Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore // Computer-Mediated Communication Self-presentation, interpersonal perception, and deception 25 January 2012.

Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore //

Computer-Mediated Communication

Self-presentation, interpersonal perception, and deception

25 January 2012

1/25/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication 2

The basic stuff: readings, website, etc…

Office hours:305A South HallWednesday 1:30 to 2:30 pm

Course reader — for what’s not onlineAt Copy Central (2560 Bancroft at Telegraph)

Class mailing list (directions on course homepage)

[email protected]

Web site — syllabus and readings (password)http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i216/s12/

Weekly reviews

Two short reviews required per week. “Short but informative.” Think of a good online review (Yelp, Amazon.com, etc.). A

few paragraphs is sufficient. Be honest but be specific. Critique, explore, examine — no need to summarize. Due by 5pm every Tuesday. No Exceptions! Reviews are an important part of discussion. We will wrap them into our lectures

and slides. 30% of your grade — can’t pass the class without them. Course password: ************


Mailing List:[email protected]


https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/listinfo/[email protected]

Identity: “Who am I?”

Identity consists of personal identity + social identity Social identity often based on group affiliations

Paradigm shift in conceptions of identity —

Modern (Enlightenment through 20th century) Fixed, stable, unitary

Post-Modern (now) Fluid, multiple, socially constructed Different roles in different settings: “One wakes up as a lover, makes

breakfast as a mother, and drives to work as a lawyer.” — Sherry Turkle

Different contexts make different aspects of our identity more salient: e.g., a classroom, party, church, or family dinner.

1/25/12 5Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Identity Theory (Sociology)

Identity Theory (e.g., Stryker 1980)

Individuals have “role identities”: character and the role an individual devises as an occupant of a particular social position. ‘Self’ is hierarchical ordering of identities by salience. The greater the commitment on an identity, the greater the salience of the identity. Salience of identity influences behavioral choices in a situation.


When and where do you “activate” your identity?


Social Identity Theory (Psychology)

Social Identity Theory (e.g., Tajfel et al. 1981; Turner 1985)

How group membership and “belongingness” have consequences for interpersonal and intergroup relations. As one looks for a positive sense of self, they compare their group with other groups and tend to create a favorable distinction for their own group

1/25/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Photo credit: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/10176597-419/kyle-williams-fumbles-away-49ers-chance-at-super-bowl.html

8

CORFing!!!

“Minimal Group” Paradigm


Identity and the internet Disembodiment: identity/soul/spirit separate from

physical body

CMC allows us to adopt identities independent from our bodies (and the markers they contain)

Sherry Turkle (1995): “[On the Internet] you can be whoever you want to be. You can completely redefine yourself if you want. [People] don’t look at your body and make assumptions. They don’t hear your accent and make assumptions. All they see are your words.”


Self-presentation and identity Symbolic markers express our identity to others —

and help us make sense of it ourselves Signals of who we are

(or want to be, or want people to think we are)

Offline: clothes, hair, body modifications

Online?

Identity is socially constructed and informed by our relations with others — what they think of us, what we think of them, how we think of ourselves.



A brief introduction to Symbolic Interaction

“The character of interaction as it takes place between human beings.”

Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) developed much of the sociological approach to SI

Long history of development in both philosophy and sociology

In essence: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation”


Core Features of SI

Symbols…

Change…


Core Features of SI

Interaction…

Empirical… However: note the focus on the micro-level


Goffman’s approach and focus

How individuals create and maintain their “social self”

Dramaturgical approach: Uses theater and drama as a metaphor for how we develop and present ourselves


http://media.knoxnews.com/media/img/photos/2010/08/11/090110bjheroleahy_t607.jpg


Frontstage and backstage


More key concepts from Goffman

“Sincere” vs. “cynical”

“Idealization”

“Definition of the situation”

“Expressions given”

“Expressions given off”

“Impression management”


Expressions “given” and “given off”

Goffman discusses two types of expressions:

“given” (intentional)

“given off” (unintentional)

Group discussion

Take a moment individually and think of one or two roles that you play in your life that you feel are core to your identity.

Get together with your group to discuss: What aspects of these roles do you perform differently due to the

qualities of the communication medium you’re using? Are some media better-suited for performing some roles? If so,

why?

Pick one or two roles from your group where the communication medium makes a difference in how it’s performed to share with the class.



Social order through interaction?

Goffman argues that social order can be an outcome of our symbolic interactions…

What are some examples of how this “social order” might occur (in CMC or other ‘mediated’ situations)?


What is the “setting” in CMC interaction?

Where does it come from?


“ The online world is a wholly built environment. The architects of a virtual space — from the software designers to the site administrators — shape the community in a more profound way than do their real-world counterpart. People eat, sleep, and work in buildings; the buildings affect how happily they do these things. But the buildings do not completely control their perception of the world. In the electronic domain, the design of the environment is everything.”— Donath


“The problem with 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life' and the use of it in the discussion of CMC and identity, is that his dramaturgical metaphors are manifested in analogue examples and not intended for being use online. This is evident when talking about backstage - at home with no physical presence of people – and this is most often where we are when commutating with other people online” -Morten

“I wonder if sociologists like Goffman who write about basic human functions or interactions ever take a step back and wonder, as I often do, what exactly the value is that is being added. Do they question it?” -Monica


Signaling

Assessment signals Handicap (costly) signals Index signals

Conventional signals Cost of signaling, cost of assessing

What are some more examples of signals? At a bar, on IM, in online dating, on Facebook?


Costs and benefits for sender

Costs Production Risk Punishment

Benefits Signaling: Changing observer’s beliefs Functional: Hedonic and utilitarian


Costs and benefits for receiver

Costs Assessment Being deceived

by a dishonest signal

Benefits Signaling: Learning about the sender Functional: Again, hedonic and utilitarian


How does signaling differ online and offline?

04/19/23 Computer-Mediated Communication 29


Just for fun

Passport to the Pub: A guide to British pub etiquette http://www.sirc.org/publik/pub.html

Guide to Flirting http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html

Both from Social Issues Research Centre.


Deception


Digital deception

“The intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of the message.” Deliberate Designed to mislead or create a

false belief Information communicated

through technological mediation


Identity…ambiguity vs. deception

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication1/25/12 34

Expression and Interpretation

04/19/23 Computer-Mediated Communication

Recall: Donath (1999) ties both voice and language to Erving Goffman’s concepts of “expressions given” and “expressions given off”:

35


For Example: Deception, Norms and Perception in Photos

Lauren Session’s study of MySpace photos (2009) Users who post these

photographs are conforming to a social trend at the expense of their individuality

The presentation of these photographs is narcissistic

These photographs purposefully conceal the body


The classic “down shirt” MySpace photo.


Profile-basedSelf-Presentation

ObservedSelf-Presentation

In lab measure:

•Height•Weight•Age•Income•Photograph

Cross-Validation



Deception?

(Hancock et al. 2007)


Deception?



Deception?


Types of digital deception

Identity-based Stems from false manipulation of person or

organization

Message-based Takes place in communication between

dyads or larger groups


Identity-based deception

Turkle pointed out that it’s easy to assume new identities online due to anonymity and multiple modes of social interaction. We use signals (screen names, language) to

establish our identities online. It is relatively easy to manipulate these signals to

falsely represent ourselves. Donath distinguishes between assessment

and conventional signals Assessment signals are more expensive to

maintain (harder to fake)


Types of identity deception

Trolling: posing as a legitimate community member

Category deception: membership in a social group (male vs. female, black vs. white, Berkeley vs. Stanford student)

Identity concealment: deception by omission or hiding of identity information



The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover

Male psychiatrist, Alex, created female online persona, Joan.

Formed intimate online friendships with women on CompuServe chat channels.

Initiated real-life romantic relationship with one of them (Alex “introduced” by Joan).

Is this right or wrong?

A legitimate or illegitimate use of CMC?


The Deception in the Message…


How is deception different online and offline?

04/19/23 49Computer-Mediated Communication

Think of lie you told today or yesterday.

What medium did it take place in?


Lying in different communication media

In which medium will we lie most?1. FtF interaction 2. Phone3. Instant Messaging4. Email

Why?


Participants recorded social interactions and lies for 7 days with the Social Interaction & Lie form

Each social interaction (greater than 10 min) Which medium (FtF, phone, IM, email, chat, etc.) Whether or not they lied

Examining deceptive behavior


% of interactions involving a lie

27%

37%

21%

14%

FtF Phone EmailInstant

Message

Results — Hancock et al.


Media features FtF Phone IM Email

Synchronous X X X*

Recordless X X X*

Distributed (not copresent)

X X X

Lying predictions

Feature-based 2 1 2 3

Media Richness 1 2 3 4

Social Distance 4 3 2 1

Feature-based approach

* Usually


Predictions based on features

The more recordable the medium (paper-trail), the less likely people are to lie.

The more synchronous and distributed (but not recordable), the more lying will occur: Phone most FtF IM Email least Others?



“It was surprising to me that a diary study about the mediums of deception found that participants lied most frequently on the phone. I would've thought that lying in emails, chat, or other forms of indirect communication where the two people can neither hear nor see each other is much more common than on the phone or face-to-face” - Wei

“I don't agree that deception in person is as straightforward as he claims. While there are visual cues, body language and the ability to infer from your interaction, being able to judge deception F2F can be just as complex if there is no prior relationship or history with the other person” - Kristine

Deception as an aspect of “Media Richness”

Media ‘richness’ is only a singular dimension that may mask the complexity of choice, behavior and inference of purpose.


Image: Time Barrow Dissertation Research, http://blog.timebarrow.com/2009/09/media-richness-theory/

Other Dimensions:

Synchronicity

Recordability

Distribution of Speaker/Listener


What about the content of lies?

Another Hancock et al. diary study:

More lies about feelings in synchronous interaction (because feelings are more likely to come up)

More lies about explanations in asynchronous media (more time to plan and construct)

More lies about actions on the telephone (where people can’t see what you’re doing)

No difference across media in lies about facts (might have expected more in recordless media)


Do we use language differently when we lie? In asynchronous, text-based interaction:

Liars used more words, were more expressive, non-immediate and informal, and made more typos (Zhou et al. 2004).

Similar in synchronous IM interaction: More words and fewer self-references

Those lied to also IMed differently, even when they didn’t realize the deceit: Shorter sentences, more questions.


Detecting deception Most people (even trained professionals,

like police officers) detect deception at no better than a chance rate Some reliable markers of lying: Illustrative and

other body movements, higher pitch, microexpressions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXm6YbXxSYk

These are hard to detect online, esp. in text People highly motivated to lie may be

easier to detect (i.e., trying harder may give you away) — “motivation impairment effect”


Detecting deception No consistent findings about whether

certain media make it easier or harder to detect deception In some studies, it’s easier in richer media; in

others, in leaner media or no difference. However, the motivation impairment effect may

be lessened in CMC — less is “given off”:

Hancock et al. (2005): Motivated liars detected more often than unmotivated ones in FtF, but less often in CMC. Motivated CMC liars least detected of all.



For next Wednesday…Community, Online and Offline

Cohen, A.P. (1985) Chapters 1 and 3 from The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. (In reader.)

Haythornthwaite, C. (2007) Social networks and online community. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., and U-D. Reips (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (In reader.)

McKenna, K.Y.A. (2008) Influences on the nature and functioning of online groups. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Remember to write your reviews!

Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore // Computer-Mediated Communication Self-presentation, interpersonal perception, and deception 25 January 2012.

Documents

edui216s12 slide

group membership

minimal group paradigm

edui216s12 http

different aspects

different roles

different settings

role identities