Tuesday, October 23, 2007

7.2 | A little too much Facebook

In an attempt to achieve functional development, I analyzed a “friend’s” Facebook profile with an abundance of environmental cues. What do I consider an abundance of environmental cues? A Facebook profile with over 800 pictures, 30 photo albums, 40 applications, 150 groups, 700 friends, and 1000 wall posts. The “Personal Information” section is also fully expressed, with a 1500 character limit for each of the major categories. This is one of the most elaborate profiles that I have encountered (yes, not THE most… I know someone with over 8,000 wall posts). Because more information is readily available, there is a better chance of having certain cues that are valid for impression formation (cue validity). In addition to the abundance of information, I also chose this person because I have no real face-to-face interaction with (the last time I saw this person was 10 years ago). I will refer to my friend as “D.”

96% (or so) of D’s profile is composed of other-directed identity claims. D’s profile was designed to make others perceive her in a certain way. Other-directed identity claims can be seen in D’s pictures: D tries to conceive an image of a girl who is very popular, very sophisticated, and very physically attractive. It is obvious every single one of the 850 photos is used to portray this image; all the pictures were of her posing, dancing, enjoying company, doing community service. These pictures were also followed by many comments that are directed towards her audience, people viewing her profile, such as, “not many pics yet...many more to come.” There are no candid pictures of her or pictures of her with less attractive people. Her process of tagging, commenting, and untagging of photos can be described as basking in reflecting glory and cutting off reflecting failure.

Another example of other-directed identity claims are the Groups and Personal Information section. The groups, such as Stand Up Against Police Brutality, I Bet I Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Just Want Peace, Justice for the Jena 6, are geared to portraying the same image of a well-rounded girl. Although she might possibly care about some of these issues, it is unlikely that she has enough time to be an active contributor to each of the 150 groups. The main purpose of these groups is make statements to others on how she would like to be perceived. The personal information is also serves a similar purpose, as she is very detailed in her description, and once again, her diction is geared towards an audience. Other-directed identity claims contribute to a majority of D’s profile, whether it is through photos, groups, or descriptions.

There were traces of self-directed identity claims in her applications that she chose to install. Instead of trying to make an image of how others should perceive her, she installs applications that reinforces her values and self-view: the Causes application and the Greek community application. Although this might also contribute to her image perceived by others, the main purpose of these applications is to remind herself of her own values. Her active involvement with these organizations and causes prove that these are not merely gimmicks to portray an image to others.

The Newsfeed is a record of the interior behavioral residue that D leaves behind. This Newsfeed is also an example of an environmental cue; it shows all the activity of the user. People who view this have a good idea of her interior behavior, both past and future. D’s Newsfeed suggests that she is very active, with an average of 10 items a day, and one can be certain that D will have future interior behavior.

Exterior behavioral residue is also very evident in D’s profile, particularly her photos and the wall. I have already how her photos played a large role in her profile and how they exhibit past experiences outside of Facebook. The wall also shows conversations that make references to experiences outside of Facebook. The wall made it possible to assess D’s personality much easier because other people’s views of her are more accurate cues than what she is trying to portray herself. This can be seen in Walther and Parks’ experiment:

“The results are consistent with Walther and Parks’ (2002) warranting hypothesis. The warranting principle suggests that other-generated descriptions are more truthful to observers than target-generated claims.”

The main source of my analysis of her personality came from her friend’s comments. By looking at several pages of comments, I have come to understand that D is in fact an extremely agreeable and extraverted individual. Virtually all her friends’ posts were positive, expressive, and sincere:

“d....first off i miss you sooo much and i was thinking about you today, second off you look straight up sexyyy in your picture =) i love youuu

i love how it takes me 5 hours to scroll down to post on ur wall
ur pic makes me drool :)

As long as the wink follows.. youre money.

You are absolutly amazing!!!! and I love you more...xoxo

deee!! i think you're awesome...just thought i'd tell you!

D u r so hot..... i love u =)”

It does not seem that D is controlling her comments in her wall like she was in her photos because there were 2 very offensive and derogatory comments. This shows for the most part that most people believe D has physical attractiveness, task attractiveness, and is creditable.

The Brunswikian Lens Model applies very well to D’s Facebook profile. The validity of her friend’s comments (cue validity) and the abundance of available information (in order to make linking possible) (cue utilization) allowed me achieve functional development. Other-directed identity claims through photos, groups, and descriptions; self-directed identity claims through applications; interior behavioral residue through the newsfeed; and exterior behavioral residue through the wall—were all environmental cues that were very apparent in D’s profile, which lead me to the conclusion that D was an agreeable and extroverted person.

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/72-yet-another-method-of-stalking-on.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/7-she-likes-to-party.html

3 comments:

Nanditha said...

Hey Ellis, great post! I think it's really interesting that the two characteristics you felt you could rate her on were agreeableness and extroversion since according to Hancock and Dunham those are two of the characteristics that are supposed to be less available over CMC and openness and conscientiousness are supposed to be more apparent. However, your friend's Facebook profile seems to be pretty extravagant, so it probably gave you a lot more insight into her life than a typical CMC interaction over AIM. I think it would be interesting to see if this were true of all impressions you form off of profiles on social networking sites and contrast that to impressions formed over a more "typical" CMC interaction.

Amber Saylor said...

Hi Ellis,
You did a great job explaining all the intricate details provided on your friend's profile and how you used them to judge her personality. I liked how you included some of the results of the Walther and Parks experiment, specifically the warranting hypothesis, in your analysis. We really do take what other people say about someone to heart. Also, she couldn't really control what other people wrote on her wall, so this seemed like a smart way to gauge her personality.

Joe Strandberg said...

Hi Ellis, very nice job describing your Facebook friend's personality through environmental and other cues. I like how you determined that D. values what other people think of her very much, and probably spends a lot of time perfecting her profile content, uploading/tagging only the photos that contribute positively to her image, and leaving much external behavioral residue about the activities she has done outside of Facebook through her wall posts. Excellent incorporation of Walther and Perks' warranting hypothesis to describe the increased accuracy of others' comments about D as compared to her own comments about herself. To build upon this analysis, I would describe how certain "Big 5" traits are less revealing online and what D. may have done to compensate for this lack of available information on her Facebook page.