recently, the subject had updated and removed a significant amount of superfluous (potentially inaccurate) information from their profile. The breakdown in terms of Catalina’s study yielded as follows:
All contact information: 5
Pictures: 5
Groups: 5
Interests/Personal information: 5
Everything else: 5
During my verification process, I was convinced that the information provided was in fact accurate. I could not find a lie on the profile. This was as I had expected.
Based on the results, I would say that the Recordability of a Facebook profile kept the subject from presenting any inaccurate information on it. Since my subject is very self-confident, there was no need for an alteration in the presentation. The one thing that was mentioned was that previously the subject had joined many groups that were not necessarily an accurate representation of the subject’s interest. Therefore, prior to my interview, the subject’s profile had agreed with the experiment in that small lies were quite honest and very infrequent.
Overall, my friend’s profile barely showed any lies and the very few lies were conventional signals (groups) that had been manipulated. I believe that it is Facebook’s very nature that promotes accurate assessment signals. One must have a valid email address, others know you and may be able to keep track of any inaccuracies, it is recordable and it’s mostly used to network between friends to whom people do not feel the need to display an improved self-presentation masking their insecurities. The only things that can successfully be manipulated are the groups one joins (since they’re not taken seriously in the first place when assessing an individual’s interests).
Yea, I wish he had lied some more, talking to him was boring.http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-opt-1-true-or-false-type.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-option-1-its-officialim-bad-liar.html
Assignment #4, opt.1: Truth or Lie?
This is probably my favorite blog thus far to write. How often do you get to lie to a friend and it be for educational purposes? For this experiment, I put my best friend Michelle up to the task. She knows me very well but she is very gullible at the same time, so I was dying to see which one would overcome the other. I began by using the rich media to discuss the 1st memory. I called her and struck up a conversation about my trip to Puerto Rico this summer, seeing as she just got back from her own vacation in England. I told her that I had gone bungee jumping and trash can sliding down the side of the mountains. I went on to describe my horse back riding experience and scuba diving on the south shore. Mind you these were all lies, as I did not one thing of resemblance. I spoke to her the next day and switched it over to the lean media. I signed onto AIM began a conversation about my road trip up to Cornell from Long Island, NY. I told Michelle about the long 4.5 hour ride and the interesting things I saw along the way: three car accidents, two motorcyclists arguing and cursing each other out on the road and a group of deer walking along the highway. Now you would wish this was all fabricated but it was actually true.
Then came the test. I met up with her later on that day and revealed my assignment and the part she played in it. I revealed that one of the two stories I told her was a lie and she was to figure out which one was not true. After careful thought she concluded that the story I told her over the telephone about my trip to Puerto Rico was false. I was shocked she actually got it because I’ve done all the things that I told her about before so it wasn’t like anything was unbelievable. Michelle stated that over the phone I paused a lot as if I was thinking about what to say next. I also didn’t get into much detail as I would normally. I brushed over everything with a "yea" or "uh huh". Online she felt that even if I had paused or been thinking she didn’t notice because the conversation just kept flowing. The tone of my voice apparently also changed slightly and to her it just seemed a little fishy as if I had been exaggerating.
This experiment clearly supported the idea of lean versus rich media selection. The rich media made it easier to detect my lie because she had more cues to work with. She didn’t have my physical body language but my wording and tone of voice was sufficient. The AIM conversation gave me a bigger amount of ambiguity, decreasing the chance of deception detection. This intentional control of information to create false beliefs is exactly what digital deception covers.
Commented on:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment_4_humor_me_and_tell_me_lies.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/facebook_do_people_really_show_face.html
Then came the test. I met up with her later on that day and revealed my assignment and the part she played in it. I revealed that one of the two stories I told her was a lie and she was to figure out which one was not true. After careful thought she concluded that the story I told her over the telephone about my trip to Puerto Rico was false. I was shocked she actually got it because I’ve done all the things that I told her about before so it wasn’t like anything was unbelievable. Michelle stated that over the phone I paused a lot as if I was thinking about what to say next. I also didn’t get into much detail as I would normally. I brushed over everything with a "yea" or "uh huh". Online she felt that even if I had paused or been thinking she didn’t notice because the conversation just kept flowing. The tone of my voice apparently also changed slightly and to her it just seemed a little fishy as if I had been exaggerating.
This experiment clearly supported the idea of lean versus rich media selection. The rich media made it easier to detect my lie because she had more cues to work with. She didn’t have my physical body language but my wording and tone of voice was sufficient. The AIM conversation gave me a bigger amount of ambiguity, decreasing the chance of deception detection. This intentional control of information to create false beliefs is exactly what digital deception covers.
Commented on:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment_4_humor_me_and_tell_me_lies.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/facebook_do_people_really_show_face.html
#4 option 1: It's official...I'm a bad liar
When we received this assignment I wasn’t thrilled. I am an awful liar and people can always tell when I am lying. For this reason I will never attempt to play poker and I am pretty bad at MAFIA (the card game). So conducting my own deception experiment was a bit challenging at first. However, after I thought about deception and the different media in which one can lie in, I realized I might only be a terrible liar FtF because of the facial cues available to the impression developer and the quick thinking it involves to cover your lies. In FtF lying, I am too close to the impression developer. There is no distance, which makes me feel uncomfortable. So I decided to try my luck on the telephone. According, to the feature based approach, lying on the phone is optimal because it is synchronous, recordless, and distributed. I called my friend “Lola”, and told her that I had to cancel our dinner plans this weekend because I forgot that I was going home for Rosh Hashanah. I felt pretty confident with the lie, until she started questioning me. Apparently, I did not think through my lie all that well. I forgot that I usually wear a cross around my neck and I had told her that my parents were in a Europe for a couple of weeks. When Lola started questioning me about these inconsistencies in my story, I was unable to respond to her quick enough. There were a few awkward pauses in our phone conversation, along with “umm….well”. I tried to tell her that part of my family was Jewish and my parents were already back from Europe, but the tone of my voice and the slow speed at which I replied gave it all away. So I guess I am not a very good lier FtF or on the phone. However, I do feel that my lie could have worked and would have supported the feature based model. If only I had though out my lie better, or lied to a different friend, my lie would have passed. Even though, in this case, my lie failed, the phone did help me feel more comfortable in lying to my friend, and it allowed me to get feedback and adjust to the situation (although clearly not that well).
My second situation was conducted in a leaner media (e-mail). The feature based model claims that the least lies occur via e-mail because e-mail is recordable and asynchronous (no feedback to adjust to). In this case I was telling the truth to my friend. I told Lola that I have been to Thailand. To make sure she would believe me (after the terrible lie I had told her previously), I made sure to include details and personal experiences, since emotion is difficult to express in e-mail. I told her of the different cities I went to, but I also made sure to include particular events that I encountered. Unfortunately, Lola thought I was lying again! Apparently, this time I was trying to hard. Lola said I provided too much detail and though I just looked on Google to find the names of Thai cities.
In conclusion, I am a bad liar and should not attempt to deceit people, because I will be caught. But if I were a good liar (oxymoron), I would most likely follow the feature based approach.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7206234105969121026
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3503255274952514317
My second situation was conducted in a leaner media (e-mail). The feature based model claims that the least lies occur via e-mail because e-mail is recordable and asynchronous (no feedback to adjust to). In this case I was telling the truth to my friend. I told Lola that I have been to Thailand. To make sure she would believe me (after the terrible lie I had told her previously), I made sure to include details and personal experiences, since emotion is difficult to express in e-mail. I told her of the different cities I went to, but I also made sure to include particular events that I encountered. Unfortunately, Lola thought I was lying again! Apparently, this time I was trying to hard. Lola said I provided too much detail and though I just looked on Google to find the names of Thai cities.
In conclusion, I am a bad liar and should not attempt to deceit people, because I will be caught. But if I were a good liar (oxymoron), I would most likely follow the feature based approach.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=7206234105969121026
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3503255274952514317
A,4,O,1 Syracuse Trip
When receiving this assignment I knew that it more then likely was going to be a failure. In my old age and much more wiser time of life I make it a point to let everyone know how much I despise lying and how much I really hate it when I am lied to. Most of my friends know this but not many know why. When I was a youngin I was rebel amongst my friends, I caused the trouble and I lied about it, all the time. By the time I was about half way through middle school I was starting to get in serious trouble because of this. I decided to make a change in my life and I from that point on attempted to not tell a lie no matter how much it hurt me. Still to this day I don’t lie and I am very honest, which still tends to get me in some trouble but not near what I was about to be in a few years back. So on to the assignment, over the weekend I traveled out to Syracuse to visit my best friend that lives up there. Unfortunately he does live in one of the worst sections of town. I attempted to use this to my advantage when calling up my girlfriend and telling her where I was and what I was doing. When I called her up I told her I had traveled up to Syracuse to visit my friend. That when by with no problem, I guess because I had really traveled up there I made it believable enough. When I moved onto the part of the conversation where I had parked around the corner of his house and I was going to be stuck up there for a while because someone had jacked the wheels off my car, even though such a thing happens commonly in this part of time she immediately did not believe me. Now she is from near Syracuse and knows of this part of town and know that big chrome wheels on a vehicle are always targets, but I suppose because of how I said it she immediately did not believe me. She detected it right on the phone and called my bluff. Now according to O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model (IMM) this type of media I chose was perhaps to rich in order to tell this lie, perhaps I should have attempted to try text messaging instead. What ever I did I was not very good at and my lie was detected immediately. I attempted to give as little information as possible and be as ambiguous as possible, providing little to no clarity when talking to my girlfriend about the situation. I attempted to sound shook up like a person might be in that situation, unfortunately I was unable to pull off the experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)