DOCSLIB.ORG

Self-Presentation and Impression Formation Through Photographs in an LGBT Online Dating Community

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Self-Presentation and Impression Formation Through Photographs in an LGBT Online Dating Community Self-presentation and Impression Formation through Photographs in an LGBT Online Dating Community By: Kai Fat Shum Department of Informatics and Media Media & Communication Studies Uppsala University Abstract This netnographic and autoethnographic study examines self-presentation and impression formation through photographs presented on a gay online dating community, Qruiser. The theoretical framework of Goffman’s performance of self and Asch’s formation of impression was developed based on semiotic signifiers and signified. The study was carried out through participant observation of 200 gay daters’ photographs, online interviews, group discussions and narratives of the author’s personal experience. Observation showed that gay daters primarily presented six categories of photographs: self-portrait, daily pictures, travel pictures, sexually explicit pictures, pictures of objects, and black and white pictures. The daters were asked to justify their photographs in self-presentations, and the responses showed that the signs in the photographs could be both intentional and unintentional. Online interviews and group discussion participants suggested that there were distinctions of central and peripheral signifiers in impression formation. Furthermore, participants felt that misunderstanding of impressions resulting from dating photographs was unimportant, due to the compensation of textual presentation and messages. Keywords: Photograph, Self-presentation, Impression Formation, Misunderstanding, online dating, Qruiser.com i Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Making a First Impression in Online Dating ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Photographs in Self-presentation and Impression Formation .......................................... 2 1.3 Research Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Significance of the Research .......................................................................................................... 6 1.7 Following Chapters ........................................................................................................................... 6 2. Background Information .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Gay men ................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Gay Online Dating .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Qruiser.com ....................................................................................................................................... 11 3. Previous Studies and Theoretical Approach .................................................................. 13 3.1 Self-Presentation ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 “Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” .............................................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Application and Development of Goffman’s Self-presentation in CMC ............................... 16 3.1.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Impression Formation ................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Personal Traits ............................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.2 Brunswik’s Lens Model ............................................................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 ii 3.3 Semiotics ............................................................................................................................................. 22 3.3.1 Signifier and Signified ............................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2 Denotation/Connotation ......................................................................................................................... 24 3.3.3 Encoding/Decoding ................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.4 Potential Application of Semiotics ...................................................................................................... 27 3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 28 4. Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 30 4.1 Netnography and Autoethnography .......................................................................................... 31 4.1.1 Motivation for Choice ................................................................................................................................ 32 4.2 Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 34 4.2.1 Profile Setting ............................................................................................................................................... 34 4.2.2 Subjects, Sampling and Recruitment .................................................................................................. 36 4.2.3 Participant Observation ........................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.4 Online Interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.5 Group Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 40 4.2.6 Personal EXperience .................................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.7 Validity ............................................................................................................................................................ 42 4.3 Ethical Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 43 5. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................... 45 5.1 Categories ........................................................................................................................................... 46 5.2 Self-Presentation ............................................................................................................................. 51 5.2.1 Intentional Incorporation of Semiotic Signs in Self-presentation ......................................... 51 5.2.2 Unintentional Incorporation of Semiotics Signs in Self-presentation ................................. 54 5.2.3 Selective Self-presentation with Semiotic Signs ............................................................................ 56 iii 5.2.4 Personal Narrative ..................................................................................................................................... 57 5.2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Impression Formation ................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Arbitrariness of Impression Formation ............................................................................................ 61 5.3.2 Central Signifier and Peripheral Signifier ........................................................................................ 64 5.3.3 No Impression? ............................................................................................................................................ 65 5.3.4 Personal Narrative ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Very First Impressions
    Emotion Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 6, No. 2, 269–278 1528-3542/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.269 Very First Impressions Moshe Bar, Maital Neta, and Heather Linz Martinos Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School First impressions of people’s personalities are often formed by using the visual appearance of their faces. Defining how quickly these impressions can be formed has critical implications for understanding social interactions and for determining the visual properties used to shape them. To study impression formation independent of emotional cues, threat judgments were made on faces with a neutral expression. Consequently, participants’ judgments pertained to the personality rather than to a certain temporary emotional state (e.g., anger). The results demonstrate that consistent first impressions can be formed very quickly, based on whatever information is available within the first 39 ms. First impressions were less consistent under these conditions when the judgments were about intelligence, suggesting that survival- related traits are judged more quickly. The authors propose that low spatial frequencies mediate this swift formation of threat judgments and provide evidence that supports this hypothesis. Keywords: first impressions, threat, face perception, rapid personality judgment, intelligence Our first impressions of others can be truthful. For example, Until now there has not been a clear definition of such temporal humans are excellent in judging personality traits and complex lower limit on impression formation, but relevant studies have social characteristics such as dominance, hierarchy, warmth, and been conducted with relation to the detection of facial valence.
    [Show full text]
  • Impression Formation and Durability in Mediated Communication
    ournal of the J ssociation for nformation ystems A I S Research Paper ISSN: 1536-9323 Impression Formation and Durability in Mediated Communication Susan A. Brown Management Information Systems, University of Arizona [email protected] Robert Fuller Sherry M. B. Thatcher Accounting and Information Management, Management Department, University of South Carolina University of Tennessee [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Using literature from impression formation and social information processing theory, we examine the impact of communication style on impression formation and durability in a mediated environment. We leverage common writing styles found in workplace emails—emoticons, uppercase, lowercase, typographical errors—to examine how message receivers evaluate senders using these styles. Via a lab experiment with 748 subjects, including undergraduate students, graduate students, and working professionals, we found that impressions were associated with writing style beyond the email content. Receivers perceived senders of emails containing emoticons, errors, or written entirely in uppercase or lowercase as less functionally competent. They also perceived senders as less methodologically competent when emails used emoticons and less politically competent when emails were all lowercase or contained errors. They perceived senders using a neutral writing style as less sociable than senders using emoticons. In contrast to impression durability in face-to-face environments, receivers positively revised impressions when senders changed their style to neutral from any of the non-neutral styles. We attribute this difference to two characteristics of the IT artifact: symbol variety and reprocessability. Keywords: Computer-mediated Communication, Social Information Processing Theory, Impression Formation, Email Styles. Fred Niederman was the accepting senior editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey O. Nuckols, the IMPACT of COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY on IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT (Under the Direction of Dr
    Jeffrey O. Nuckols, THE IMPACT OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY ON IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT (Under the direction of Dr. Jennifer Bowler) Department of Psychology, July 2014 This study seeks to add to the knowledge of cognitive complexity by examining its relationship with impression management and social desirability. In light of past studies a positive relationship between cognitive complexity and impression management was expected. This predicted relationship was found to exist, thereby increasing knowledge of the construct of cognitive complexity. Furthermore, relationships between cognitive complexity, social desirability, and impression management were expected, with social desirability moderating the relationship between cognitive complexity and social desirability. The results of this study did not support the hypothesized relationships involving social desirability; in fact, the results ran counter to those predicted. However, these findings raise interesting questions for future research. Both the expected findings and those which were unexpected add to the body of knowledge about cognitive complexity and point to the need for continued research on this topic. The Impact of Cognitive Complexity on Impression Management A Thesis Presented To The Faculty of the Department of Psychology East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Psychology with a Concentration in Industrial and Organizational Psychology by Jeffrey O. Nuckols July, 2014 ©Copyright 2014 Jeffrey O. Nuckols The Impact of Cognitive Complexity on Impression Management by Jeffrey O. Nuckols APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF DISSERTATION/THESIS: _______________________________________________________ Jennifer L. Bowler, PhD COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Karl L. Wuensch, PhD COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________ Shahnaz Aziz, PhD CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: ____________________________________________________________ Susan L.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Perception and Attribution 3 Brian Parkinson
    9781405124003_4_003.qxd 10/31/07 2:55 PM Page 42 Social Perception and Attribution 3 Brian Parkinson KEY CONCEPTS actor–observer difference analysis of non-common effects attributional bias augmenting principle causal power causal schema central trait cognitive algebra configural model consensus information consistency information correspondence bias correspondent inference theory covariation theory depressive realism discounting principle distinctiveness information false consensus bias implicit personality theory learned helplessness theory naïve scientist model peripheral trait primacy effect salience self-fulfilling prophecy self-serving biases 9781405124003_4_003.qxd 10/31/07 2:55 PM Page 43 CHAPTER OUTLINE How can we tell what other people are like? How do we explain their actions and experiences (and our own)? This chapter introduces research intended to answer these questions. Studies of social perception show that impressions of others depend on what information is presented, how it is pre- sented, and on prior assumptions about how it fits together. Research into attribution demonstrates that perceivers consistently favour certain kinds of explanation over others. Our impressions and ex- planations are also shaped by our specific reasons for constructing them. In particular, we present social events in different ways to different people under different circumstances. Both social percep- tion and attribution therefore involve communication in combination with private interpretation. Introduction Can you remember when you first met your closest friend? How quickly did you get a sense of what he or she was like, and of how well you would get on together? Did your impression turn out to be correct, and if not, where and why did you go wrong? Now imagine that instead of meeting another person face to face, you are told about them by someone else.
    [Show full text]
  • Clothing and People-A Social Signal Processing Perspective
    Clothing and People - A Social Signal Processing Perspective Maedeh Aghaei1, Federico Parezzan3, Mariella Dimiccoli 1, Petia Radeva1;2, Marco Cristani3 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 2 Computer Vision Center, Barcelona, Spain 3 Department of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy Abstract— In our society and century, clothing is not anymore Other studies shows that clothing correlates with the used only as a means for body protection. Our paper builds personality traits of people in a way that people with formal upon the evidence, studied within the social sciences, that cloth- clothing perceive actions and objects, the inter-relationship ing brings a clear communicative message in terms of social signals, influencing the impression and behaviour of others and the intra-relationship between them in a more meaningful towards a person. In fact, clothing correlates with personality manner [36]. Clothing can make a person feel comfortable traits, both in terms of self-assessment and assessments that or not in a social situation [16] and can be considered as a unacquainted people give to an individual. The consequences determinant of how long it takes for strangers to trust one of these facts are important: the influence of clothing on the and how much they may trust them [40]. Aforementioned decision making of individuals has been investigated in the literature, showing that it represents a discriminative factor studies are evidences of the importance of clothing in so- to differentiate among diverse groups of people. Unfortunately, cial signaling. Arguably, clothing can be considered as the this has been observed after cumbersome and expensive manual most evident blueprint of individuals, which is completely annotations, on very restricted populations, limiting the scope of dependent on their conscious choices, is not as transient as the resulting claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design
    Group Processes & G Intergroup Relations P 2000 Vol 3(3) 227–256 I R Power Can Bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping Subordinates by Default and by Design Stephanie A. Goodwin Yale University Alexandra Gubin University of Massachusetts at Amherst Susan T. Fiske Princeton University Vincent Y. Yzerbyt Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve Powerholders may engage in two stereotyping processes: (a) by default, inattention to stereotype-inconsistent information, due to lack of dependency, and (b) by design, effortful attention to stereotype-consistent information, due to explicit control. Study 1 manipulated control (not dependency) over internship applicants; powerful decision-makers increased attention to stereotypic attributes, consistent with stereotyping by design. Study 2 measured differences in trait dominance as an analog to situational control, replicating Study 1. Study 3 separately manipulated perceiver control and dependency; powerful perceivers increased attention to powerless targets’ stereotypic attributes (by design) and also decreased attention to counter-stereotypic attributes (by default). Study 4 compared powerful perceivers’ ratings of potential subordinates to their own prior ratings of target categories and target traits. Relative to the powerless, powerful perceivers’ impressions were based significantly less on target traits, supporting the attention results. keywords impression formation, intergroup relations, power, stereotyping Powerful people are socially sanctioned to Author’s note judge others, as part of their positions. Jurors, Address correspondence to either Stephanie teachers, and managers, for example, must eval- A. Goodwin, Department of Psychology, Yale uate others to determine guilt, assign grades, or University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA, or promote employees. Powerful people – people Susan T. Fiske, Department of Psychology, who control other’s outcomes – could, like Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, anyone else, rely on stereotypes when they are NJ 08544–1010, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Unintentional Influences in Intentional Impression Formation
    IMPRESSION FORMATION 1 Unintentional Influences in Intentional Impression Formation Bertram Gawronski, Skylar M. Brannon, & Dillon M. Luke University of Texas at Austin 1. Introduction competing theoretical explanations for unintentional influences in intentional impression formation and A substantial body of research suggests that evidence regarding the impact of theoretically derived perceivers spontaneously draw inferences from moderators that make such influences more or less observed behaviors even when they do not have the likely to occur. In the final part, we discuss broader intention to form a social impression. Such implications of the reviewed research for impression unintentional inferences have been found to give rise formation. to impressions of other people’s traits (i.e., spontaneous trait inference; see Uleman, Newman, & 2. Effects of Mere Co-occurrence and Relational Moskowitz, 1996) and goals (i.e., spontaneous goal Information inference; see Moskowitz & Olcaysoy Okten, 2016). Unintentional influences in intentional For example, when learning that Avery received an A impression formation can occur in various forms, as on a math exam, people may spontaneously infer that demonstrated by classic research on halo and priming Avery is smart; and when learning that Alex donated effects in impression formation. In the current chapter, $100 to a local food bank, people may spontaneously we focus on a more recent line work suggesting that infer that Alex had the goal to help. Although these evaluative responses to an object may be jointly impressions can be the result of intentional processes, influenced by (1) the mere co-occurrence of the object the notion of spontaneous inference suggests that they with a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus (e.g., mere co- may also arise from unintentional processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Operations in Forming an Impression of Another Person
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 18, 217-234 (1982) The Informational Basis of Social Judgments: Operations in Forming an Impression of Another Person EUGENE BURNSTEIN AND YAACOV SCHUL The University of Michigan Received October 7. 1980 This paper describes four functionally distinct operations carried out in forming an impression of another person: Initial encoding, elaborative encoding, inte- gration, and decision. These processes were identified empirically on the basis of their differential sensitivity to the amount and the consistency of information in a trait description. In Study 1 as the trait set increased in size, processing was hindered to the greatest extent during initial encoding, to a moderate extent during elaborative encoding, and least during the integration-decision interval. Varying consistency produced the opposite pattern of results, that is, an incon- sistent trait description hindered processing the least during initial encoding, a moderate amount during elaborative encoding, and the most during the integra- tion-decision interval. In Study 2 the quantity of information was manipulated via implicit knowledge, that is, the associative structure activated by the trait (rather than set size). Because implicit information is “preintegrated,” impli- cation-rich traits did not hinder initial or elaborative encoding more than impli- cation-poor traits. The decision operation, however, was performed more rapidly with implication-rich traits than with implication-poor ones, which strongly sug- gests that once information is integrated, the “richer” the representation, the easier it is to arrive at a decision. Traditionally, research on social judgments in general, and impression formation in particular, has been concerned with the functional rela- tionship between properties of the judgment (e.g., the extremity of the impression) and properties of the stimulus information (e.g., the number of traits, their consistency).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Deeper Understanding of Impression Formation –
    Title page with All Author Information Towards a Deeper Understanding of Impression Formation – New Insights Gained from a Cognitive-Ecological Perspective Johannes Prager1, Joachim I. Krueger2, and Klaus Fiedler 1 1University of Heidelberg 2 Brown University Running head: Cognitive-ecological analysis of impression formation Author Note: The work underlying the present article was supported by a grant provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the last author (FI 294/23-1). Email correspondence can be addressed either to [email protected] or to [email protected] Masked Manuscript without Author Information Towards a Deeper Understanding of Impression Formation – New Insights Gained from a Cognitive-Ecological Perspective XXXXX Running head: Cognitive-ecological analysis of impression formation Author Note: XXXXX 2 Cognitive-ecological analysis of impression formation Abstract Impression formation is a basic module of fundamental research in social cognition, with broad implications for applied research on interpersonal relations, social attitudes, employee selection, and person judgments in legal and political context. Drawing on a pool of 28 predominantly positive traits used in Solomon Asch’s (1946) seminal impression studies, two research teams have investigated the impact of the number of person traits sampled randomly from the pool on the evaluative impression of the target person. Whereas Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) found a “less-is-more” effect, reflecting less positive impressions with increasing sample size n, Ullrich, Krueger, Brod, and Groschupf (2013) concluded that an n-independent averaging rule can account for the data patterns obtained in both labs. We address this issue by disentangling different influences of n on resulting impressions, namely varying baserates of positive and negative traits, different sampling procedures, and trait diagnosticity.
    [Show full text]
  • "Central Trait" Hypothesis Revisited1 Biii D. Bell and Gary G
    AN INTE RACTIONIST APPRAISAL OF IMPRESSION FORMATION The "Central Trait" Hypothesis Revisited1 BiII D. Bell and Gary Go Stanfield University of Missouri - Columbia This article examines the nature of first impressions from the interactionist perspective. A modified H. H. Kelley design (1950) of student-teacher interaction was employed with a sample of 195 college students. The fi ndi ngs demonstrate the overall complexi ty of the impression-forming process as we II as i IIustrate the Iimi­ tations of the warm-cold variable in predicting actual behcvior, Several central traits are observed to be operative in impression formation. These traits are observed to be a function both of preinformation and response alternatives in the odjecrive check­ list, Symbolic and observational presentation is found to be more influencial in forming impressions with behavioral implications than those formed solely by observational exposure. Both consid­ eration of the context of interaction and central trait identification appear necessary to specify the behavioral component of impressions. TheoreticcI Framework The interactionist perspective sheds needed light on the study of the formation and impli­ cations of first impressions. Briefly, this orientation asserts that social interaction proceeds on the basis of situational and personal definitions (Thomas, 1923j and Blumer, 1962). That is, in order for an individual to interact with another in some meaningful fashion, both must define not only the situational context of the interaction, but each must further define the other relative to the situation as well as their reciprocal relationship to one another. To make this process possible, a continual supply of information from the external environment is needed 0 This information can be obtained directly (experience) or indirectly (attitudes and opinions of others).
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes and Effects of Inferences of Impression Management in Consumption
    THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF INFERENCES OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN CONSUMPTION by Ethan Leigh Pancer A thesis submitted to the Department of Management – School of Business In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (August 2013) Copyright ©Ethan Leigh Pancer, 2013 Abstract Observers frequently make inferences of what consumers are like based on the products they use. The general view in social cognition is that the consumption behavior of others is taken at face value, where observers do not question the image being portrayed by product users. This assumption persists even though it is well known that consumers use products to manage the images they create. This dissertation aims to enrich our understanding of this issue by arguing that, under certain conditions, observers will make the inference that consumers use products to deliberately try to create certain impressions (i.e., perceptions as being phony, fake, or a poseur). Specifically, these inferences will undermine the impression, creating more negative attitudes towards the consumer. In fact, this dissertation argues that this inference can also play an important role in consumer decision making, impacting product evaluations directly (i.e., when consumers avoid products because they are concerned that others will infer they are impression managing). Five experiments examined elements of the product, the target, the situation, and the observer themselves to better understand the causes and effects of inferences of impression management. Taken as a whole, this dissertation highlights the central roles of the product’s contribution towards the target’s appearance, the attractiveness of their appearance, product functionality and feelings of observer threat in shaping IM inferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Affect Control Theory
    CHAPTER 8 Affect Control Theory DAWN T. ROBINSON LYNN SMITH-LOVIN ALLISON K. WISECUP When David Heise (1977,1979) published his early statements of affect control theory, contribut- ing to the newly developing sociology of emotion was not his primary goal. The main objective of the theory was to explain behavior in the context of social interactions. Heise hoped to develop a formal framework that could describe both the routine, expected role behaviors that people enact under normal circumstances and the creative responses they generate when encountering noninstitutionalized or counternormative situations. He combined insights from a measurement tradition in psycholinguistics (Osgood 1962, 1966; Osgood et al. 1973, 1975), empirical studies of impression formation (Gollob 1968; Gollob and Rossman 1973; Heise 1969, 1970), and a cybernetic model of perception (Powers 1973) to create his new theory of social action. Heise's work has become a central part of the new sociology of emotions for three main rea- sons. First, one of the theory's fundamental assumptions is that cognitive understandings of social interaction around us cannot be separated from our affective reactions to them. Every cognitive label—every way that we think or talk about our social life—brings with it an affective meaning. Affect is irrevocably linked to all of our thoughts, identities, and actions. Second, the core affect control principle is that people act to maintain the affective meanings that are evoked by a defi- nition of the situation. Therefore, affect control theory makes the control oi affect the key feature underlying social life. The theory is a new variant of symbolic interactionism, in that it stresses that social actors respond to a symbolically represented world and strive to maintain the meanings that are associated with the elements of that world.
    [Show full text]