For the Ultimate test in deception, I decided to try the Facebook deception study on my housemate that I’ve lived with for three years. After interviewing my friend, based on Catalina’s study, I found the following results:
Physical Appearance: 4
Social Status: 5
Relationship Information: 5
Habits and Interests: 4
Beliefs: 4
After measuring his height, I found that he was one inch shorter than he had reported on his Facebook profile therefore the magnitude of his self-presentation lie was 1. The frequency presented in Catalina’s study mirrors this deception so therefore I am convinced that he intentionally lied about his height. This may have been due to the fact that he wanted to portray an ideal self or since he is an athlete, he may assume that people look at him a certain way and he wanted to confirm what they believed he looked like (behavior confirmation).
In terms of his weight, he was three pounds heavier than he reported on his profile and therefore the magnitude of his self-presentation lie in this case was three. In terms of weight, however, it is difficult to mention if he intentionally controlled (meaning of digital deception) this information since he “hadn’t updated his profile in a little while” and weight tends to fluctuate on a daily basis. Since, according to Catalina’s study, men seem to lie equally about being lighter or heavier than they actually are I can confirm that his “lie” was no form of digital deception.
In terms of his social status, not only did he rate himself a 5, I confirmed with a number of his friends that he is of the social status he claims on his Facebook profile. He mentioned that “…for the simple fact that [I] am able to check,” he decided it would be in his best interest to tell the truth. If I were to publicly do a cross-validation test, chances are, his friends would look at him differently and this would hurt his reputation. This is a big reason why he didn’t dare lie about his social status.
I’ll put the last two together since they are closely related in terms of what he reported. When I asked why he rated himself a 4 on habits and interests, he did not respond clearly. In fact, he tried to dodge the question. After stalking him about the question, he finally gave in and mentioned that he lied subtly about his habits and interests because he felt “people could relate.” This was the same response he had for why he lied about his beliefs. This is when the fact that deception is strategic, the idea presented in class, hit me as to why he lied. Since Facebook is a essentially a way to make yourself look good, especially if you have a great deal of friends, I came to the conclusion that he strived to make himself look good to the public eye (selective self-presentation) without be so blatant that his deception would easily be picked up.
I pride myself in being a genuine and honest person and for that reason; I’m disappointed that people play this Facebook “game.” I do understand that life is a game in a sense but if you remain true to yourself, the game will play itself and I guarantee that you’ll win.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Assignment 4, Option 2
A facebook profile, if filled out truthfully, is an amazing way to get a look into someone else’s world. It contains everything from pictures of them to their favorite quotes. In my opinion the biggest sections of a facebook profile are the photos, quick snapshot (the top area with quick information about them- name, networks, religion, etc.) contact and personal information, and education and work. While there are many other sections, including new applications I feel that these are the core and more important portions of facebook if you are want to learn about someone. Within these different sections there are many different conventional and assessment signals. An easy example of an assessment signal is his email address. Since under his education section he lists himself as a student you can verify this because of his email address which ends in @clemson.edu. Other examples of assessment signals include his age, gender, name, and employment. Conventional signals are much easier to change and to lie about and are thus found all over a facebook profile. Some of these signals include favorite books, movies, quotes, and TV shows.
Another important section of facebook is the contact and personal information section. Within the contact information he rated everything as 5’s because it’s all very straightforward information, his email, phone number, screen name, and they are all updated and accurate. However unlike the contact information which is short and straight to the point his personal information section is overflowing with information. He rated his activities as a 4, interests as a 5, music as a 4, TV shows as a 5, movies as a 4, books as 4, quotes as a 4, and about me as a 5. The ones that he rated lower are because he said that some of his favorites have changed and he hasn’t updated them.
Further down the page we come to his education and work information. This was another easy section for him to rate because all of this information was straightforward, his colleges, high school, employer, job position, and etcetera. He rated everything as 5’s except for one of his job descriptions. His job description for PCC & PGR Construction, “Kick ass job person” he felt didn’t really describe what he was doing and thus rated it as a 2.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/a41-truth-is-beautiful-without-doubt.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-impossibility-of-knowing.html
Facebook Deception: You are a Liar!
Facebook: the social networking site that gives the owner of the profile the leverage to control what they want on it; from favorite books, to favorite movies to favorite quotes. With the profile owner’s intentional control of information in a technologically mediated environment, digital deception is bound to happen. When was the last time you came across a friend’s Facebook profile and saw that he/she listed hundreds of favorite books? How many times was that friends claim completely bogus, because well, he/she just doesn’t read? How many times have you untagged your Friday night beer pong pictures just because you heard job employers venture into a potential hire’s Facebook? These are all examples of digital deception. Basically, you either funnel what was posted about you (wall posts, photos) to what you want posted about you or you put up what you feel is most ideal (favorite movie title, quotes, books, etc). By doing such, you are creating a false image in the mind of the person sitting on the other side stalking our profiles, which put that way doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
The other day I went into one of my friend’s profile. It was funny to see how he listed all these philosophical books, and well I knew that he hadn’t read them. I knew that he had the least bit of interest in philosophy, touting it as being an “utter waste of time” at one point. In terms of accuracy, I rate the favorite books element of his Facebook profile a 1: completely inaccurate. Furthermore, when I saw his quotes, it was quite interesting…I had seen that same chunk of varying quotes elsewhere. And then I remembered it was in another of my friend’s profile. Although he always took an interest in quotes, the types of quotes posted were beyond what he would’ve liked strongly. He is a fan of short direct inspirational quotes – but when I saw the following quote, “you don’t really understand human nature unless you know why a child on a merry-go-round will wave at his parents every time around- and why his parents will always wave back”, I thought twice. He was not a fan of kids at all, so when asking him he said he was trying to impress this girl. On the quotes element, I rated him a 2: somewhat inaccurate. I continued the ratings with other elements of his Facebook profile, and I verified the components of these elements FtF.
This was interesting because here I was doing a study on a CMC environment, and verifying using the FtF environment. What I saw on my friends profile and the response I received from him in a FtF environment supported the social distance theory. In a much richer media (i.e. FtF), he told me the truth and told me the intentions to posting what he did. Just by looking at his Facebook profile, located in a CMC environment, he would come off as a completely different person without a FtF meeting. The number of lies per interaction in the CMC environment was by no question, far greater than the FtF environment. As social distance increased, lies increased. This is not the case for the media richness theory which says that a CMC environment generates less lies than a FtF environment.
Basically, because people have certain self presentation goals they strategize a way to portray these goals using deception. In the case of my friend, deception was present in every element of his Facebook profile (books, quotes, pictures), but the way it was presented was subtle and strategic. In between a chunk of inspirational quotes, you have this one quote about children and human nature. My friend could have found all quotes of the aforementioned nature, but he didn’t, just because deception should be subtle and strategic.
Furthermore, to sum up, using my friends profile as an example, deception detection will be more accurate in FtF than in CMC. When I was FtF with him, there were more cues & feedback for detection in FtF. Also, as a person who has the leverage to edit the profile, CMC liars have the luxury of taking their sweet time. The CMC environment is simply much more conducive to liars.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=2624869660791309842
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2-xbook.html
4: Facebook Deception
As Facebook has grown, the developers have gradually changed the nature of the profiles. Profiles are now much more customizable, particularly with the “applications” that can be added. As more customization is available, more information can be presented, although cues are not necessarily added. For instance the “graffiti” application might provide richer information as an observer can make inferences from drawing style, while the “political compass” is just a slightly more detailed classification than the original “political affiliation” part of the profile. One big change that was just announced was that profiles can be made public, and therefore reachable by search engines. The main effect this might have on deception in Facebook is that public profiles are now archived. While profiles were previously recordable only through someone actively taking a screenshot, but now any public profile will frequently be archived and can then be accessed again. This will likely result in less deception as recordless media yield the highest amount of deception.
In looking at my friend M’s profile, I came across very little overt deception. She rated every element of her profile as 5, with two exceptions. She said her photo albums rated 3 because while they were a representative set of pictures about her life, she only posted pictures “where I look cute.” Her Interests were also rated 2, as the only piece of information there is “understanding the meaning of life.” While this is not inaccurate, it is very incomplete. She has many interests that she just decided not to write. Her explanation was that the brief statement seemed more interesting than if she just listed the few activities she was involved in. Plus, her “About Me” section covered a fair amount of her interests. Both of these cases were not so much intentional deception as leaving out information to limit the image presented. This follows elements of the Hyperpersonal theory, in that with limited information, over-attribution occurs.
After verifying the information in her profile, I concluded that she was truthful about the overall lack of deception. She really did put her favorite movies, music, books, TV show, and contact info. She considers Facebook profiles to be recordable since anyone can keep track of what the profile says, and as a result did not lie about any facts. The deception she did was, in a way, the “explanation lies” that occur more often in asynchronous media. While the information was all true, she only included the information that she wanted to, and did not present her whole character. The emphasis on accurate, factual information follows the Media Richness Theory. With that theory, factual information fits better with an asynchronous, recordable media such as Facebook.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2_18.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2-xbook.html
In looking at my friend M’s profile, I came across very little overt deception. She rated every element of her profile as 5, with two exceptions. She said her photo albums rated 3 because while they were a representative set of pictures about her life, she only posted pictures “where I look cute.” Her Interests were also rated 2, as the only piece of information there is “understanding the meaning of life.” While this is not inaccurate, it is very incomplete. She has many interests that she just decided not to write. Her explanation was that the brief statement seemed more interesting than if she just listed the few activities she was involved in. Plus, her “About Me” section covered a fair amount of her interests. Both of these cases were not so much intentional deception as leaving out information to limit the image presented. This follows elements of the Hyperpersonal theory, in that with limited information, over-attribution occurs.
After verifying the information in her profile, I concluded that she was truthful about the overall lack of deception. She really did put her favorite movies, music, books, TV show, and contact info. She considers Facebook profiles to be recordable since anyone can keep track of what the profile says, and as a result did not lie about any facts. The deception she did was, in a way, the “explanation lies” that occur more often in asynchronous media. While the information was all true, she only included the information that she wanted to, and did not present her whole character. The emphasis on accurate, factual information follows the Media Richness Theory. With that theory, factual information fits better with an asynchronous, recordable media such as Facebook.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2_18.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2-xbook.html
Assignment 4, Option 2
ASL: self reported 5, cross verified 5
Contact information: self reported 5, cross verified 5
Background information (hometown, school): self reported 5, cross verified 5
Work information: self reported 4, cross verified 3 Day trader/Money maker
Activities: self reported 3, cross verified 1.5 to live life, being accused of having too much fun, laughing at the wrong times, making ridiculous amounts of money
Interests: self reported 3, cross verified 1 anything and everything, after jumping out of spaceships, nothing interest excites me anymore
Favorites: self reported 1, cross verified 1 listed only one movie and one book
About me: self reported 3.5, cross verified 1 story of drunken driving with a hot girl in the passenger side
Average rating: self reported 3.69, cross verified 2.81
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=7189647245178971435
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=4417501562768419610
Blog 4: Facebook Fraud
I chose to assess the facebook profile of a close friend, one who is considered a veteran in the Facebook world. She joined back in 2003, when Facebook was an exclusive club for those who attended Ivy League Schools. Her profile is very thorough, but as I am a close friend I am aware of some fabrications. The internet is a place where digital deception occurs on a daily basis; people intentionally control what they share online and therefore have the ability to create a false belief to receivers. Facebook profiles are right in line with the identity-based theory, where people will falsely display their identities and manipulate their attributes. People who don’t know this girl, let’s call her Jodi, would believe that her most important interests are bloody marys, Sunday brunch, and crossword puzzles (those are the first three interests she lists). Mostly, people will use conventional signals to enhance their Facebook profiles because all one has to do is think up some cool interests and then type them in. It is easy to hide embarrassing or “uncool” characteristics online.
From observing Jodi on a personal level, I know her favorite interests include food shopping with her mom, eating ice cream, and watching TV. There will never be a girl who will post publicly that she enjoys ice cream-it’s taboo. I called Jodi after looking at her profile and asked her if she had done any of her “real” interests in the last week. I asked her to use a rating of 1 (not done) to 5 (done daily). She gave shopping with her mom a 3, eating ice cream a 1, and watching TV a 5. I then asked her if she had sipped on a bloody mary, ate Sunday brunch, or done a crossword puzzle in the past week, and she gave me 1’s for all. Assessment signals, as part of identity-based digital deception, play a big role in how someone portrays themselves on the internet. I conclude that Jodi had a high frequency of lying online to make herself look cool and hip. However, the magnitude of her deceptive ways is not large, whether or not someone does the crossword puzzle everyday does not define them. It is very interesting to see how much time and effort people put into making the perfect Facebook profile. The people viewing it either already are your friends, or simply don’t care.
From observing Jodi on a personal level, I know her favorite interests include food shopping with her mom, eating ice cream, and watching TV. There will never be a girl who will post publicly that she enjoys ice cream-it’s taboo. I called Jodi after looking at her profile and asked her if she had done any of her “real” interests in the last week. I asked her to use a rating of 1 (not done) to 5 (done daily). She gave shopping with her mom a 3, eating ice cream a 1, and watching TV a 5. I then asked her if she had sipped on a bloody mary, ate Sunday brunch, or done a crossword puzzle in the past week, and she gave me 1’s for all. Assessment signals, as part of identity-based digital deception, play a big role in how someone portrays themselves on the internet. I conclude that Jodi had a high frequency of lying online to make herself look cool and hip. However, the magnitude of her deceptive ways is not large, whether or not someone does the crossword puzzle everyday does not define them. It is very interesting to see how much time and effort people put into making the perfect Facebook profile. The people viewing it either already are your friends, or simply don’t care.
4 - I still have that on my profile?!
We are some of the first people to really have never known college before social networking sites such as Facebook. In a way, we are defining how it is used to meet new people, exchange information, and in some cases, exchange false information. Just like the dating websites discussed in class, Facebook users are often “advertising” themselves to the other users. Some people may try to appear more popular to their friends or more responsible for potential employers. The only real assessment signal is your college network which must be verified with an e-mail address. Everything else in your profile is unverified, essentially making the rest of your profile conventional signals.
There are some elements of a Facebook profile such as gender that would be an assessment signal in face to face interactions, but could conceivably be lied about online. Possibly more important than this, is what can be left out of your profile. Privacy settings allow users to restrict what information, pictures, and profile elements appear to their friends and networks. One would assume that lying on Facebook would generally be similar to the findings of Catalina's “Deception in Online Dating” study. It is likely that you will meet and interact with the people who view your profile in a richer medium at some point, and blatant lying would be easily detectable. Instead, subtle lying is more effective, as well as selectively choosing information and media that paint you in the best light possible.
For my profile analysis I chose one of my close friends, since I knew I could verify almost all of the claims she makes on her profile. For activities and interests she rated herself a four because both lists were incomplete. For books, movies, TV shows, and music she gave herself a three in all categories. Looking at her profile, she realized that many of the things she had listed were outdated and missing others. For quotes and about me, she gave herself fours, as both sections reflected experiences from her time at college more than at home. For work information she gave herself a three because her job title was not accurate. Finally, she gave herself a two for groups since she had 94 listed, many of which she forgot she had ever joined.
Some profile elements such as political views have limited options, so it is possible for someone's profile to be incomplete without them intending it to be so. In my friend's example, the outdated nature of many profile elements were the biggest contributing factor in the “deceptive” elements of her profile. This is not uncommon, as many people do not regularly review and update what they have on their profile. From my personal knowledge of my friend I found her responses to be true. As expected, her profile was geared toward things that would help her to meet new people. This leans more towards the impression management tactic of selective self-presentation than true deception as we normally think of it.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-four-my-wikipedia-trip-to.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2-xbook.html
4: Deception on the Facebook
For this post I decided to do an analysis of deception in one of my friend’s Facebook profile. Although I did not generally get the impression that people I knew were prone to lying, especially about the superfluous things that one puts on Facebook, I thought it would be interesting to challenge this bit of truth bias in myself. How much can we really trust what our Facebook friends are telling us over the Internet?
I picked one of my non-Cornell friends at random for the study. I wanted to avoid potential bias from a Cornell student who might have heard of this class or the assignment and thus would be less willing to give truthful answers. (Turns out INFO 245 is pretty darn popular around campus; almost everyone I have spoken to is either in the class or knows someone else in the class!) I also did not mention to my subject what exactly I needed help with, saying only that it was for a class assignment, until the person had agreed to help. At this point, I went through his Facebook profile and set up a grid for him to rate each of his profile elements for veracity on a scale from one to five. He entered his answers into the document and mailed it back to me. After receiving it, I cross-referenced his self evaluation with what knowledge I had of him; since he was a friend of mine, that knowledge was fairly extensive in this case.
The hypothesis put forward by Goffman and Baumeister states that people should be tempted to lie frequently, subtly, and in accordance with the wishes of the opposite gender. Based on this information, I should have expected to see many small blurred truths as opposed to bald-faced lies.
What I observed was somewhat consistent with that hypothesis. The subject reported minor to significant lies in over half the elements on his profile. The more significant lies possibly strain the “lie subtly” component of the hypothesis, but I believe that it can be explained by analyzing the types of information that he lied in.
The subject evaluated himself as perfectly accurate for the “basics” section (name, gender, networks, political views, etc; all the items that appear in the top section of Facebook). Due to the nature of Facebook, which tends to unite people in a relatively limited geographic area, it would have been nearly impossible for him to fake these core assessment signals; any lies would be detected instantly by the people sees on a daily basis.
The other sections showed less perfect truths. For the “favorites” (books, music, television shows, etc.), he rated himself four, with five being completely accurate and one being completely inaccurate. In “Interests” and “Quotes,” however, he rated his accuracy at only three and two, respectively. This disparity can probably also be explained in the difference between assessment and conventional signals. In order to claim a particular book or show as a “favorite,” he would have needed to invest substantial time in reading the book or watching the show. This makes the “favorites” list more of an assessment signal. However, for the quotes section, finding quotes on the Internet to fit one’s desired self image is not difficult at all; quotes are therefore a conventional, easily faked signal.
Comments:
I picked one of my non-Cornell friends at random for the study. I wanted to avoid potential bias from a Cornell student who might have heard of this class or the assignment and thus would be less willing to give truthful answers. (Turns out INFO 245 is pretty darn popular around campus; almost everyone I have spoken to is either in the class or knows someone else in the class!) I also did not mention to my subject what exactly I needed help with, saying only that it was for a class assignment, until the person had agreed to help. At this point, I went through his Facebook profile and set up a grid for him to rate each of his profile elements for veracity on a scale from one to five. He entered his answers into the document and mailed it back to me. After receiving it, I cross-referenced his self evaluation with what knowledge I had of him; since he was a friend of mine, that knowledge was fairly extensive in this case.
The hypothesis put forward by Goffman and Baumeister states that people should be tempted to lie frequently, subtly, and in accordance with the wishes of the opposite gender. Based on this information, I should have expected to see many small blurred truths as opposed to bald-faced lies.
What I observed was somewhat consistent with that hypothesis. The subject reported minor to significant lies in over half the elements on his profile. The more significant lies possibly strain the “lie subtly” component of the hypothesis, but I believe that it can be explained by analyzing the types of information that he lied in.
The subject evaluated himself as perfectly accurate for the “basics” section (name, gender, networks, political views, etc; all the items that appear in the top section of Facebook). Due to the nature of Facebook, which tends to unite people in a relatively limited geographic area, it would have been nearly impossible for him to fake these core assessment signals; any lies would be detected instantly by the people sees on a daily basis.
The other sections showed less perfect truths. For the “favorites” (books, music, television shows, etc.), he rated himself four, with five being completely accurate and one being completely inaccurate. In “Interests” and “Quotes,” however, he rated his accuracy at only three and two, respectively. This disparity can probably also be explained in the difference between assessment and conventional signals. In order to claim a particular book or show as a “favorite,” he would have needed to invest substantial time in reading the book or watching the show. This makes the “favorites” list more of an assessment signal. However, for the quotes section, finding quotes on the Internet to fit one’s desired self image is not difficult at all; quotes are therefore a conventional, easily faked signal.
Comments:
Assignment 4, Option 2
Hi,
Like most other college students I have a facebook profile that I use to communicate and keep in touch with friends. Because of this association I chose to do the second option and evaluate a classmate’s profile. The classmate who I will refer to as RR is a friend of mine so I know the kind of things he likes and is interested in doing. Facebook is set up in the general way for people to deliver information about themselves. You can put down your name however you’d like, your birthday, your hometown, current residence, relationship status, your sexual orientation, political affiliation, current status, interest and activities, favorite movies and music, and favorite quotes. You also have the ability to omit as many of these things as you’d like giving you the chance to get rid of non positive information.
In viewing RR’s profile the first thing that is noticeable is the exclusion of several pieces of information including, sexual orientation, relationship status, hometown and political affiliation. I feel that facebook is a very self presentational kind of website were you do everything in your power to fulfill the goals of making yourself appear attractive or “cool” and to appear honest about your claims. By omitting things RR could avoid displeasing someone with a different view point right off the back. Most attributes on a profile including the ones he chose not to show are conventional signals that can be easily changed and lied about.
Next I asked them to rate their information about interest and activities in which they gave everything a 4 or 5 rating. One noticeable feature was he listed very few things in each category once again, 1-3 items. Ofcourse this is not lying, but this is manipulation of data transmitted in a way. Social distance theory would predict that my friend would be able to easily lie in comfort in the lean medium that is facebook, but I feel that like my friend most people tell the truth for the most part with small subtle lies that are present in Self presentation.
Assignment 4 : Facebook
Facebook is psychological space that allows for deception, perhaps in the minute sense, except if caught by loyal friends who know you almost as much as they know themselves. Information put onto a person’s profile can leave various impressions on people as there is a lack of cues. According to the impression management model, sites such as facebook give people the freedom to regulate the information they chose to make available to others. People are presenting themselves in a positive light to give a desired impression through word selection, choice of pictures, and what items you want displayed. I have always wondered how accurate people are with the information they provide for fellow classmates and friends to see and this is why I chose to interview a close friend about her truthfulness on Facebook.
I interviewed my friend on every aspect I could possibly think of concerning the accuracy of her profile descriptions. I began by asking about her personal information (her age, where she lives, religious views, political views, etc) and she replied with having all of those be true by rating them as a 5. For the longest time I found her political views as being totally opposite from what she expresses to certain people in person. She claims to be Republican but knowing her beliefs and expectations for our country, she is clearly a Democrat. I have no clue why she claims to be one when in person she claims to be another online. By doing this she is creating false impressions in people she knows as well as people she doesn’t know. Mostly everything else is pretty close to being accurate (rating items between 3-5) except for a couple fibs here and there. Under activities, she says she horseback rides all the time but in reality she has horseback riding a couple times and one of her favorite TV shows is not the Simpsons even though she claims it to be. She added the Simpsons to her list when the movie came out and all her friends loved it so she put in on her profile as well. She also told me, although I already deduced this myself, that she selected which information she wanted others to see so that people would get a good impression of her. I mean, who doesn’t do this to some extent and getting people to admit these things is somewhat of a difficult task. Where else does someone have the opportunity to present their ideal selves, ought selves, and actual selves. We achieve this through our self descriptions, our social associations, and the use of sets, props, and lights (profile picture).
Although my friend didn’t lie often, it’s not surprising to know that my friend feels more comfortable lying or “fibbing”, sometimes unintentionally, online as opposed to doing so face to face. She can’t hold a straight face ever especially when it concerns her. She’s also not quick with her words so being able to think of what she is going to say, or in this case write, gives her the ability to present herself in a captivating light. The Hyperpersonal model and the selective self presentation support my example. Lying online is more comfortable for her as opposed to doing so in person because of reduced cues and the ability to edit information. She wants to appear attractive by editing and limiting her descriptions. To make things even easier, conventional signals allows for a person, like my friend, to influence impressions. She uses specific nicknames, writes with a lot of slang, has certain applications, and adds specific music to her profile. Everyone is different and it’s interesting to see in which mediums people feel the urge to lie in and feel comfortable doing so.
I interviewed my friend on every aspect I could possibly think of concerning the accuracy of her profile descriptions. I began by asking about her personal information (her age, where she lives, religious views, political views, etc) and she replied with having all of those be true by rating them as a 5. For the longest time I found her political views as being totally opposite from what she expresses to certain people in person. She claims to be Republican but knowing her beliefs and expectations for our country, she is clearly a Democrat. I have no clue why she claims to be one when in person she claims to be another online. By doing this she is creating false impressions in people she knows as well as people she doesn’t know. Mostly everything else is pretty close to being accurate (rating items between 3-5) except for a couple fibs here and there. Under activities, she says she horseback rides all the time but in reality she has horseback riding a couple times and one of her favorite TV shows is not the Simpsons even though she claims it to be. She added the Simpsons to her list when the movie came out and all her friends loved it so she put in on her profile as well. She also told me, although I already deduced this myself, that she selected which information she wanted others to see so that people would get a good impression of her. I mean, who doesn’t do this to some extent and getting people to admit these things is somewhat of a difficult task. Where else does someone have the opportunity to present their ideal selves, ought selves, and actual selves. We achieve this through our self descriptions, our social associations, and the use of sets, props, and lights (profile picture).
Although my friend didn’t lie often, it’s not surprising to know that my friend feels more comfortable lying or “fibbing”, sometimes unintentionally, online as opposed to doing so face to face. She can’t hold a straight face ever especially when it concerns her. She’s also not quick with her words so being able to think of what she is going to say, or in this case write, gives her the ability to present herself in a captivating light. The Hyperpersonal model and the selective self presentation support my example. Lying online is more comfortable for her as opposed to doing so in person because of reduced cues and the ability to edit information. She wants to appear attractive by editing and limiting her descriptions. To make things even easier, conventional signals allows for a person, like my friend, to influence impressions. She uses specific nicknames, writes with a lot of slang, has certain applications, and adds specific music to her profile. Everyone is different and it’s interesting to see in which mediums people feel the urge to lie in and feel comfortable doing so.
Assignment 4 option 2
Facebook interests me because of how different profiles can be from person to person. Some people choose to share a lot of personal information while others only share minor details. Each profile starts off with a picture if the person has chosen to upload one. Next to the picture is their identity information listing the user's name, birthday, gender, sexual preference, hometown, and their email or aim user name. I don't think people are likely to lie about these pieces of information. A person can choose to list as much or as little about their interests and activities as they want and control who is able to see the information, and as a result, people on facebook have total control of how people see them.
I analyzed a certain friend's facebook profile to see how accurate each category was and then afterwards i asked him from 1 to 5 how truthful they are:
Activities: under activities he had "hangin wit some *expletive*'s". I wont say the word because it might offend some people. I know that this isn't typical of my friend and doesn't really represent who he really is. I guessed that this was either a joke or that my friend using selective-self presentation. He rated this category as a 2 so there is an obvious lie here.
Interests: My friend chose not to have this section at all on his profile.
Music: For the most part the music category went along with what I knew about my friends music tastes, all metal bands. I was surprised to see a few rap artists listed. I didn't think it was typical of my friend to like rap, he normally hates it. I know some of his friends like that music so this is most likely listed in order to alter the impressions certain people have. My friend rated this as a 3, so this category is true for the most part.
TV shows/movies: These are two categories that my friend listed things I'm positive he actually likes. His rating of the truthfulness of these categories was 5 for both. He even said himself that he sees no reason to lie about what sort of movies or tv shows he watches.
My friends profile was for the most part accurate other than a few instances of selective self presentation. He chose voluntarily to not say very much about himself but that doesn't make his profile inaccurate just lacking in detail. Because it is unlikely that a person will challenge your profile's accuracy, a person can lie very blatantly and not worry about being caught. Even so, I think that people tend to use more subtle methods to alter how people perceive them through their facebook profile.
The next thing to address is where does facebook fit between Ftf and Email in regards to social distance and richness of media. Facebook is unique in that even though it is for the most part asynchronous, the community it creates has a significant effect in reducing social distance. The richness of the facebook media has components of FtF and cmc, as one can see photos of their friends and share audio and video clips. I believe that neither the Social-distance theory or the Media-richness theory can accurately represent facebook as it shows aspects of both theories. Because the social distance is low and the media richness is rather high for facebook I would say that facebook can be best described by the feature based model and would show a lie percentage somewhere between that of FtF and instant messaging.
I analyzed a certain friend's facebook profile to see how accurate each category was and then afterwards i asked him from 1 to 5 how truthful they are:
Activities: under activities he had "hangin wit some *expletive*'s". I wont say the word because it might offend some people. I know that this isn't typical of my friend and doesn't really represent who he really is. I guessed that this was either a joke or that my friend using selective-self presentation. He rated this category as a 2 so there is an obvious lie here.
Interests: My friend chose not to have this section at all on his profile.
Music: For the most part the music category went along with what I knew about my friends music tastes, all metal bands. I was surprised to see a few rap artists listed. I didn't think it was typical of my friend to like rap, he normally hates it. I know some of his friends like that music so this is most likely listed in order to alter the impressions certain people have. My friend rated this as a 3, so this category is true for the most part.
TV shows/movies: These are two categories that my friend listed things I'm positive he actually likes. His rating of the truthfulness of these categories was 5 for both. He even said himself that he sees no reason to lie about what sort of movies or tv shows he watches.
My friends profile was for the most part accurate other than a few instances of selective self presentation. He chose voluntarily to not say very much about himself but that doesn't make his profile inaccurate just lacking in detail. Because it is unlikely that a person will challenge your profile's accuracy, a person can lie very blatantly and not worry about being caught. Even so, I think that people tend to use more subtle methods to alter how people perceive them through their facebook profile.
The next thing to address is where does facebook fit between Ftf and Email in regards to social distance and richness of media. Facebook is unique in that even though it is for the most part asynchronous, the community it creates has a significant effect in reducing social distance. The richness of the facebook media has components of FtF and cmc, as one can see photos of their friends and share audio and video clips. I believe that neither the Social-distance theory or the Media-richness theory can accurately represent facebook as it shows aspects of both theories. Because the social distance is low and the media richness is rather high for facebook I would say that facebook can be best described by the feature based model and would show a lie percentage somewhere between that of FtF and instant messaging.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Assignment 4, Option 2
As an avid Facebook.com user, I am very interested in the styles people use to create their profile and how these different styles affect the perception of that person. A Facebook profile consists of contact information, basic personal information like age, sex, location etc., and a variety of fields regarding personal preferences. This includes favorite activities, interests, music, television, movies, books, and quotes. In addition, profiles contain information added by other people, such as wall posts and pictures.
Most of the categories on a profile are conventional signals because they are low cost and can easily be changed. Anyone can lie about their taste in music or favorite television show. However, the basic personal information, like e-mail address, name, and age are harder to falsify and thus should be considered assessment signals. Also, although pictures can be untagged, generally photos are costly displays because they are directly related to the organism’s (the profile owner’s) characteristic. If a person with a Facebook profile interacts with the same people online as they do in real life, it is harder for them to change their name, age, and especially sex. Because Facebook is a tool mostly used for solidifying already existing friendships, it is rare that someone falsifies an entire profile to create an entirely new identity. However, as exceptions exist to theories, this exception would make all of Facebook’s signals conventional.
Following Catalina’s study, I asked my friend to analyze her own profile on the scale of 1 to 5. Elements that were given a 5 are interests, movies, and wall posts. These elements show a completely accurate representation of my friend. Elements given a score of 4 are music, books, and pictures. Although this may indicate some sort of deception, my friend explained that they are slightly inaccurate because they are out of date. Lastly, she gave a 3 to activities and favorite television shows. These categories listed things that were extremely out of date or irrelevant, although at one point in her life they were valid.
Social distance theory says that because lying is an uncomfortable action that lends itself to awkward nonverbal and verbal cues, we will use the leanest media to lie. Although Facebook is a relatively lean media because it is distributed and asynchronous, I found my friend did not try to lie in her profile. She was generally accurate about her assessment of her profile, and her information was merely out of date, not deceptive. If any deception had taken place, it would have been identity-based because her identity would have been manipulated and her profile would have presented a false display.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-lying-to-friend.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
Most of the categories on a profile are conventional signals because they are low cost and can easily be changed. Anyone can lie about their taste in music or favorite television show. However, the basic personal information, like e-mail address, name, and age are harder to falsify and thus should be considered assessment signals. Also, although pictures can be untagged, generally photos are costly displays because they are directly related to the organism’s (the profile owner’s) characteristic. If a person with a Facebook profile interacts with the same people online as they do in real life, it is harder for them to change their name, age, and especially sex. Because Facebook is a tool mostly used for solidifying already existing friendships, it is rare that someone falsifies an entire profile to create an entirely new identity. However, as exceptions exist to theories, this exception would make all of Facebook’s signals conventional.
Following Catalina’s study, I asked my friend to analyze her own profile on the scale of 1 to 5. Elements that were given a 5 are interests, movies, and wall posts. These elements show a completely accurate representation of my friend. Elements given a score of 4 are music, books, and pictures. Although this may indicate some sort of deception, my friend explained that they are slightly inaccurate because they are out of date. Lastly, she gave a 3 to activities and favorite television shows. These categories listed things that were extremely out of date or irrelevant, although at one point in her life they were valid.
Social distance theory says that because lying is an uncomfortable action that lends itself to awkward nonverbal and verbal cues, we will use the leanest media to lie. Although Facebook is a relatively lean media because it is distributed and asynchronous, I found my friend did not try to lie in her profile. She was generally accurate about her assessment of her profile, and her information was merely out of date, not deceptive. If any deception had taken place, it would have been identity-based because her identity would have been manipulated and her profile would have presented a false display.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-lying-to-friend.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
Assignment 4, Option 2
Like many people who have posted before have commented, facebook is truly a revolutionary internet device. While social networking sites have existed before, Mark Zuckerberg (the creator) had the wonderful luck of creating a networking site designed for college kids that actually attracted college kids. Nearly everyone who goes to an undergraduate institution has some sort of profile on facebook. In recent years, more people have protected their profile so not just anyone can access their profile. I feel this current theme can be related to the hyperpersonal model because you are just allowing a picture of yourself to be shown and little more for people to infer details. Thus, you can create a certain image with a certain picture.
I chose to use one of my friends in my “experiment”. Conventional signals in facebook are such things as interests, hobbies, favorite music and movies. These are such items that are low cost and can be easily manipulated to change your general impression. Assessment signals are such things as name, birthday, hometown and relationship status. They are high cost signals which are much harder to lie about because they are easily verified and offer defining characteristics of you.
After talking about my friends profile with him I found out that he didn’t really lie about much. High cost assessment items such as birthday, hometown and sex were spot on. They’re just too hard to lie about. Some conventional signals were lied about more often. Hobbies in particular were often lies. He gave the impression he was more into athletics and school work than he really was. Movies and music were also lied about more because he didn’t update his profile to reflect his current tastes. Lying in these categories makes sense because they are low cost and easily lied about. This idea of lying fits into the hyperpersonal model of self presentation because it makes others believe things about you which might not be entirely true. Due to facebooks inherently textual environment, cues such as verbal, nonverbal and situational cues are not present. This allow for a much easier environment to lie because all you have to analyze someone on is the text that they write.
Overall I found the exercise interesting to see where truth normally falls in facebook profiles.
Assignment 4: The Impossibility of Knowing
This afternoon I went to the Denise Riley/Judith Butler debate. Each of these women are prominent figures in Today's Social Realm. Anyone who knows anything about Sociology would agree that they both know their stuff. When asked the question "Is it ever possible to truly know someone?" Riley responded with a quickly uttered "No." Believing, even worshipping, everything she said previously I found myself surprised when I dissected this response critically on my walk home. Is it possible that Riley didn't know all of "her stuff?" How can it be impossible to truly know someone?
This perplexing trouble led me to Assignment Four.
In recent years the internet has been incorporated into everyday life. Email is checked constantly, the Web is surfed continually, and Facebook is accessed excessively. The Technological Age defines Today's Society. Easy and efficient, the internet has created new possibilities while phasing out old traditions. Chatting via AIM has reduced discussion over coffee. Emailing documents has reduced personal delivery.
Computer Mediated Communication is phasing out Face to Face interaction. Who we are is becoming easier to modify. Who someone truly is has become harder, maybe even impossible, to understand.
With Facebook scoring the award for Sixth Most Visited Site the use of the internet for identity formation and image preservation is highly evidenced. According to Wallace "the internet is an identity laboratory, overflowing with props, audiences and players for our personal experiments" (48). The internet, in other words, allows us to change our selves, making it unimaginable to truly know someone solely via the internet.
The Facebook friend I decided to "study" for this assignment is the friend that I have known the longest. We have traveled on a long road together, from preschool to college. I boldly believe that I know her better than anyone else.
Before questioning her I decided to analyze her profile. Quickly noting that her picture nicely showcased her platinum blonde hair and her particularly curvaceous bod I hypothesised that the profile's remains would be just as manicured. Sure enough, only the assessment signals deemed "enhancing" and only the conventional signals made "cool" appeared. For instance she included the year she intends to graduate because it is one year earlier than that once projected. She also included the programs she is majoring in because they are believed to be some of the hardest at her school. By showcasing herself in the best light possible she directly demonstrates O'Sullivan's Impression Management Model. She is attempting to control other's perceptions of her self. Though in fact presenting completely truthful information in each category, ranging from favorite TV shows to current residence, her profile is misrepresentative. She ONLY showcases her best attributes. No one viewing just her edited self could possibly understand her true self.
After asking my friend to rate each category in terms of accuracy I was not surprised when each category was given a 5. This was an honest answer. However after asking her how accuratly the profile portrayed her self I was surprised when she answered with a lower score of 3. Perhaps the distinction between the inner and outer self that Goffman and Jung discuss is evidenced here. Perhaps she realized that her profile only represents her ideal self- the self with qualities all acknowledge as positive- rather than her actual self- the self with qualities both positive and negative.
Facebook is an asynchronous form of self-presentation. Therefore it is possible that the "best" self is always presented. If ideals in society change, the identity can conform to better "fit in." Thus, with constant editing available, it becomes harder to ever really know someone. With more people looking to the internet now than ever before the answers found there become the perceptions believed. Facebook users understand this when creating or modifying their identity, and in fact, they capitalize on it. How an individual identifies his or her self inarguably determines how others will identify him or her (whether it be in congruence or discordance with the presented identity, however, is uncertain).
So perhaps Riley really was right; perhaps she was thinking of the internet phenomenon as she answered the question. In the Technological Age it can be impossible to really know someone.
BLOG COMMENTS:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/facebook-deception-you-are-liar.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
*The Debate was not posted. Sorry!
This perplexing trouble led me to Assignment Four.
In recent years the internet has been incorporated into everyday life. Email is checked constantly, the Web is surfed continually, and Facebook is accessed excessively. The Technological Age defines Today's Society. Easy and efficient, the internet has created new possibilities while phasing out old traditions. Chatting via AIM has reduced discussion over coffee. Emailing documents has reduced personal delivery.
Computer Mediated Communication is phasing out Face to Face interaction. Who we are is becoming easier to modify. Who someone truly is has become harder, maybe even impossible, to understand.
With Facebook scoring the award for Sixth Most Visited Site the use of the internet for identity formation and image preservation is highly evidenced. According to Wallace "the internet is an identity laboratory, overflowing with props, audiences and players for our personal experiments" (48). The internet, in other words, allows us to change our selves, making it unimaginable to truly know someone solely via the internet.
The Facebook friend I decided to "study" for this assignment is the friend that I have known the longest. We have traveled on a long road together, from preschool to college. I boldly believe that I know her better than anyone else.
Before questioning her I decided to analyze her profile. Quickly noting that her picture nicely showcased her platinum blonde hair and her particularly curvaceous bod I hypothesised that the profile's remains would be just as manicured. Sure enough, only the assessment signals deemed "enhancing" and only the conventional signals made "cool" appeared. For instance she included the year she intends to graduate because it is one year earlier than that once projected. She also included the programs she is majoring in because they are believed to be some of the hardest at her school. By showcasing herself in the best light possible she directly demonstrates O'Sullivan's Impression Management Model. She is attempting to control other's perceptions of her self. Though in fact presenting completely truthful information in each category, ranging from favorite TV shows to current residence, her profile is misrepresentative. She ONLY showcases her best attributes. No one viewing just her edited self could possibly understand her true self.
After asking my friend to rate each category in terms of accuracy I was not surprised when each category was given a 5. This was an honest answer. However after asking her how accuratly the profile portrayed her self I was surprised when she answered with a lower score of 3. Perhaps the distinction between the inner and outer self that Goffman and Jung discuss is evidenced here. Perhaps she realized that her profile only represents her ideal self- the self with qualities all acknowledge as positive- rather than her actual self- the self with qualities both positive and negative.
Facebook is an asynchronous form of self-presentation. Therefore it is possible that the "best" self is always presented. If ideals in society change, the identity can conform to better "fit in." Thus, with constant editing available, it becomes harder to ever really know someone. With more people looking to the internet now than ever before the answers found there become the perceptions believed. Facebook users understand this when creating or modifying their identity, and in fact, they capitalize on it. How an individual identifies his or her self inarguably determines how others will identify him or her (whether it be in congruence or discordance with the presented identity, however, is uncertain).
So perhaps Riley really was right; perhaps she was thinking of the internet phenomenon as she answered the question. In the Technological Age it can be impossible to really know someone.
BLOG COMMENTS:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/facebook-deception-you-are-liar.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
*The Debate was not posted. Sorry!
Assignment 4, Option 2: The Unintentional Liar
Facebook is an obsession that is sweeping the nation. At any given time, thousands, even millions of people are checking their Facebooks – writing on friends’ “walls,” posting pictures, or editing their profile. On all Facebook profiles, there are both assessment signals and conventional signals. An assessment signal is one that cannot be fake – it is very reliable because a person MUST possess a certain trait in order to display it. For example, on Facebook, you must verify that you are a Cornell student by given them your email address, which must be valid, and the only way to get a Cornell email address is to be a student (or faculty) at the school. A conventional signal, however, can be easily faked. These are very unreliable signals because anybody can claim to possess certain traits. An example of this would be your personal preferences (music, movies, etc.), interests and activities, and even your appearance.
Conventional signals on a Facebook profile include pretty much everything. All of the following can easily be lied about on Facebook or selected and displayed even though they aren’t true:
- Your name, gender, relationship status, birthday, hometown, political & religious views
- Activities, interests, and favorites
- Your pictures and groups (can post other people’s pictures or join groups for things you don’t actually like/care about)
Assessment signals on Facebook are few and far between. The only really obvious one is an email address since you need a valid one to register on Facebook and join a network. This can be especially true for student email addresses which also can reveal where you go to school.
It may be harder to deceive people through Facebook because it is a networking site. This means that most, or many, of the people who you’re Facebook friends with know you personally and can call you out on a lie, such as an incorrect age, location, interest, etc.
I asked my friend how accurate she feels the different components of her profile are:
- For activities, she gave herself a 2 because she only had one activity listed, when in reality she participates in many others, so she didn’t think it was an accurate representation of herself.
- On interests, she gave herself a 4, because although she used to be interested in everything it listed, she said it was a little out of date and she wasn’t too into some of the stuff on there anymore.
- For movies, books, and music, she gave herself a 4 because most of her favorites were listed, just not some of the most recent ones.
- For TV shows she gave herself a 5 because it was up to date and accurate.
- Her favorite quotes were not so accurate. She admitted that they were quotes “she wished she thought were cool.” So if she found a quote she thought sounded cool, she posted it regardless of what she thought of it. For this area, she gave herself a 2.
- For pictures she gave herself a 5 because they were all accurate portrayals of her.
- For groups she gave herself a 4 because she had 78 listed. She said that although she was interested in all of the group topics at some time, she hadn’t looked at them in a long time and was sure some weren’t relevant anymore.
After discussing her opinions of her own profile, I went back and compared her answers to what I thought was true. I believe that she was perfectly accurate. She didn’t try to deceive me to my face and readily admitted when something wasn’t all true. The magnitude of all of her “lies” was very low – she didn’t purposely try to deceive anyone with her profile, so everything was almost all accurate. The frequency of her “lies” did surprise her though. I also feel that in person, during our conversation about her Facebook, she didn’t lie at all. So in her profile, although she never meant to lie about anything, she did lie more frequently than she thought about very little things. This follows the deception strategy of lying frequently and subtly about low magnitude things.
Assignment 4, Option 2: Deception and unattractiveness
We have not only learned in class, but also experienced, the potential for dishonesty when it comes to asynchronous forms of communication on the internet. Blogs, myspace, Facebook, online dating sites, and other public profile posting sites provide a haven for those who know how to manipulate their information to appear more attractive to others online than in real life.
Facebook is made up of two types of profile elements. Factual-based elements (which include name, birthdate, place of birth, contact information, etc) are those that the poster would receive very little critique on in most situations. Very few people would look at someone’s date of birth and become bias towards/against the person for only that piece of information. Of course, most of the personality assumptions would be made through the more subjective elements (activities, interests, favorite movies and books, etc). Here is where the heart of digital deception lies.
Based on Catalina’s “Deception in Online Dating Profiles” study, it is obvious that many people use the same general guidelines when determining what information to make public in their profiles. We want to appear attractive by any means, which incorporates much of selective self-presentation as part of the Hyperpersonal Model. But we also want to appear honest, so we do not go overboard in our descriptions of ourselves. I feel that most of the people who lie at all about their profiles may be taking said profile a bit too seriously (myself included). But what of lying in the opposite direction: being completely honest in the factors that matter most to impression formation and lying about the factors that matter least?
Take a look at my friend’s responses above. Though we may have predicted that most people (friends or not) would have scored highly accurate as far as profile picture and relationship status (among others) are concerned, it seems that my friend here has taken a very alternate route. She gave her profile picture (not shown) a ranking of 2 in terms of accuracy, but it was not because it flattered her face or body. In the photo she is doing something absolutely ridiculous and unattractive, albeit funny (and I know I can only say this because I personally consider her a very pretty girl =] ). Her favorite books, movies, and TV series are all accurate to the T. But let’s take a closer look at her activities, interests, and quotes.
All of these categories scored relatively low in accuracy. She described to me that many of these were more of “inside jokes” with her friends from school, and others were more of her acting silly with her Facebook profile. Because I know her quite well, I could quite easily gauge the accuracy of her information. I know that there are many personality factors that she really does have that she could have listed in her profile to make her appear more attractive. But I feel that her profile really is a reflection of not only herself, but the lightheartedness that comes with her personality. So really, what is the spectrum of people that online deception affects? Do we all have to lie because we want to appear more attractive?
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-1-detecting-lie.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception-life-is-gameand-so.html
Facebook is made up of two types of profile elements. Factual-based elements (which include name, birthdate, place of birth, contact information, etc) are those that the poster would receive very little critique on in most situations. Very few people would look at someone’s date of birth and become bias towards/against the person for only that piece of information. Of course, most of the personality assumptions would be made through the more subjective elements (activities, interests, favorite movies and books, etc). Here is where the heart of digital deception lies.
Based on Catalina’s “Deception in Online Dating Profiles” study, it is obvious that many people use the same general guidelines when determining what information to make public in their profiles. We want to appear attractive by any means, which incorporates much of selective self-presentation as part of the Hyperpersonal Model. But we also want to appear honest, so we do not go overboard in our descriptions of ourselves. I feel that most of the people who lie at all about their profiles may be taking said profile a bit too seriously (myself included). But what of lying in the opposite direction: being completely honest in the factors that matter most to impression formation and lying about the factors that matter least?
All of these categories scored relatively low in accuracy. She described to me that many of these were more of “inside jokes” with her friends from school, and others were more of her acting silly with her Facebook profile. Because I know her quite well, I could quite easily gauge the accuracy of her information. I know that there are many personality factors that she really does have that she could have listed in her profile to make her appear more attractive. But I feel that her profile really is a reflection of not only herself, but the lightheartedness that comes with her personality. So really, what is the spectrum of people that online deception affects? Do we all have to lie because we want to appear more attractive?
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-1-detecting-lie.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception-life-is-gameand-so.html
A4.1 The truth is beautiful, without a doubt, but so are lies
Lying is an age-old skill, a skill that transcends pure linguistics, a skill that dates back to the primitive, nomad societies. With the invent of new communication technologies, many tricks in the liar’s sleeve have changed. Over text, one would have to be more careful lying than in person. After all, we have spent much of our lives lying face to face, but excluding the upcoming generation, we are not as well versed in CMC. You can’t look into their eyes or act relaxed, and ironically, you can’t gauge your target as well to see whether she’s wary of your words. After all, deception goes both ways, and a liar needs to know whether he’s laying it on too thick.
I talked to a close friend to see whether she would recognize message-based deception over AOL Instant Messenger. So, to not draw any attention, I had to keep my “voice’ steady as I described the mess left in my suite, presumably left by the less-than-sober sort on West Campus on a Saturday night. It was plenty difficult typing at the same pace I usually do or keeping the language the same; “same” is easy to maintain until one tries to do so. Do I usually use the word “garbage” or “junk”? Would I normally send shorter messages to vent my frustrations out quicker? Considering we were frequent “chatters,” I tried not to raise her suspicions.
Despite the difficulties, lying is an old dog that has little need to learn new tricks. A good lie is best when undetectable, but without the full advantage of the truth bias real life would offer, CMC lying requires extra care. I came up with a plausible explanation for the mess: drunk people can be rowdy, messy, and inconsiderate, and no one would be surprised if they were to leave a mess. Also, I mentioned details that she knew to be true, like the fact that there were lots of parties the night before, which associates the lie with truth.
Sadly, my friend knew me a bit too well, and suspected me from the minute I said I was going to clear the trash, even if it was just from my doorway (evidently, I am a very lazy person). Although I saw that a problem, I didn’t realize she was especially skeptical until it was too late for me to correct my mistake. In comparison, I told her a truthful story over the phone. When I described to her one of my trips to
Assignment 4, Option 2: A Look at the Book (Facebook, I Mean)
Having myself gone through a phase where I checked Facebook far more often than necessary, I decided that this would be the optimal option to opt for in order to complete Assignment #4.
For anyone unfamiliar with Facebook, it is at its core a networking tool, enabling people to keep in touch with friends at other schools. As time went on, however, more features were added (most notably the ability to share personal information and photos), which makes Facebook a very complex online space.
A Facebook profile contains many conventional signals: signals easy to change or manipulate. Anyone can lie about his favorite books or movies, and most people reading a profile fraught with those sorts of lies would be none the wiser - the truth bias does, after all, mandate that people are predisposed to believe other people, and who would have any reason to suspect that someone was claiming to like a film he didn't?
It could be argued that other aspects of the Facebook profile are assessment signals: things like gender, e-mail address, and name. These are harder to lie about - such lies are more easily falsifiable, especially when the people frequenting one's Facebook page actually know that person. In such cases, yes, name, age and gender are assessment signals - though it is not, of course, entirely implausible that someone could have created a profile with the sole intent of deceiving others online, and in this case pretty much all of Facebook is composed of conventional signals. It can thus be said that, according to the social distance theory, Facebook is a great medium for deception: it has many conventional signals that can be easily altered, making identity based deception frighteningly easy; but it is also still a socially lean medium, and lying in a Facebook wall post or private message is essentially the same as lying through e-mail (which the social distance theory predicted [albeit completely incorrectly] would be the most conducive to deception).
I know the friend I interviewed about his profile exceedingly well, which put me in an excellent position to verify the veracity of his claims. The first wave of elements he rated all 5: his network, e-mail address, gender, hometown and birthday I immediately realized were accurate. His political views he rated a 4; he told me that while the information in his profile had indeed been accurate at the time he had posted it, he hadn't bothered to go back and update his new political leanings because "form mirrors content" and his new viewpoint (political apathy) would be best expressed through commensurate apathy apropos his Facebook profile.
Everything else was rated 5; he told me he updates his personal info (movies, books, activities, interests, TV shows) fairly regularly so they were all completely accurate. I can attest to the truthfulness of some, but as he has many books and movies listed, I can't personally verify that he indeed likes all of them. He also told me he has never untagged himself in any picture because "that would be stupid," so he rated those a 5 as well.
Of course there may be some selective self-presentation going on, even if it's unconscious: this aspect of the hyperpersonal model is pretty much unavoidable with regard to profiling sites like Facebook. People aren't going to make information public that they don't want made public; they want to maintain a certain online image and anything that doesn't contribute to - or detracts from - that image has no place on their profiles, true or not.
In this particular case, there was very little deception, which is not in keeping with the social distance theory. Although Facebook is more or less an ideal medium for deception, that still doesn't necessarily mean everyone who uses it will be deceptive. Every theory has exceptions, after all.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6623656695958121274
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=1625595974034767276
For anyone unfamiliar with Facebook, it is at its core a networking tool, enabling people to keep in touch with friends at other schools. As time went on, however, more features were added (most notably the ability to share personal information and photos), which makes Facebook a very complex online space.
A Facebook profile contains many conventional signals: signals easy to change or manipulate. Anyone can lie about his favorite books or movies, and most people reading a profile fraught with those sorts of lies would be none the wiser - the truth bias does, after all, mandate that people are predisposed to believe other people, and who would have any reason to suspect that someone was claiming to like a film he didn't?
It could be argued that other aspects of the Facebook profile are assessment signals: things like gender, e-mail address, and name. These are harder to lie about - such lies are more easily falsifiable, especially when the people frequenting one's Facebook page actually know that person. In such cases, yes, name, age and gender are assessment signals - though it is not, of course, entirely implausible that someone could have created a profile with the sole intent of deceiving others online, and in this case pretty much all of Facebook is composed of conventional signals. It can thus be said that, according to the social distance theory, Facebook is a great medium for deception: it has many conventional signals that can be easily altered, making identity based deception frighteningly easy; but it is also still a socially lean medium, and lying in a Facebook wall post or private message is essentially the same as lying through e-mail (which the social distance theory predicted [albeit completely incorrectly] would be the most conducive to deception).
I know the friend I interviewed about his profile exceedingly well, which put me in an excellent position to verify the veracity of his claims. The first wave of elements he rated all 5: his network, e-mail address, gender, hometown and birthday I immediately realized were accurate. His political views he rated a 4; he told me that while the information in his profile had indeed been accurate at the time he had posted it, he hadn't bothered to go back and update his new political leanings because "form mirrors content" and his new viewpoint (political apathy) would be best expressed through commensurate apathy apropos his Facebook profile.
Everything else was rated 5; he told me he updates his personal info (movies, books, activities, interests, TV shows) fairly regularly so they were all completely accurate. I can attest to the truthfulness of some, but as he has many books and movies listed, I can't personally verify that he indeed likes all of them. He also told me he has never untagged himself in any picture because "that would be stupid," so he rated those a 5 as well.
Of course there may be some selective self-presentation going on, even if it's unconscious: this aspect of the hyperpersonal model is pretty much unavoidable with regard to profiling sites like Facebook. People aren't going to make information public that they don't want made public; they want to maintain a certain online image and anything that doesn't contribute to - or detracts from - that image has no place on their profiles, true or not.
In this particular case, there was very little deception, which is not in keeping with the social distance theory. Although Facebook is more or less an ideal medium for deception, that still doesn't necessarily mean everyone who uses it will be deceptive. Every theory has exceptions, after all.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6623656695958121274
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=1625595974034767276
Blog 4: Facebook Deceit
Deceit and Deception are two words all too commonly used when describing internet profiles and personalities. Digital deception is the intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message, intended to create a false impression to the receiver of the message. I decided to take a look at my closest friend’s Facebook profile and see if there was any deception included in it. For those of you who aren’t as familiar with Facebook as others, the social networking site allows users to post “personal info” which includes interests, favorite music, etc. allowing other users to get to know who the person is. Following Catalina’s study, I printed out my friends profile and had her rate each element on a scale from 1 (completely inaccurate) to 5 (completely accurate). The results I found were quite interesting.
After analyzing my friends responses, there were nearly no lies found in her profile at all. In the Interest section, every single topic was rated a 5 for completely accurate. Every other section was also completely rated a 5 in accuracy except for Music and TV Shows. There were several topics in each of these two categories that were not rated a 5 for accurate. TV shows such as the OC, and That 70’s show, along with music such as rascal flats, were rated around the 2 to 3 area in accuracy.
Following the self-evaluation, I then tried to verify these answers, because had the person been lying in her profile, she very well could have lied to me about how accurate her information was. I contacted several of her friends via phone and instant message and after a bit of research found out that indeed most of these were indeed accurate and the few that she had lied about were actually not even deceitful, instead they had just been outdated.
The digital deception seen on Facebook would most closely align with identity-based deception. This is when there is manipulation or a display of a person’s identity. The type of information presented on sites such as Facebook, is usually pretty small displays of personality, which leads me to conclude that manipulation would be of conventional signals, which are low cost displays of identity. Since mostly conventional signals are displayed on Facebook, the user can easily manipulate their identity. These conclusions fit more closely with DePaulo’s Social Distance Theory which states that lying is uncomfortable for people to do in f2f, therefore we will chose to use the most “socially distant” media to lie, in this case Asynchronous chats such as Facebook.
Surprisingly, Social Distance Theory doesn’t hold up to my example. My subject had hardly any lying whatsoever. To try to explain this, I looked towards Media Richness Theory. The MRT states that people will choose lean media for less equivocal tasks. Perhaps people use Facebook (which is a lean media) for getting out less important information such as basic getting to know you facts such as favorite movies and TV shows. While I only studied one subject, it would be interesting to see if this is the case in most Facebook profiles.
Assignment 4: Lying to a friend
In concordance with the Social Distance theory, I chose to lie in a CMC environment and tell the truth in a FtF environment. Since I am generally uncomfortable with lying, I chose AIM as my online space for lying. This reallocation of resources gave my friend less cues to focus on and thus enabled her to concentrate solely on the content of my message.
When I told my friend about my true experience riding a camel this past summer in
Later on, I told a different friend on AIM that when I rode a camel in
It is difficult to say whether deception detection is more difficult in a FtF or CMC environment because it depends on the magnitude of the lie, the personality of the liar, and other external factors such as the degree of trust between the two respondents. I applied social distance theory and the feature based approach when choosing the best environment for lying. Since instant messaging is synchronous, recordless, and distributed, I had a higher chance of fooling my friend; however, I am not sure if I would have been successful lying in a FtF environment because she may have picked up on incriminating non-verbal cues.
Assignment Four: My [Wikipedia] Trip to Rio de Janeiro
I knew nothing about Rio de Janeiro, but I had Wikipedia as a first class tour guide.
"Did you know Rio de Janeiro means 'River of January?'," I typed to my unsuspecting IM compadre.
"I found that out when I was there in 9th grade. Did I ever tell you about that trip?"
Of course I hadn't. But now was my moment to shine. I told her about the strange sound of the Portuguese language, "Kind of like French people speaking Spanish," and I even sent her a photo from my trip in the South Zone (Ipanema Beach, Wikipedia page).
For my real travel description, I told her about my trip to Australia and New Zealand in 7th grade. I told her about this trip over lunch, trying to be casual about the fact that I had now spoken at length about two vacations without any pretense. She seemed almost wary that I might start telling her about my rock collections and if she really wanted she could see my favorites. She gave a sigh of relief when I told her that the two stories were not some horrible tendency of mine to engage in one-sided conversations-- they were a class assignment, and she was my guinea pig. After a bit of indignation, she told me that she had believed both of my stories because I had told them both with such sincerity. She said that her natural tendency was to believe me, besides, who lies about going to Rio de Janeiro? (-->Me<--)
Her naivety represents the truth bias that many people experience. Most people are simply hardwired to default into belief mode, regardless of the medium. But she did not know that I had an array of computer mediated communication theories to perfect my lie. I thought that I would have the best chance of lying successfully through an IM conversation because all of the non-verbal and physiological cues would be omitted. Furthermore, the Feature-Based Model told me that IM was synchronous like a FtF interaction, but recordless and unlikely to be distributed. Due to these features of the medium, I got all the benefits of not being seen while I lied, as well as the confidence that my statements could not be referred to later in order to check for inconsistencies. In retrospect, I found myself telling many lies about how my emotions fluctuated throughout the fictional trip, and this seems to reflect Professor Hancock's findings that people lie most about feelings on IM. If Social Distance Theory applied to my experience, I would have had the most confidence in lying through e-mail. But due to its rigidity (asynchronicity) and the fact that my fake e-mail would sit there for ages, waiting to be found out as a fake, I found IM much more suitable for lying.
Additionally, I felt that my fictional trip would gain credence from the apparent honesty of my FtF interaction. I am not sure if any theory examines whether people will be more easily deceived if they have a mixture of different channels with different levels of deception. Would meeting someone to talk about something true always encourage them to believe a lie that was told on a leaner medium? I know scam-artists often use this idea in order to build up a false sense of trust, and lets face it, scam-artists have the most functional understanding of CMC of anyone.
I think I might take a trip to Indonesia next... h-t-t-p://w-i-k-i-p
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-1-detecting-lie.html#comment-7909251557102549168
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2.html#comment-7302606665697312245
"Did you know Rio de Janeiro means 'River of January?'," I typed to my unsuspecting IM compadre.
"I found that out when I was there in 9th grade. Did I ever tell you about that trip?"
Of course I hadn't. But now was my moment to shine. I told her about the strange sound of the Portuguese language, "Kind of like French people speaking Spanish," and I even sent her a photo from my trip in the South Zone (Ipanema Beach, Wikipedia page).
For my real travel description, I told her about my trip to Australia and New Zealand in 7th grade. I told her about this trip over lunch, trying to be casual about the fact that I had now spoken at length about two vacations without any pretense. She seemed almost wary that I might start telling her about my rock collections and if she really wanted she could see my favorites. She gave a sigh of relief when I told her that the two stories were not some horrible tendency of mine to engage in one-sided conversations-- they were a class assignment, and she was my guinea pig. After a bit of indignation, she told me that she had believed both of my stories because I had told them both with such sincerity. She said that her natural tendency was to believe me, besides, who lies about going to Rio de Janeiro? (-->Me<--)
Her naivety represents the truth bias that many people experience. Most people are simply hardwired to default into belief mode, regardless of the medium. But she did not know that I had an array of computer mediated communication theories to perfect my lie. I thought that I would have the best chance of lying successfully through an IM conversation because all of the non-verbal and physiological cues would be omitted. Furthermore, the Feature-Based Model told me that IM was synchronous like a FtF interaction, but recordless and unlikely to be distributed. Due to these features of the medium, I got all the benefits of not being seen while I lied, as well as the confidence that my statements could not be referred to later in order to check for inconsistencies. In retrospect, I found myself telling many lies about how my emotions fluctuated throughout the fictional trip, and this seems to reflect Professor Hancock's findings that people lie most about feelings on IM. If Social Distance Theory applied to my experience, I would have had the most confidence in lying through e-mail. But due to its rigidity (asynchronicity) and the fact that my fake e-mail would sit there for ages, waiting to be found out as a fake, I found IM much more suitable for lying.
Additionally, I felt that my fictional trip would gain credence from the apparent honesty of my FtF interaction. I am not sure if any theory examines whether people will be more easily deceived if they have a mixture of different channels with different levels of deception. Would meeting someone to talk about something true always encourage them to believe a lie that was told on a leaner medium? I know scam-artists often use this idea in order to build up a false sense of trust, and lets face it, scam-artists have the most functional understanding of CMC of anyone.
I think I might take a trip to Indonesia next... h-t-t-p://w-i-k-i-p
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-1-detecting-lie.html#comment-7909251557102549168
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2.html#comment-7302606665697312245
Assignment 4: Facebook Deception
Since Facebook’s launch in 2004, it has grown in features, “search-ability,” and popularity. According to Wikipedia, facebook is the sixth most visited site on the internet. With the new application feature, there is no limit to the kinds of information you can present on your page.
Some have learned the hard way that one use of facebook could be for high schools, colleges, and companies to search for its students/prospective employees and see how they present themselves. With recent news that facebook will soon be making profiles available on search engines, this use will become more prevalent than ever.
I believe many users employ selective self-presentation tactics of the hyperpersonal model to appear more attractive/funny/etc in profiles. For some people, the way they want to be perceived by their peers is drastically different than how they want to be perceived by prospective employers, school administration, and parents. With that in mind, I wonder how the majority of users create their profile/pictures. Do most “tone it down” just in case someone besides their peers views it? I also think aspects of behavioral confirmation also come into play with the comments left by others on the Wall.
For this assignment I asked one of my friends who visited me this weekend to rate her profile in the same way Catalina had others rate their dating profiles. Some interesting points were that my friend rated her “status
” with a 2. The reason was that she was upset her car was totaled, and doesn’t like her new car nearly as much. When I asked her why she posted it, she “guessed” that she wanted people to think she had some great new car. She rated her school network with a 4 because even though she has to stay an extra year and graduate in ’09, she didn’t want anyone to think of possible “bad” reasons why that is. She rated most of her interest areas as I would expect; mostly 4’s and 5’s. The ones she listed less than a 5 she explained that at the time of posting those were her interests that have faded a bit since, but she still wants people to think those are her favorites. She rated her quote with only a 3, with the explanation that the quote describes how she wishes she could lead life, when in reality she is not as ”badass.” All of these fall in line with the selective self-presentation portion of the hyperpersonal model.
The aspect I found most interesting was how she rated her relationship status section. She is seeing someone regularly (who, oddly enough, is not on facebook), but “keeping her options open” by using deception tactics and having people from her network believe she is completely available. In class, we learned that people are honest about relationship status nearly all of the time. I also looked at my friend’s myspace page (which is viewable even if you are not a member) it listed that she is in a relationship.
The last aspect of my friend’s profile that I want to comment on is her photos. She has hundreds of photos posted; some of which I don’t think represents who she is. She posts pictures that many would find to be inappropriate. I believe behavioral confirmation plays a part in this. When I looked at most of her Wall comments, people comment on how “crazy/sexy/etc.” her newest pictures are, which I believe lead to her posting more photos like that.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-lying-to-friend.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-impossibility-of-knowing.html
Assignment #4, Option 2: XBook
I have always thought of my friend X as being a very truthful person; in the 13 years that I have known her, I’ve never heard her tell a lie, stretch the truth, or attempt to mislead anyone. Yet, when it comes to the digital world, it seems that X is far from truthful. The items listed in her Facebook profile far from predict the person whom she really is.
Although, on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being completely inaccurate, 5 being completely accurate), X rated herself 4’s or 5’s on everything except relationship status (she is “married” to her best friend Y, like so many friends are on Facebook), my cross-validation using what I know about X reveals otherwise. Under the favorite music category, X included the band Coldplay, a group she dislikes so much that she made me change the Coldplay CD that was in my car while on a long ride this past summer. Under the interests category, X claims to be interested in the Yankees, but I am certain that if asked, she would not be able to name a single player on the team (besides the ever so good looking Derek Jeter of course). And, under the favorite movies group, X has the movie Super Bad listed; a movie she told me she thought was highly overrated.
What I found more interesting, however, than the above small white lies on X’s profile was the information she choose not to reveal. Because I know that the wonderful hit High School Musical is on the top of her list of favorite movies, I asked her why she choose not to include it on her profile. Her response went as follows: “A twenty-something year old with High School Musical as her favorite movie? What, do you want me to be more uncool than I already am?” Moreover, when I grilled her on other obviously missing parts of her profile, her responses too generated around trying to create an ideal self of being extremely cool, laid back, and fun.
X’s creation of her profile fits in perfectly with O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model, as Facebook was a way for her to regulate impression management by using selective self-presentation. In order for X to fit the cool and fun person that she wanted to appear to be, she selected what information she felt would enhance and detract from this ideal impression. Because Coldplay and Super Bad is what society deems as hip and trendy at this moment, X included these items in order to fit in with this status quo.
X’s photos are also a great example of her use of selective self-presentation in her Facebook profile. While she has probably been tagged in over 400 pictures (over 100 that were probably from me), she currently only has 78 pictures tagged of herself. Like so many of us do, in those pictures where X believes she doesn’t look the way she wants others to see her, she detags herself and her profile is no longer associated with the picture.
All of the items described above, such as interests, favorite movies, quotes, and music, are examples of conventional signals, as they are low cost displays that are only conventionally associated with a characteristic. It is very simple as well as practical to effectively use deception on conventional signals, as these are the mains items that help in impression management. Moreover, conventional signals are also harder to detect as lies. In contrast, assessment signals, costly displays directly related to an organisms characteristics, are much less practical and much more difficult to use deception on. These include hometown, birthday, sex, and network, and using deception on these areas is not really beneficial or practical to impression management, as it is very easy to detect a lie about one’s birthday or network.
X’s ability to effectively use deception on her Facebook profile was due to its online environment and the self-presentation tactics that she decided to use. The lack of nonverbal, vocal, and situational cues allowed X to effectively manage her impression the way she wanted to be seen by others, something she could have never accomplished in face to face communication.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-4-facebook-fraud.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
Although, on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being completely inaccurate, 5 being completely accurate), X rated herself 4’s or 5’s on everything except relationship status (she is “married” to her best friend Y, like so many friends are on Facebook), my cross-validation using what I know about X reveals otherwise. Under the favorite music category, X included the band Coldplay, a group she dislikes so much that she made me change the Coldplay CD that was in my car while on a long ride this past summer. Under the interests category, X claims to be interested in the Yankees, but I am certain that if asked, she would not be able to name a single player on the team (besides the ever so good looking Derek Jeter of course). And, under the favorite movies group, X has the movie Super Bad listed; a movie she told me she thought was highly overrated.
What I found more interesting, however, than the above small white lies on X’s profile was the information she choose not to reveal. Because I know that the wonderful hit High School Musical is on the top of her list of favorite movies, I asked her why she choose not to include it on her profile. Her response went as follows: “A twenty-something year old with High School Musical as her favorite movie? What, do you want me to be more uncool than I already am?” Moreover, when I grilled her on other obviously missing parts of her profile, her responses too generated around trying to create an ideal self of being extremely cool, laid back, and fun.
X’s creation of her profile fits in perfectly with O’Sullivan’s Impression Management Model, as Facebook was a way for her to regulate impression management by using selective self-presentation. In order for X to fit the cool and fun person that she wanted to appear to be, she selected what information she felt would enhance and detract from this ideal impression. Because Coldplay and Super Bad is what society deems as hip and trendy at this moment, X included these items in order to fit in with this status quo.
X’s photos are also a great example of her use of selective self-presentation in her Facebook profile. While she has probably been tagged in over 400 pictures (over 100 that were probably from me), she currently only has 78 pictures tagged of herself. Like so many of us do, in those pictures where X believes she doesn’t look the way she wants others to see her, she detags herself and her profile is no longer associated with the picture.
All of the items described above, such as interests, favorite movies, quotes, and music, are examples of conventional signals, as they are low cost displays that are only conventionally associated with a characteristic. It is very simple as well as practical to effectively use deception on conventional signals, as these are the mains items that help in impression management. Moreover, conventional signals are also harder to detect as lies. In contrast, assessment signals, costly displays directly related to an organisms characteristics, are much less practical and much more difficult to use deception on. These include hometown, birthday, sex, and network, and using deception on these areas is not really beneficial or practical to impression management, as it is very easy to detect a lie about one’s birthday or network.
X’s ability to effectively use deception on her Facebook profile was due to its online environment and the self-presentation tactics that she decided to use. The lack of nonverbal, vocal, and situational cues allowed X to effectively manage her impression the way she wanted to be seen by others, something she could have never accomplished in face to face communication.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-4-facebook-fraud.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-facebook-deception.html
Assignment # 4- Option 2
After being launched on February 4th, 2004, Facebook has made itself a major part of college communities across the world. This social networking device connects and informs its viewers about friends, colleagues, and co-workers on a personal, yet public level. I find it amazing how people will publicly display information and pictures about themselves to complete strangers. Although your ‘friends’ on Facebook will know much of the information displayed on your profile page, complete strangers are still able to see, search, or in essence, stalk you via the Internet. This is an unsettling fact to many people.
A Facebook profile is composed of several major parts. The one that is probably viewed and changed most often is the profile picture. This section allows for the user to display himself/herself in whatever fashion that he or she wants. As long as you can import an image from the internet or your computer, you can have that as your profile picture. I have seen people use celebrities or athletes as their profile picture, and this is one way of publically displaying oneself. The profile picture creates a sense of possible anonymity and deception as people are able to display themselves in any fashion they want. Conventional signals found on Facebook are ones that are ‘low cost’ and display small, selective aspects of a person- such as interests, hobbies, or favorites. These items are typically lied about, compared to assessment signals which are not frequently lied about. Assessment signals include one’s status, birthday, and more personal information that would be ignorant to lie about.
After interviewing a friend of mine about his Facebook profile, I came to the conclusion that he was truthful with a lot of what he displayed online. His profile picture accurately displayed his current self, and information describing ‘networks, sex, interested in, birthday, and hometown’ is all truthful (high cost, assessment signals). The only information that differed from not being totally accurate (5=most accurate), was information regarding residence and groups that he felt a true belonging to (more-so low cost signals). He explained that the groups he was a part of, were old and he did not actively take part in them. Thusly, he assigned a 3 for categorizing “groups.” There was a low frequency of false information displayed on his Facebook profile, and a high magnitude of truthfulness.
After analyzing the Facebook profile I viewed, I realized that this profile as well as many others, can relate to the SIDE (Social Identity/Deindividuation Theory). This theory holds that in text based environments such as the Internet, there are limited nonverbal cues which create individuals to become deindividuated. Facebook is a social medium that allows for limited contact between individuals, and this limited contact creates disassociation between different people. This theory also sheds light on self-presentation and how one displays themselves in an online setting (by taking social cues and then exaggerating them). Certain aspects of the Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996) also relates to Facebook, especially the aspect of selective self-presentation and behavioral confirmation. Through Facebook, people are able to select certain aspects of their personality to display to the public. This selective presentation creates a false reality for many viewers, as well as the actual person. Additionally, if they display themselves a certain way online, they will become like the person they portray through their online social medium. I have found this behavioral confirmation to be very prevalent and it is very interesting to analyze how individuals represent themselves online compared to face-to-face.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-4-facebook-fraud.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-4-option-2_6657.html
Option 1: An experiment in deception
I conducted this experiment on one of my friends who I live with. First, I engaged in a lean medium Instant Message conversation with her in which I told her a true story of me getting lost on the beach when I was 8 years old. Shortly after I told her a false story, in a media rich face-to-face setting, of an instance in which my family was on a hike and got separated. Following the second story, I asked my friend which story she thought was entirely fabricated. She correctly guessed that the second story, which was told in FtF communication, was false.
I attempted to tell the fabricated lie in a way that would convince her that it was true. I did so by attempting to map out the story in advance, and clarify with myself any details that I thought should be included. Due to the fact that I was relaying the fabricated story in a rich medium, I attempted to make eye contact and avoid awkward pauses in my speech.
One aspect of rich media that I never considered before engaging in this experiment was the factor of outside influences. In lean media, such as an email or instant messaging, there is little room for outside distractions or interruption. However, as I told my fabricated story through face-to-face communication, another one of my friends entered the room where I was telling my friends the fabricated story. Her entrance proved to be a great distraction that completely threw off my train of thought. I found myself struggling to put my thoughts together and continue to deliver my story in a logical order.
When I asked my friend how she deciphered that my second story was false, she pointed to two main factors. Firstly, she found that some of what I said did not make sense (ie. We left for a hike in the morning and did not return until that night). Secondly, she detected that I became quite anxious when my third friend entered the room. She stated that if I was telling the truth, such a distraction would not have thrown me off as much as it did.
The results of my experiment support the Social Distance Theory (DePaulo, 1996), which states that lying is uncomfortable and therefore people will choose to lie within more “socially distant” media. I think a lean medium would have facilitated my attempt to convince my friend that a fabricated story was in fact the truth. Within the constraints of lean media, there would not have been the opportunity for outside distractions to detract from my thought processes. Additionally, I think it would have been easier for me to get my thoughts together by typing them out, enabling me to actively edit my story, without my friend knowing.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/a41-truth-is-beautiful-without-doubt.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-deception-on-facebook.html
I attempted to tell the fabricated lie in a way that would convince her that it was true. I did so by attempting to map out the story in advance, and clarify with myself any details that I thought should be included. Due to the fact that I was relaying the fabricated story in a rich medium, I attempted to make eye contact and avoid awkward pauses in my speech.
One aspect of rich media that I never considered before engaging in this experiment was the factor of outside influences. In lean media, such as an email or instant messaging, there is little room for outside distractions or interruption. However, as I told my fabricated story through face-to-face communication, another one of my friends entered the room where I was telling my friends the fabricated story. Her entrance proved to be a great distraction that completely threw off my train of thought. I found myself struggling to put my thoughts together and continue to deliver my story in a logical order.
When I asked my friend how she deciphered that my second story was false, she pointed to two main factors. Firstly, she found that some of what I said did not make sense (ie. We left for a hike in the morning and did not return until that night). Secondly, she detected that I became quite anxious when my third friend entered the room. She stated that if I was telling the truth, such a distraction would not have thrown me off as much as it did.
The results of my experiment support the Social Distance Theory (DePaulo, 1996), which states that lying is uncomfortable and therefore people will choose to lie within more “socially distant” media. I think a lean medium would have facilitated my attempt to convince my friend that a fabricated story was in fact the truth. Within the constraints of lean media, there would not have been the opportunity for outside distractions to detract from my thought processes. Additionally, I think it would have been easier for me to get my thoughts together by typing them out, enabling me to actively edit my story, without my friend knowing.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/a41-truth-is-beautiful-without-doubt.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/4-deception-on-facebook.html
4: analysis of facebook account
Obviously facebook is somewhat of a revolutionary trend in the online world. Some of the more conventional signals displayed on facebook include the “personal info” section, where users can list their interests, and some of their favorite things. These descriptions are easily manipulated by the user and loosely associated with them, since there is no real way of knowing whether the information is accurate. They are low cost displays, only conventionally associated with characteristics. Other descriptions included on facebook are more assessment oriented. The network you belong to, your pictures, and the contact information, including age, birthday, relationship status—are all costly displays directly related to characteristics. That information is much easier to be detected as false.
The ability to falsify information so easily on this network, is a problem. To test the popularity of deception, I analyzed a friend’s profile. When asked to rate how accurate her information was from a scale of 1-5, she gave all of her multiple choice answers (networks, sex, interested in, relationship status, birthday, political views) a 5, for being completely accurate. Having known her for over a decade, I can attest to the validity of her answers. However when it came to the “personal info.” section, she even surprised herself by the inaccuracy of some of her answers. In her interests, out of the nine interests she listed, she only gave four of them a 5, for being completely accurate. She realized her other answers didn’t actually describe her at all, giving them a 3 or below. She would never offer the inaccurate answers as truth during a face to face interaction, but because of this socially distant media, deception production is simple and enticing. In the music section, she had 16 artists selected. She had a similar reaction to this section, realizing many of the artists were just people she thought she should listen to, maybe experiencing behavioral confirmation affects, from Walther’s hyperpersonal model of impression formation. The social distance theory explains her deception. Since lying is uncomfortable, a “socially distant” medium, such as facebook is perfect for lying. It is a lean medium with limited social and visual cues. In addition, her lies were small and harmless, therefore they appeared, and could very well have been perceived as honest by a user who had never met her. This fits into the view of how people have self-presentational goals when they participate in virtual networks. Appearing attractive is a goal, therefore, telling small subtle lies to achieve that goal is common. Knowing this friend very well, her assessment of the lies she told seems completely accurate; she was not lying about the lies she had told. Essentially, because the medium being used lacked social cues, deception production was increased.
The ability to falsify information so easily on this network, is a problem. To test the popularity of deception, I analyzed a friend’s profile. When asked to rate how accurate her information was from a scale of 1-5, she gave all of her multiple choice answers (networks, sex, interested in, relationship status, birthday, political views) a 5, for being completely accurate. Having known her for over a decade, I can attest to the validity of her answers. However when it came to the “personal info.” section, she even surprised herself by the inaccuracy of some of her answers. In her interests, out of the nine interests she listed, she only gave four of them a 5, for being completely accurate. She realized her other answers didn’t actually describe her at all, giving them a 3 or below. She would never offer the inaccurate answers as truth during a face to face interaction, but because of this socially distant media, deception production is simple and enticing. In the music section, she had 16 artists selected. She had a similar reaction to this section, realizing many of the artists were just people she thought she should listen to, maybe experiencing behavioral confirmation affects, from Walther’s hyperpersonal model of impression formation. The social distance theory explains her deception. Since lying is uncomfortable, a “socially distant” medium, such as facebook is perfect for lying. It is a lean medium with limited social and visual cues. In addition, her lies were small and harmless, therefore they appeared, and could very well have been perceived as honest by a user who had never met her. This fits into the view of how people have self-presentational goals when they participate in virtual networks. Appearing attractive is a goal, therefore, telling small subtle lies to achieve that goal is common. Knowing this friend very well, her assessment of the lies she told seems completely accurate; she was not lying about the lies she had told. Essentially, because the medium being used lacked social cues, deception production was increased.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)