FACEBOOK IDENTITIES: CONSTRUCTING VIRTUAL SELVES IN
AN ONLINE WORLD
A THESIS
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Sociology
Colorado College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of the Arts
By Erin Rhodes
May 2012
On my honor I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this paper.
-Erin Rhodes
1
ABSTRACT
Each day we make many decisions about how we want to look and act in order to maintain our identity and present ourselves to society in the best possible light. Some individuals rebel against social norms while others follow them to the extreme. Our notions of self are influenced by society and how we desire to be perceived by society.
This study focuses on the presentation of self in digital media, specifically on the online social network Facebook. I analyze how individuals construct their Facebook identity and why they present themselves in particular ways. Since users’ identities are known both offline and online by their audience they are unlikely to present a false-self to their
“friends.” By interviewing 11 volunteers, I found that participants in this study mainly displayed information about themselves through pictures. Further, participants presented a virtual self through either carefully set privacy settings, not allowing friends to see tagged photos and consciously presenting themselves with certain viewers in mind. Given this, users are omitting information about their real selves in order to appear as their hoped-for self that they can only obtain through their virtual self. By looking at how individuals present themselves on Facebook and their choices about how they do so, we may better understand the relationship between identity and social norms and the significance of self presentation in virtual space and social interaction.
2
I feel like in our modern life, our time together is less and less genuine and our time alone is less and less genuine. Like when you're by yourself, you still like have the possibility of someone texting you now or like on Facebook even though it's not something you have to check, it bothers me that somebody could be trying to talk to me at all times. I think it's really important to have that time like alone to think about what's important to you. So then when you're like with people, you can actually be with people.
With Facebook keeping in touch with friends and family has never been easier, but as Ann’s comment reveals, modern technology comes with a cost. Ann understands the need for face-to-face conversation and the importance of being able to disconnect from the internet. Yet she finds that as technology grows, we stop spending genuine time together and instead spend time communicating through these superficial sites or devices.
Moreover, communication should not be our only concern, our identity and how we present ourselves on these social sites is also changing.
With over 845 million active users Facebook is one of the biggest online social networking sites on the internet today. In one place users can leave messages for friends, post pictures of a recent event, catch up with people’s lives through the News Feed, voice their feelings or thoughts through a status update, and more. It is a place to socialize, catch up, and express oneself. It is a virtual space where social interaction takes place in the form of pictures, status updates and comments from friends. Through Facebook one can maintain a friendship without physically seeing another person. It is a place where people can create a virtual identity and select how they wish to portray themselves that may be different from the real self they present in personal interactions.
Until now, an individual constructed their identity with others in a face-to-face context. With Facebook and other online profiles (ie: online dating sites) individuals have
3 a constant self that others can access and view anytime. Viewers can usually access more information about a person through a profile page than one would normally in person.
However, impressions about an individual made from information on their Facebook profile may not be entirely correct. Users may be as truthful or dishonest as they want about themselves and viewers may not know the difference. Creating an online identity in this setting, where one will be judged upon what information is on their profile rather than in person creates the ability for individuals to play with identity. Further it allows users to control how others may perceive them and the ability to present themselves in a way that is not true to their real, offline self.
This paper shows how Facebook profiles enable individuals to present a virtual, hoped-for self by hiding or omitting certain behaviors captured in pictures, handpicking desirable characteristics, and acting in socially acceptable ways. It is another from of social interaction, where meaning is forged from action and reaction during interaction and judgments are made based on how one presents their self on Facebook. Social norms have developed on Facebook; achieving them is more feasible because users can edit themselves to fit the person they want to become. This is one addictive quality of
Facebook that draws individuals to use it as a social tool regardless of weather they are aware of the more negative, time wasting and narcissistic tendencies that come with using
Facebook.
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Discovering the Self
George H. Mead viewed society as the foundation of resources that allow for human minds to develop and have a “self”. Language facilitates interaction between individuals and, “provides a form of behavior in which the organism or the individual may become an object to himself” (Mead 1934: 284). Through communication and social experiences the self can be realized (Mead 1934). Individuals interact with one another by defining or interpreting each other’s actions. How an individual responds to an action depends on the one has attached to it. Symbols mediate human interaction and the types of symbolic forms of language that allow for communication and the ability to appreciate and realize the “other.” As particular symbols are encountered more and more frequently, the interpretation and rationalization become second nature and individuals begin to process these symbols subconsciously.
An individual will eventually be able to anticipate the intentions and expectations of others and see him/herself from not just another’s point of view but from groups of others’. The generalized other represents the common standpoints of those groups.
According to Mead’s concept of the “generalized other,” being able to recognize the
“other” within society enables role taking of the other, which allows for us to see their perspective of us and turns into self-objectification. By using the others’ perspective individuals are able to reflect and interpret meaning during an interaction. The
“generalized other” is defined as an, “organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self” (Mead 1934:289). The individual not only takes the
5 attitudes of the group on his self, but the individual internalizes meanings and alters actions according to the symbol (Mead 1934:289).
By acknowledging the other the self can be realized because it is what we see from the others’ perspective. The self includes how one wishes to be perceived by others.
There are two parts, the “I” and the “me.” To best understand the difference, consider this sentence: “I want to do this, but what will they think of me?” This phrase comes in many different forms for different people, but the effect is still the same. The “I” is the individual or free agent that is doing the experiencing, thinking and acting (Thoits &
Virshup 1997: 108). The “me” is an internalized self that is bound by attitudes, expectations, and assessments of others (Thoits & Virshup 1997: 108). The “they” is the other in which the individual (I/me) is altering themselves to gain social approval (Thoits
& Virshup 1997: 108). There is a fine line between the “I” and “me” when it comes to presenting oneself to others. Each side reflects upon the other and depending on the situation, dictates the individual’s actions. Given that individuals perceive their self through other people’s actions and reactions to their self Goffman theorizes that every person is always desperately worried about their image in the eyes of the other. Goffman
(1967) described the term “face” as a mask that changes depending on the audience and variety of social interaction. Additionally it is self-defined in terms of approved social attributes. Face work is the work that an individual does to maintain “face” or the way one presents his or her self to others. Goffman describes the face, “as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social
6 attributes” (Goffman 1959: 213). For example, one may act differently around one’s parents or in church than they do around their friends or at a birthday party because social expectations are different for each role that they fulfill.
Another symbolic interactionist Charles Cooley, most well known for his theory of the “looking glass self,” relates perceptions to feelings. The “looking glass self” is based on three elements, “the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification” (Cooley 1922: 185). Thus, when an individual receives negative or condescending responses to their appearance from a variety of persons they socialize with, they may begin to view themselves as less physically attractive or appealing.
Conversely, they most likely are not performing or acting within the norms set by a group or society. Receiving positive feedback reaffirms the self and lets an individual know that they are socially acceptable or performing within the social norms. Based on perceptions, that may be accurate or flawed, individuals determine which self they should most often present or which self to present in certain social environments.
Kinch (1963) expanded the looking glass hypothesis to include a two-step process: first, views of other people are concentrated into a subjective understanding of the views of others regarding their self, and second, the individual then constructs or adjusts a sense of self in response to this notion. In fact, some studies have suggested that people can affect the perceptions others have of them and that individuals actively work to bring others’ perceptions into line with their own self perceptions. (McNulty & Swann
1994: 1015; Swann 1984: 466). In other words, Joe works to make Jack perceive him in
7 the same way that Joe perceives himself. This is important because in order to change others perceptions, one would most likely have to present a different “self” to others.
Different Selves
Goffman’s and Cooley’s theories focus on how individuals change and adapt to social situations in order to fit in. Therefore once we understand how the self acts in respect to its “I” and “me” during social interactions we can see that different selves are presented in order to gain social acceptance. William James was one of the first scholars to assert that the self we present depends upon the social environment. According to
James (1890) three different selves exist, the material self (that has a strong sense of ownership of our bodies, our families, or our possessions), the spiritual self (our feelings of our own subjectivity), and the social self (the self that speaks in social relations).
James (1890) believed the social self was structured based upon interactions with society and the reactions of others that are analyzed in order to create a social self. Further within this social self, there are multiple versions of the self that are invoked or presented depending upon the particular social group in which one finds one’s self.
This is similar to Goffman’s notion of face work in which individuals who put on a certain “face” or present a certain self and receive positive feedback from others to gain affirmation of the self or actions that they presented. However, success is not automatically granted. When presenting different selves, “only after the fact will people know whether they were convincing or not, whether they should go on in the same direction or change tracks. Modern individuals try their various role identities, ultimately choosing the ones which they play best and for which they are most often rewarded” (Pin
8
& Turndorf: 164). Individuals organize their selves in a prominence hierarchy that reflects their ideal or hoped-for possible self. Markus and Nurius (1986) divide a person’s self-conception into two parts, the “now self” and the “possible self.” The now selves are established identities known to others, whereas possible selves are images of the self that are currently unknown to others (Markus and Nurius 1986). Higgins (1987) expanded this notion by defining a “hoped-for possible self” that is a balance between suppressing one’s “true self” and striving for the unrealistic or fantasized “ideal self.” True selves refer to the “hidden aspects of what we need or wish to be,” while the ideal self is what an individual strives to become (Suler 2002: 458). Hoped-for possible selves are socially desirable identities an individual would like and believe they can create.
A common reason for failing to express one’s true self is the belief that one’s
‘real’ self has not been, or will not be, validated or accepted by one’s significant others
(Harter 1997: 88). Harter (1997) conducted research regarding true versus false self- behavior in adolescents and found that adolescents are very sensitive to whether they themselves were “being true to themselves or being phony.” Harter (1997) found that adolescents engage in false-self behavior for three reasons: devaluation of self (parents or peers do not like them or they do not like themselves), the want to please and gain acceptance of others, or act or try out different selves just to see what it is like. Given evidence of these common false-self behaviors, we can understand why online social networks have appeal. Online sites provide a space for individuals to play with identity.
For example, online dating sites enable individuals to present their ideal self and hide unwanted social characteristics or physical features that may hinder social interaction in
9 the offline world. Many individuals who participate in these sites tend to “play-act at being someone else or act out their underlying negative impulses in the online world”
(Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin 2008). Walker (2000) found that internet dating sites that are not completely anonymous provide an opportunity for users to make public ‘identity statements’ that they normally would not make offline. Online sites allow for a space where individuals can list hobbies, activities or group affiliations that they cannot present in everyday social settings and thus express their hoped-for possible selves that have been unknown to others. Other online media such as chat rooms or blogs also allow for such exploration and stretching of identity that was not possible before the development of the internet.
Social Media
While early symbolic interactionists studied individual interaction in face-to-face encounters, society and technology have advanced greatly and now provides more forms of communication. The development of cell phones, email and social network sites, has created a system where getting in touch with someone is easier than ever. Technology has grown to make interaction between individuals accessible and reliable. Phones, and particularly cell phones make conversation across space easier. The development of internet, email and instant messenger forms of communication have advanced the speed of communication. These forms of internet interactions have given rise to new social rules or norms. The development of online social network profiles has enabled individuals the ability to create a virtual self. Sharing of information about one self is
10 easier than ever. Facebook is among the more recent and popular forums that facilitate online social interaction.
Since Facebook’s unveiling in 2004, the networking site has grown to hold over
845 million active users, with age groups ranging from teens to the elderly. Facebook defines itself as, “a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers…[and] facilitates the sharing of information through the social graph, the digital mapping of people's real-world social connections (Facebook
2011). Individuals create a profile page by providing various information about themselves that is then shared with their friends. Basic information includes sex, age, birthday, political, and religious affiliation as well as interests in books, movies, TV shows and sports. Users include a profile picture that is featured on their page, visually representing the individual. All the information on an individual’s profile page is a fixed representation of that person, even when they may not be online themselves. Instead of having mearly a memory or a lasting mental impression of a person, a friend can access current information about that person by viewing their profile. This has created a new way of interacting with others. With information readily available and various ways to keep in touch or keep tabs on someone’s life participants have a new way to maintain contact with friends.
Because information about oneself is readily available for any friend to see at any time, Facebook members are likely to monitor information and pictures continually.
Studies have been conducted analyzing the selection process of profile pictures and what
11 types of pictures are chosen to represent individuals. One study in particular found that profile pictures differ significantly between men and women. Both genders post pictures in order to be seen as attractive, but men do so with sports photos, and women do so by smiling head shots (Strano 2008). Women want to be seen as having friends, both male and female, but men simply want to show that they are attractive or “fun-loving” (Strano
2008: 6-7). Strano (2008) also found that individuals were more likely to change their profile image to reflect events and activities in which they are involved to reestablish their identity to others.
Another interactional component of Facebook is the ability to comment and “like” other people’s pictures, status updates and comments. This feature allows for individuals to provide feedback regarding certain posts in a profile. The posts or pictures that a person displays on their profile represents them as a person, and if their friends “like” or comment on their post, then it serves as a form of affirmation of them as a person. This type of approval parallels Cooley’s notion of social acceptance through positive feedback when individuals are following social norms. If a person’s post or picture continually receives praise or recognition from friends the individual will most likely continue to produce similar content to maintain the level of positive feedback. If an individual is receiving little feedback from friends, they are likely change what they are posting until they their posts receives acceptance. Therefore, because individuals are seeking positive feedback through comments and “likes,” actions found that people selectively present themselves on Facebook in order to gain more feedback and in return increase their self- esteem (Kim & Roselyn 2011). When individuals selectively self-present themselves on
12
Facebook they are able to take their time when posting information or pictures about themselves and select certain aspects they would like to emphasize about themselves, which is not possible in everyday life (Gonzales & Hancock 2011).
Social networks like Facebook allow for “disembodied online encounters [that] enable people to hide their undesired physical features, and anonymity allows individuals to re-create their biography and personality [which] makes it possible for people to reinvent themselves through the production of new identities” (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin
2008: 1818). Removing certain features or characteristics that may hinder a person in the offline world enables individuals to bypass obstacles that prevent them from constructing desired identities in face-to-face settings. To some extent this notion of online ‘role- playing’ can be an empowering process. Role playing allows for individuals to become their ideal or hoped for possible selves. However, the freedom to reinvent one’s self can be limited. Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin’s (2008) analyzed Facebook profile pages and looked for ways in which participants presented their selves online. They found that
Facebook identities were the “hoped-for possible identities users would like to be, but not yet able to establish in the offline world” because they are anchored to their offline identities as many of their online friends know them offline as well (Zhao et. al.
2008:1828). Further, the study identified the “real self,” and “hoped-for possible self” which are products of different situations rather than characteristics. Individuals’ choose to claim an identity that helps them better situate themselves within a given environment
(Zhoa et. al. 2008: 1831). Therefore on Facebook, the ability to present a hoped for self takes priority because it will allow the users a better social position within Facebook. The
13 environment on Facebook allows and maybe even encourages this portrayal of hoped for selves that is more difficult to present in the real world.
METHODOLOGY
This study is similar to Zhoa et. al.. I analyzed individuals’ profile pages to learn how Facebook users represent themselves through reviewing what information is presented on their profile and the manner in which they present themselves. While I use some of the same concepts of Zhoa et. al. study, I used a different sample size and research technique. The previous study coded and analyzed 63 individuals’ Facebook profiles. For this study, I used the same coding sheet to analyze participants’ profiles, but added the component of interviewing the participants and asking them to explain what factor(s) influenced how they selected their profile information on Facebook. This aspect of my study enabled me to understand how participants choose to portray themselves and why. In sum, I hypothesized that I would find similar results to Zhoa et. al. when coding profiles. However by talking with individuals regarding their profiles I believed that I would learn what the profiles mean to them and in what manner the profiles reflect the identities they wish to present. Further, I believed I would find the participants admitting to either omitting or altering information and pictures about themselves in order to present a better self to their viewers, known as the virtual self.
There are two parts to the data collection. The initial collection consisted of individual interviews with participants that included questions about personal background information and Facebook use. I also reviewed the individual’s Facebook profile with
14 them discussing the choices they made. The second part of the study took place after the interview was completed. I conducted a context analysis/coding of the participant’s
Facebook page using the coding sheet from the original study (see Appendix). The coding sheet developed by Zhoa et. al. contains a coding scheme covering virtually all the major items that can be found on a Facebook account.
The source of the participant population included 11 undergraduate student volunteers, from a large, public college on the East coast. All participants were undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 22. The sample consisted of five males and six females. Participants were recruited through the college’s listerv and a snowball sample in which friends and acquaintances were asked if they were interested in participating in the study and could recommended others who would want to participate as well. Interviews took place over the course of two weeks and was conducted primarily in school buildings. This two pronged approach to study Facebook identity construction allows for a fuller understanding of what pictures, comments or information individuals post and why particular choices were made. A person’s interpretation of their profile may indicate whether people knowingly strive to portray a better “face” or “self” for their
Facebook profile in order to gain social acceptance.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Participants were all from a large, public college and varied in class year, age and gender. Most participants are active. Participants were involved in activities including hiking, skiing, playing sports, and most were involved in at least one or more campus
15 clubs or community projects. Most described themselves as outgoing, friendly, and willing to meet new people. Participants represent the type of student and person the college tends to attract. Almost all participants noted that they joined Facebook in early high school largely because many of their friends were joining and it was the “new, cool thing to do.” Many of the participants switched over from Myspace, a similar online social networking site. Overall, Facebook is the number one social networking site for all of the participants, and participants use Facebook in similar ways. The majority of participants try to avoid posting meaningless status updates. They post links to news stories, music or videos, and post pictures or albums only when a major event has occurred. Participants implied that most of their time on Facebook was spent responding to any comments they received or posting fun or interesting things on friends’ walls. Wall posts consisting of comments, web links or pictures indicate the users’ interests. During an interview, participant Ann mentions that, “there's probably like five of my friends that really, really use Facebook and will post on Facebook all the time like on my wall. So you get like me as represented by those five people…I don’t really post that much. It's basically just my friends representing me, not me representing me.” It can be assumed whatever information is on one’s profile is what one is interested in or has some association with. This is important because it means that a Facebook user can shape what perceptions viewers have of them based on what information is included on their profile.
Privacy
Almost all participants use privacy controls, only two did not. Those that use privacy controls are concerned that certain information about them will become available
16 to viewers, or they are wary about random people looking into their lives. Addie indicated that she heavily uses privacy settings on her profile that consists of three
“tiers.” First is the general public, who can only see her profile picture and her current network. A second tier consists of general friends who can see photo albums, wall posts and general information about her. The third tier is a select list; Addie chooses which friends she allows to access everything on her profile. She chooses who can see her whole profile according to whether or not she feels she can trust them to see certain photos and information posted. Addie explained how she choose those who can see everything: if “I feel comfortable telling them something or comfortable explaining a story behind a picture to them, then I feel like I can put them on unrestricted view.”
However, most participants choose less detailed privacy settings and just restrict the general public from viewing their profiles.
Those participants that choose not to use the privacy features, seem to care little about how others perceive them or what is learned about them from their profile. Derrick perceives himself as going against the grain by not caring what goes on his Facebook or what other think of him. By not setting privacy controls, he asserts this view. Further,
Ann reasons that she does not have anything to hide and if they do have a problem believes, “everyone can just deal with it.” Derrick and Ann both exhibit indifference towards privacy and both mentioned within their interviews that they either have a problem with Facebook itself or that they are trying to go against the grain and not conform to Facebook roles.
17
Modes of Identity Construction
Zhao et. al. looked at how Facebook users conveyed information about themselves in constructing their online identity. They found three types of profiles, the visual, enumerative, and narrative. Visual profiles displayed information implicitly, most commonly through pictures or links that give impressions about personal interests rather than writing it out. Enumerative profiles displayed information about selves through listing favorite books or media. The self is a consumer and personal information is displayed through cultural interests. The narrative profile displays information through a first person narrative, through the About Me section. Zhao et. al. found that users tended to fall under the visual profile, in that they rather, “show than tell” information to “make certain implicit identity claims aimed at generating desired impressions on their viewers”
(P. 1825).
In this study, participants also presented a majority of visual profiles, as indicated through large amount of profile pictures, albums, links and videos (Fig. 1). Enumerated and narrative profiles did not appear independently; however aspects of each were found embedded within various visual profiles. Four participants asserted their selves through cultural forms, indicated through updated interests and favorites. Only three participants displayed self-narratives in their About Me’s and quote sections. The majority of participants used photos to convey meaning rather than cultural icons or words. These results are similar to Zhao et. al. though enumerative and narrative profiles appeared more equally in this study.
18
Implicit ------Explicit
Visual Enumerative Narrative Self as social actor Self as consumer First person self Wall posts/pictures Interests/Activities “About Me” (81%) (63%-54%) (36%)
Fig. 1. The continuum of implicit and explicit identity claims on Facebook (Zhao et. al. 2008)
Implicit and explicit information is important to recognize within a profile as it helps highlight the manner in which the user feels comfortable sharing and presenting information. All participants’ profiles in this study fell within the visual category, indicating that most people would rather visually portray what they are interested in rather than expressing themselves through writing in their About Me section and listing personal cultural media favorites.
Enumerative and narrative profiles
Only a few Facebook users in this study chose to display their favorite books, media, and information in their About Me section. Yet, these few did not regularly update their posts nor could they remember exactly when they first posted the information.
Nonetheless, all admitted they still enjoyed their listed selections. Participants who chose not to display any information about books or media felt that their closest friends should already be familiar with their interests. Addie mentioned that she does not display information because, “I feel like if you know me, you know me. I don’t feel comfortable being like, ‘Oh, I really like this, Everyone should like this.’… my friends know what I like, I don’t need to tell other people.” Further, Michelle was one of the few participants who listed favorite books and movies on her profile. She mentioned that she felt the need
19 to list a wide variety of genres on her profile and not simply include more mainstream favorites, such the movie “Ten Things I Hate About You.” Although participant Jamie did not have any favorites listed, she mentioned that if she did, she would feel pressured to include “cultured” selections and would pick, “very carefully and put up like foreign movies and books that smart people would read. So it would just be like the same fakery as the rest of Facebook.” Thus meaning and personality can be discerned through the selection of cultural symbols including movies or books. Additionally, both Michelle and
Jamie believed it was important to present their selves as intellectually “smart” by selecting and listing certain books that would indicate they possess those qualities. This indicates that through cultural symbols different selves can be presented based upon the type or genre of movie, book or activity one presents.
Among those participants who did not post information on their About Me section, many felt that those who knew who they were would not review this particular section of their profile and therefore left it blank. When asked why she did not post an
About Me, Ann stated, “I kind of feel like I want people to discover that stuff about me because I actually know them. I guess I just don’t really see why anyone would really care, like the people on here that are my friends would know it.” The profiles that did contain information in the About Me section were quotes from friends or a philosophical quote that the user felt represented their outlook on life. For example, Addie mentioned a quote that she once had was, “Draw a line, live above it” because “it’s one of those things that [she] held as a motto to [herself], that, [one] always tries to reach for the best.” Those users who chose not to post an About Me indicated that they either felt that it is
20 unnecessary or that it seemed “flashy.” For example, Jamie stated, “I just don’t know what I would really put that would fit. The About Me sounds like, ‘let me advertise myself to you,’ and if someone is friending me on Facebook they probably already know me.” Similar to Jamie, Hannah states, “I don’t care for using the Facebook for that purpose or describing myself or advertising myself to other people…I just don’t feel any need to share that information with everybody.”
Additionally, Michelle mentioned that her profile already shows that, “I go to
[participant’s college]. It shows what kind of music I like. I like pictures and play
Frisbee. So, I think I don’t know what else I’d say.” These individuals post a limited amount of information because they do not feel they need to divulge all information about themselves. They expect that their audience or readers already know them. It was clear in this study that participants were not very comfortable sharing direct information about themselves on their profiles that may allow for viewers to read into and make assumptions. For example in listing favorites, individuals who had them displayed rarely kept them updated indicating little importance. The participants that had an About Me were filled with quotes rather than actual narrative statements about themselves. It was interesting to discover that when asked in the interview to describe themselves to someone they’ve just met, many did not have a problem coming up with a sentence or two. However, on their Facebook profile they refused to display narrative information that they readily divulged in an interview. Yet, all of the characteristics and qualities participants listed when describing themselves in the interview were present on their profiles, just through pictures.
21
There is also a constant theme of friends on Facebook that participants constantly refer to throughout their interviews. Many participants mentioned that they use Facebook to keep in touch with friends from their hometown or that they met while studying abroad. Grace mentioned, “I think it’s a great way not to forget about people. I mean it’s easy for those people who you spent a lot of time with, people in high school, but now just went separate ways and to “catch up” with them see if they are up to anything eventful. I like doing that. I think that that’s the most valuable thing on Facebook, is just keeping touch with people.” This feeling of “catching up” with old friends through looking at profile pages was a common theme among participants. Further it indicates that participants rather view old friends’ profiles than actually talk to them. This might be because participants are trying to avoid an uncomfortable social situation with an old friend or they just do not feel a need to reconnect with them, yet they are still “friends” with them on Facebook. It seems that on Facebook friendships are meant to be kept or maintained, not made.
Visual profiles
Participants mainly created visual profiles, indicating that they posted numerous pictures or posts. Photos and visual representation is the dominant form of conveying information to friends about their selves. One of the main ways on Facebook for participants to display who they are is through their profile picture. Many of the participants described their current profile picture in detail and usually had a story behind what was taking place when the picture was taken. For instance, Addie described choosing her profile picture of her and her dog because “it reminds [her] of home and
22 shows people that [she] really like to be doing stuff like that …and that [she does not] need to be posing for a photo.” Further, Michelle explained that, “I try not to change them too much. I like to think pretty well about the one I’m choosing and where I am in my life. I think I just like see something that really catches my eye, where I think really represents me, and just change it…I like ones where I don’t take myself too seriously.”
Additionally, Grace had a picture with a recently deceased friend and mentioned how it was a great way to display one of her favorite memories with him. A Facebook profile picture is significant because it is a constant icon that represents an individual. How and what is chosen as a profile picture can indicate what a person is interested in, who their friends are, or simply what they look like. How individuals portray themselves in their profile picture indicates what they consider most important to them because they have chosen it to represent them. Further in Michelle’s and Addie’s case, they chose profile pictures that highlighted qualities that they believed to be socially desirable.
Strano’s (2008) study’s findings in relation to profile pictures holds true in this research as well, in that females posted pictures with friends to appear friendly and males displayed pictures that were athletic or cast them in a “fun loving” light. Although many of the participants did not change their profile picture because of a recent event or activity, many mentioned that when they did change their profile picture they did so to provide a picture that they really loved and felt they wanted to display to everyone.
Further, participants felt that profile pictures represented them in some suitable way and therefore reestablish or maintain their identity on their profile.
23
Another manner in which Facebook users assert their identity is through photo albums and tagged pictures (friends’ pictures of a person is linked to which appears on their profile). The source of a participant’s profile photos includes friends’ photos in which the study’s participants have been tagged in. That participants un-tag themselves in photos on Facebook indicates they care about being seen in a setting that would portray them in a negative light. Michelle mentioned she’ll un-tag a picture, “if it’s inappropriate in any way, any alcoholic drink that I’m holding. I mean, if there’s any alcohol in the picture, I like to un-tag it…any drugs, any vulgar signs, nudity, or anything like that.
And then also like if I look ridiculous, sometimes I’ll un-tag it.” Additionally, Steven says that he’s, “not going to put up pictures of [himself] doing inappropriate things or things that [he does not] want out there, and that’s because [he does not] want potential employers, potential faculty or other people like that to be viewing [him] in a sort of more of the negative moments, or socially defined negative moments.”
All participants expressed concern that pictures of them doing illegal activities or being irresponsible would be seen by future employers, parents or professors. Un-tagging pictures that include these negative social qualities indicates that many participants do not include visual evidence of such activities as part of their identity or who they are on
Facebook. Thus, participants only present certain qualities that would be accepted by those they are trying to impress or gain respect from. Further because all participants expressed their selves through visual means, pictures that participants post are the main source of information of their profile identities. Without the negative or bad photos that
24 participants un-tag, the remaining pictures creating their Facebook identity are not reflective of their real selves online.
Representing the Self
How participants display information about themselves indicates how participants wish to be perceived. A few participants commented that Facebook is a general social media outlet in which multiple groups of people one may interact with merge together.
Jamie mentions how,
I act different around my family and siblings than I do around my friends here and then I act differently around them than I did at my job or whatever. And so suddenly on Facebook you’re presenting something and you have to package it up for all those different groups to see and digest. And so you can’t joke the same way with all these people and you can’t assume that all these people agree with you because they come from different perspectives but you hopefully had something in common with sometime.
Jamie’s reorganization that she acts differently and has different selves with different people affirms Goffman’s notion of face work. Yet on Facebook Jamie is supposed to blend all selves together to seem genuine and real to all groups. In one manner or another, all of the participants in this study indicated that they were conscious of trying to portray themselves in some particular way. For most participants, portraying themselves as professional and responsible for future employers was important, while a few felt it was important to depict themselves as laid back and laissez-faire.
Participants were asked if they felt like their profile accurately represented them.
Two believed their profile was a match, four felt like it did not match, and five felt like it was a partial representation of themselves. Those who expressed mixed feelings over their representation, including Hannah, stated, “I think [my profile] tells a very small
25 picture of who I am, but the part that it tells is accurate.” Steven commented in a similar fashion stating, “I mean [my profile] certainly checks a lot of interest boxes and I think it’s pretty typical. So in that sense, it does represent a part of my interests… I'm not sure how much qualitative information you can get from it—you’re not going to get anything about my personality… probably represents a small part of me.” They, as well as the four who disagree, felt like Facebook does not allow for personality to come through, or show everyday actions. Grace noted her Facebook profile shows “what I do not who I am.”
Meaning there is more to Grace than her favorite movie or recent event that she went to.
That all the information on her profile is quantitative, tangible evidence of things she has done, but not her personality. James mentions how Facebook, “doesn’t like keep like a record of my train of thought or the significant events of my life…it doesn’t really show like, you know the, what typical scene or my everyday life might be.” However, Michelle felt that her profile was an accurate representation of herself. She explains,, “I think my pictures really represent that I don’t take myself too seriously, that I’m mildly enjoying myself in life and at college, and I think my statuses definitely represent that I’m pretty opinionated and not afraid to say what I’m thinking about.” Additionally, Darrick believes that his actions of nonconformity attribute to his identity and therefore he feels like his profile represents who he is.
Participants who felt their profile did not represent who they are were also the individuals who hid their tagged photos and had high privacy settings. Therefore these participants selectively presenting themselves by choosing what information they post on their profile. The information they post is information they feel comfortable revealing to
26 others; activities such as skiing are depicted or music they enjoy can be known through the links they share. This type of information is safe. In contrast, they omit certain information that would allow friends to be able to “analyze their whole life.” When asked, Jamie mentioned she does not, “like the idea of anyone being able to look through a catalog of my life and analyze pictures of it.” Further, Hannah expressed the need to keep all tagged photos hidden just in case someone tagged her in a photo that would portray her in a negative way and she was not around to un-tag it before everyone saw it.
Those participants who keep their tagged photos hidden from friends do so for two reasons: one, they are aware and concerned about how they may be perceived by others; they want to have control over how they portray themselves. Second, all within this group express an unease with the notion of someone analyzing or reading into their past too much. Some participants feel that their past no longer matters nor is relevant to who they are now: others feel no one needs to be looking into their past too deeply.
This selective presentation of self indicates that participants’ real self is not fully being represented online but rather a new, virtual self is. This virtual self is as different from or similar to one’s real self as the individual chooses. Participants do not feel they are presenting their “real selves;” many admitted they left out a lot of personal information and would rather let people get to know them in person rather than over
Facebook. This further supports the notion that Facebook is a place to maintain friendships, not create them. Additionally, all participants were aware of the possibility that others on Facebook could be presenting a virtual self rather than their real self.
27
When asked how much they trusted the information and presentation of friends on
Facebook, most responded like Matthew who said they, “believe most of it and think a lot of people put a lot of personal information about themselves to kind of and try to project themselves as best they can.” James stated that he, “put quite a bit [of belief in others profiles] in the sense that like what you put on there is kind of how you hope other people perceive you to be.” Further, participants were aware that not everything on others’ profiles is true. Steven believes that, “how the people represent themselves is pretty subjective. They can choose to post lots of photos with them drinking and partying or whatever but that might not necessarily define them as a person. That’s what they want to be defined as online.” This demonstrates how pictures, events or actions can define a person yet not be everything about them or what they always do. These sources of information depict how a person wishes to be perceived on Facebook.
Ann, “believes that what people are putting out is them but in a superficial way…what they're putting out is like an aspect of their lives.” But she adds, “I don't believe it's their life, or who they are either, just an aspect.” This indicates that pictorial information contained on a profile will more or less be associated with the user. Given that participants and other users are able to edit their selves and their profile; these edited selves that are presented on Facebook profiles are the best possible version of self.
Participants kept the Facebook visual image of themselves professional and clean for future employers, parents, or professors. Also, keeping a limited profile or preventing friends from analyzing or making judgments about one’s past, are ways of presenting only the best possible self.
28
Further, Facebook users’ selves are validated or affirmed through comments or
“likes” by friends. Cooley’s concept of reaffirmation is seen on Facebook through individuals receiving confirmation from others that they acted in the correct or appropriate way, individuals will likely continue to act in that way. All participants noted that they felt excited or happy when they received a notification indicating that someone wrote or liked a picture, comment or post of theirs. Further, participants mentioned how they would continue to post certain types of pictures or status updates if they continuously received comments. Matthew admits that he is influenced by others’ comments but, “in a way that doesn’t influence to [him] to change what [he] puts up, but just to keep putting up what [he] would usually put up.” Here Matthew is receiving positive confirmation about his posts and therefore does not feel a need to change his actions because he is receiving confirmation from others that how he is acting is correct or socially acceptable. Here we see the roles that are played by users on Facebook. Users are meant to post status updates, pictures and comments and in return receive them from friends. It is a web of social exchange via pictures and comments. Ann recognizes the roles that users play on Facebook and mentioned how, “I’m kinda going against myself in a way by posting things because I typically wouldn’t do it… it’s what you're supposed to do, it’s just the role you play on Facebook and I’ve fallen into it.” The roles on
Facebook are similar to social norms of everyday life, yet hold different meaning because there is a different context in which social interaction is happening. Similar to personal interaction, on Facebook when an individual posts a status update or picture, they hope for some validation that what they produced is acceptable. Yet if individuals do not
29 receive confirmation about their actions, it can eventually leads to individuals engaging in false-self behavior, as Harter (1997) indicated. As stated previously, false-self behavior develops for three reasons: devaluation of self, the want to please and gain acceptance of others, or act or try out different selves just to see what it is like (Harter 1997).
In this sample population no participants seemed to be presenting a false self, rather only virtual selves. Zhao et. al.’s study explains the reason behind Facebook users not presenting a false self because they are “anchored” to their real selves. It was found that in non-anonymous online environments, in which users know other users offline, individual’s virtual selves are much closer to their real selves than if it was a completely anonymous online environment. Many Facebook users are friends or know their
Facebook friends offline and therefore cannot completely present themselves in a way that is different from their real, offline self. Doing so will create confusion or judgment that one is trying to be someone they are not. Study participant Steven mentioned that
“you do make some judgment with the people you’re less of acquaintances with and more that you already know, it really doesn’t matter whether they post more pictures of them out drinking than studying even though you know that the person is smart and studies a lot. I think it’s more of acquaintances and people you don’t know that would have more opportunity to present themselves differently and get away with it.” Friends keep users accountable for their self-presentation while it is easier to pass as someone else to acquaintances because they do not know one’s real self. Further Jamie added how, “some people, they’ll put up the most edited, glamour shot photos of themselves. I know you would like yourself to be like that kind of girl, I get the idea that you think you’re very
30 beautiful but you’re coming across as vain…I think people try to present the best version of themselves and sometimes it’s obvious that, well you look nothing like that.” Here
Jamie recognizes that some users present themselves in such a way that indicates they want to be perceived as glamorous or pretty, yet it is not feasible or practical to believe they are like that offline, making their online self a hoped for self that is easy to spot.
Judging other users’ Facebook profiles seems to be a common theme among participants and a crucial part to how they perceive others’ profiles and thus the user.
On a personal level, Steven believed that it is easy for, “someone to click through all your photos and make a quick judgment about them.” Derrick added that, “all humans are captured by the imagination of it…caught up at looking at people’s routines and lives, it’s so easy to do… Like looking at all their pictures and watch their videos and see what they linked…You are really judging a lot about a person…you look at these snap shot pictures and get an impression, make a decision about what it means and such.”
Therefore, users who may present themselves in grandiose ways may be perceived as trying too hard, and as fakes. On a broader level, one participant mentioned how “people will judge you if you use Facebook too much” or use it in a way that can be perceived as trying too hard to be perceived a certain way. Michelle explained that, “in high school, people would judge you if you use Facebook too much so I went to a phase where I rarely ever used Facebook because I didn’t want like people to think I was on Facebook all the time. And I still think that’s something people pride themselves in a lot, like a lack of online networking.” Apparently there is a fine line between using Facebook too much and not using Facebook enough. Users need to act almost as if they do not care about what
31 others think of them, but care enough to respond to comments or posts, keep their basic information updated and include recent pictures. One cannot seem to be trying too hard to present oneself; presentation should come off as effortless.
This effortless presentation of self comes through natural photos, limited status updates, and information that would be useful for all. When participants were asked if they posted status updates or what types of pictures they put up, they ultimately described what they were not doing. They indicated they were not the ones posting status updates all the time. They were not posting glamorous pictures of themselves. They did not want to advertise themselves in their About Me section. This effortless presentation of self involves doing the opposite of those who seem to be trying too hard and thus in comparison makes the casual user seem more genuine. It seemed as if many of the participants strived to not become a stereotypical Facebook user, such as Grace who admits, “I am very aware when I am posting a status, cause I hate when people post like, tons of things…it’s annoying. So I am very conscious of it, but every once and a while
I’ll just throw something out there, but it’s pretty casual. Not like, ‘Today is awful!’ or
‘Got coffee! Ymm!’” Further, in regards to pictures, Jamie mentioned how she once had a profile picture that was taken of just her, by a friend that is a photographer, and defined it as a “glamour shot” and said, distinctly
I almost felt silly putting up a picture like that because you worry what people will think when you do it. Because if you put up a picture like this you don’t want people to think like, “Oh she wants people to say oh you’re so pretty in this picture,” or if they don’t say anything like that I’m like I thought this was a good picture. But usually I don’t do pictures like that. [The kind that imply] “Oh that was a picture of her trying to look good.”
32
Derrick admits that it is “so easy to look into someone’s life” and make a judgment about them given the impression that photos can convey. Further Derrick stated, “the really pretty girls I knew in high school, would post “hot” pictures of themselves. Sure they were hot but they were really trying to show it off. It’s like I know you are trying to do something with this picture; you want people to see this.” Derrick recognized that individuals post certain photos to express themselves in a certain way. Further, however he speculated that users can present exaggerated selves and have little consequence,
“because it is so hands off. You don’t get blamed for it. It’s not like directly flaunting in front of some guys trying to make other people jealous in some high school context.”
This is another indication that Facebook operates under slightly different social norms than society does every day. There are no real social ramifications for individuals who may or may not be true to themselves on their Facebook profile.
Some participants expressed concerns that Facebook creates feelings of inferiority in users because of the constant comparison between the self and others. Ann brought to light the issue of how Facebook makes one feel like they are the “center of the universe” which amplifies issues and interactions on Facebook. These both contribute to the issue of self-esteem and how it is created or destroyed through Facebook interactions. This affects self-presentation because if an individual feels as if they are more important than they are, it may lead to a misrepresentation of self. Further, to avoid hurting one’s self esteem, one must gain social acceptance and therefore most likely present themselves in a specific way to gain acceptance. Participants in this study did not seem overly concerned with social acceptance; at most a few participants consciously selected a more
33 professional self to present on their profile, Derrick admitted he went out of the way to not be like the norm which could be a presentation of a deviant self. Either way, participants presented a virtual self different or altered from their real self.
Over all, participants presented contradictory behavior in regards to Facebook itself. Many held a mild contempt for Facebook and noted that it was a time waster, distraction and unnecessary. Yet all seemed to be rather active users and contributors to
Facebook regardless. This would suggest that participants of this study either trivialize
Facebook itself or they believe that they are above its influences. Jamie mentioned how,
“you have to have [Facebook] because it’s such an important social tool and I feel if I were not on Facebook there’s a lot socially that I would be left out of in terms of events, in terms of feeling like you’re caught up with what your friends are doing.” Further, this is the reason why Ann eventually joined Facebook little over a year ago. She indicated “a lot of like the organizations scheduled through Facebook and I would just have no idea of like what was going on.” While Facebook is becoming more of a social tool in which individuals communicate and plan social events, it is also becoming a part of individual’s identities. Michelle mentioned, “I think I’m a part of it, yeah, it represents enough time in my life that I would say it is part of me.” While some participants do trivialize
Facebook’s influence and justify their usage by saying it helps them stay socially connected, all participants spoke of Facebook as something that was addictive and spent at least a half an hour on each day, except for Ann. It would seem that even though individuals recognize the ways in which Facebook social influence and promoting of narcissistic behavior they cannot stay away. This implies that as much as participants
34 may believe they are above Facebook’s influence or that Facebook does not play a large role in their life, but it does. It may not be the foundation which individuals base their social interaction upon, but it is influential and its power is growing.
It would seem that this inability to stay away from Facebook could be from the way in which it allows users virtual, hoped-for selves to be validated every day without much effort. The uncertainty that one will or will not receive validation of their virtual self that participants carefully craft to present to others may be what keeps individuals on
Facebook. Further, the fact that it is their virtual self being validated rather than real self may create a stronger sense of affirmation because the qualities that are being presented are ones that the user felt was important and meaningful. All participants, regardless of their real selves and beliefs towards Facebook, presented a different or edited virtual self on Facebook. This indicated that the virtual self is appealing and sought after as it validates the qualities about oneself that one cannot readily do when presenting their real self.
CONCLUSION
Over all, the study found participants displayed information about themselves implicitly though pictures and wall posts. Through posting pictures and posts about personal interests or activities, viewers interpret meaning in each one and begin to construct a basic concept of who the person is and what they are like. When posting information about oneself, some participants noted that they intentionally left information or pictures off their profile because they did not want to be identified or associated with
35 in the contents of the picture. Participants more often than not, did not want to be associated with alcohol or illegal substances, yet a few females also mentioned that they untagged photos of themselves if they felt like they looked unattractive. This indicates that participants who hide certain facets of themselves are not presenting their true or real selves, rather a virtual self that is specific and unique to online profiles.
These virtual selves are validated through comments and likes by friends who confirm to the user that the self they are presenting is accepted. It was found that virtual selves in non-anonymous environments such as Facebook, do not stray far from their real selves because they have relationships with friends both offline and online. They are held accountable offline for their online selves. Participants mention that those individuals that do not present themselves in accordance to their real selves come across as fake and are not perceived in a positive way. However, within the sample population, participants only showed signs of presenting virtual selves and contempt for those who seemed like they were “trying too hard.” All seemed to have a certain persona in mind they wanted to present. A majority mentioned how they wanted to appear professional, some wanted to be perceived as fun loving and laid back, while one wanted to be seen as rebellious.
These virtual selves are individual’s handpicked qualities and interests that they wish to present to their friends. Participants settle for this virtual self rather than their ideal self because their real self, who has ties to the offline world, forces them to present themselves realistically so they are not seen as a phony.
These findings demonstrate that individuals are held accountable for how they present themselves online because they have friends and ties to their real self.
36
Additionally, the virtual selves that are being presented are commonly positive and similar in that they all want to possess socially desirable qualities such as being responsible, sociable, and well-mannered. This indicates the ideal self that is constructed by society in the offline world is more obtainable online because individuals can edit their personal characteristics and activities and hide more socially undesirable ones.
Because individuals can acquire this sense of ideal self, individuals may tend to either further develop their virtual selves to continue to receive validation and thus self- gratification. Contrary, users will overplay their virtual selves and in turn be viewed as someone “trying too hard” and thus lose validation from friends, of their virtual self and most likely their self-image. Therefore it is important that this virtual self is recognized by Facebook users to negate the pursuit of validation that may lead to ones downfall.
However, all participants were aware of their edited, virtual selves and seemed to not seek out validation from others indicating that they present a virtual self over their real self but do not strive to fully become and rely on their virtual self for affirmation.
Some limitations of this study included the sample population that was interviewed. The students that were selected were from a certain type of college that attracts more open-minded and socially aware students. Therefore, many of the students seemed to be aware of how Facebook facilitates to ones’ narcissistic side, how much time it wastes, and on a larger scale that Facebook possibly sell user information to advertising sites. Further, many of the participants were not “stereotypical” Facebook users, meaning they did not fall into the Facebook role of posting status updates consistently, listing activities or favorites, or using other applications on Facebook. The data could be skewed
37 in that participants were not overly active users and therefore may not represent how identities are constructed on Facebook more generally. Further research could look at the more “stereotypical” Facebook users who are much more active in their posting of pictures and posts, which will give a stronger example of presentation of virtual selves on
Facebook.
38
References
Blumer, Herbert. 1962. "Society as Symbolic Interaction". In Arnold M. Rose. Human Behavior and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Houghton-Mifflin. Reprinted in Blumer (1969).
Cooley, Charles. 1922. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners.
Facebook. 2011. “Fact Sheet” Retrieved February 1, 2012. (http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22)
Goffman, Erving. l959. “The Presentation of Self.” Pp. 129-139 in in Life as a theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook edited by D. Brissett & C. Edgley, New York: Walter De Gruyter.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction." Pp. 5-46 in Interaction Ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior, edited by J. Best. Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers
Gonzales, Amy & Hancock, Jeffery. 2011. “Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14:1-2 pp. 79-83.
Harter, Susan. 1997. “The personal self in social context: Barriers to authenticity.” Pp. 81-105 in Self and Identity: Fundamental issues edited by R. Ashmore & L. Jussim. New York: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, Tory. 1987. “Self-discrepancy theory.” Psychological Review 94, 1120-1134.
James, William. 1892. “The Social Self.” Pp. 373-377 in Social psychology through symbolic interaction, edited by G. Stone & H. Farberman, Massachusetts: Xerox College Publishing.
Kim, Junghyun & Roselyn, Jong-Eun. 2011. “The Facebookpaths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14:6 pp. 359-364.
Kinch, John W. 1963. “A Formalized Theory of the Self-Concept.” American Journal of Sociology 68:481-86.
Markus, Hazel, & Nurius, Paula. 1986. “Possible selves.” American Psychologist 94: 954-969.
39
McNulty, Shawn E,. and William B. Swann Jr. 1994. “Identity Negotiations in Roommate Relationships: The Self as Architect and Consequences of Social Reality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:1012-23.
Mead, George H. 1934. “The Self, the I, and the Me.” Pp. 298-302 in The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction
Pin, Emile & Turndorf, Jamie. 1985. “Staging One’s Ideal Self.” Pp. 163-181 in Life as a theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook edited by D. Brissett & C. Edgley, New York: Walter De Gruyter.
Stone, Gregory & Farberman, Harvey. 1970. Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interactions. Massachusetts: Xerox College Publishing.
Strano, Michele. 2008. “User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images.” Cyberpsychology 2(2):1-11.
Suler, John. 2002. “Identity management in cyberspace.” Journal of Applied Psychoanalytical Studies 4(4):455-459.
Swann, William B., Jr. 1984. “Quest for Accuracy in Person Perception: A Matter of Pragmatics.” Psychological Review 91:457-77.
Thoits, P., & Virshup, L. “Me’s and We’s: Forms and functions of social identities.” Pp. 106-133 in, Self and Identity: Fundamental issues edited by R. Ashmore & L. Jussim. New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, Katherine. (2000). “‘It’s difficult to hide it:’ The presentation of self on internet home pages.” Qualitative Sociology 23(1):99-120.
Zhao, Shanyang, Grasmuck, Sherri, & Martin, Jason. 2008. “Identity constucrtion on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior 24:1816-1836.
40
APPENDIX
Interview Log
Interview #1 was conducted on February 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM that lasted 38 minutes and
20 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 19, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #2 was conducted on February 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM that lasted 35 minutes and
15 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 20, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #3 was conducted on February 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM that lasted 47 minutes and
7 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 21, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #4 was conducted on February 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM that lasted 36 minutes and 20 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 22, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #5 was conducted on February 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM that lasted 35 minutes and
12 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 23, 2010 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #6 was conducted on February 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM that lasted 53 minutes and
58 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 24, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
41
Interview #7 was conducted on February 22, 2012 at 8:00 PM that lasted 47 minutes and
07 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 24, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #8 was conducted on February 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM that lasted 25 minutes and
28 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 26, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #9 was conducted on February 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM that lasted 29 minutes and 40 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 27, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #10 was conducted on February 27, 2012 at 1:00 PM that lasted 38 minutes and
04 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 28, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview #11 was conducted on February 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM that lasted 31 minutes and
50 seconds. Interview was transcribed on February 29, 2012 after the interview was conducted.
Interview Guide
1. Tell me a little bit about yourself. Hobbies? Activities? Family? 2. How would you describe yourself to someone you’ve just met? 3. When did you join Facebook? Why? a. Do you have any other online profiles? Which ones? Which site do you use the most? 4. How much time would you estimate you spend on Facebook on an average day? What do you do? 5. How do you use the privacy controls on Facebook? a. Who can see your profile? Pictures? Posts? b. Friending behavior….
42
6. Has your profile changed over time? If so, how? How you use FB… 7. Do you post status updates? How often? What usually prompts an update? Let’s go through your profile. (Questions will vary depending upon the participant’s profile.) -Profile picture. How did you choose your profile picture? How often do you change it? Why do you change it? -Tagged pictures and photo albums. What kinds of photos do you put up on your page? Have you ever taken down photos? If so, for what reason? -About me section. When did you write/last update this? Do you feel it is true to who you are? -Interests (music, books, TV, movies, quotes) When did you choose these? Do you still enjoy these? Are there any interests of yours that are not listed here? How did you choose to put these up? -Contact information/Family. Why do you display your contact information? Family information? -Do you use/make Notes? Use any FB Apps? Like Farmvill? Words with Friends? 8. Do you feel like your profile accurately represents who you are? How so? a. If not, why? Any reasons? 9. Of all the things on Facebook, which aspect or feature do you use the most? And which feature do you think allows you to express yourself the most? 10. Do other people influence what you choose to put on your profile? How? And who? 11. Do friends comments or responses affect what you do with your profile? How does it make you feel to get notifications? 12. How much stock do you put into other peoples profiles and what they post? How much do you think people put into yours? 13: Do you have anything else that you want to add about Facebook in general?
Interview Transcripts
See attached.
Coding Table
Variable Value and value label Case Number - Picture R’s profile cover picture 0- Blank 1- Self 2- With Others 3- Avatar
43
Gender R’s Gender 0- Missing 1- Male 2- Female Sex Sex R’s interested in 0- Missing 1- Men 2- Women Relation R’s current relationship status 0- Missing 1- Single 2- In a relationship 3- In an open relationship 4- Engaged/married 5- It’s complicated Birthday R’s birthday 0- Missing 1- Month, day and year 0- Month and day Hometown R’s hometown name 0- Missing 2- Not missing Residence R’s residence information 0- Missing 1- Complete 1- Partial Contact R’s online contact information 0- Missing 1- Email address 2- IM screen name 3- Mobile/land phone 2- Website High school R’s high school name 0- Missing 4- Not missing Class Year R’s class year 0- Missing 1- Year specified Friends Number of R’s friends 0- Missing 1- # of friends Group R’s groups joined 0- Missing - # of groups joined
44
Activity Activities R likes 0- Missing - Of activities listed - 98 – unspecified Interest R’s personal interest 0- Missing - # of interests listed 98 – unspecified Music R’s favorite music 0- Missing - # of music listed 98 – unspecified TV R’s favorite TV shows 0- Missing - # of TV shows listed 98 – unspecified Book R’s favorite books 0- Missing - # of books listed 98 – unspecified Quote R’s favorite quotes 0- Missing - # of quotes listed 98 – unspecified About Me R’s narrative self-description 0- Missing 1- One or two short sentences 2- One or two short paragraphs Long paragraphs Album R’s Albums 0- Missing 3- # of albums Post Wall Posts in R’s account 0- Missing - # of wall posts
45