Social implications of imformation

7/29/2019 Social implications of imformation

1/16

Facebook - self-presentation and Identity construction

In the era of Social networking sites, social connectedness has become increasingly

online and virtual. Face-to-face communications are starting to be taken over by the computer

mediated communication. It serves to the gratification of various personal and social needs such

as keeping in touch with friends, sharing information about oneself and learning about social

events (Tosun 2012). A qualitative study found that members increase their social productivity

by re-establishing connections with lost friends, and viewing friends through their online profile

(Dwyer 2007). This brings us to an important aspect of virtualization, the creation and

maintenance of an online persona, which is not bound by restrictions that a conventional face-to-

face communication might have. This online platform provides the user with the ability to

choose what to portray in his/her online identity. In a conventional social interaction users

choose to use one or many of their identities based on the situation. For example, a user might

have multiple identities such as a husband, father, son, brother etc. He chooses to use one or

many of his identities depending on the social context he is in. This paper will focus on the need

for self-presentation on online platforms as an act of bridging the socio-technical gap and discuss

interaction between the technical feasibility of SNS (Social networking sites) and social needs of

users. It will further address the types of self-presentation and user motives to use digital

persona. The adaptation of this feature by various social groups distinguished by gender and age

is studied to analyze the relationship between a technology and society.

Social networking sites as a Socio technical system

A social networking site is a socio technical system comprising of users and technology.

Users pursue a goal and must therefore interact with others through technology. The interaction


2/16

with others brings in the social aspect (Coenen et al. 2009). When technology is unable to meet

the needs of the social dimension it is termed as the social-technical gap. The socialtechnical

gap is the divide between what we know we must support socially and what we can support

technically (Ackerman 2000). This gap is caused by two factors: The difficulty in accurately

capturing social requirements such as privacy, trust, self-presentation and in creating a cognitive

model for these social requirements (Dwyer 2007). The interaction between technology and

social requirements constantly results in a coevolution as the technology tries to catch up to the

social requirements and society adapts to the technology that does not leverage itself to provide

100% required functionality.

The primary detail required to analyze a social technical system is to assess its social

needs. In our case: identity construction. For many years, people on the Internet have gone

without an online profile. People used the Internet as a source of information and a platform to

communicate to others. As social interaction began to rise on the Internet, the need for self-

identity and social profile were also on the rise. The main reason being that the ability to evaluate

another persons identity is critical if any communication is to ensue (Coenen et al. 2009). When

communication comes into picture, users would want to gauge the identity of the viewers with

whom they are sharing information. The online persona or identity creation began in anonymous

environments such as chat rooms and bulletin boards where users communicated without

knowing the true identity of another. This anonymity steered users to engage in play-act at being

someone else (Zhao et al. 2008). It did not seem much of an issue with anonymous platforms.

With the advent of online dating, users began to look for trust and privacy. The results from a

study suggested that people acted differently in such environments than they did in other online

settings. This was an important finding, for it indicated that the online world was not monolithic,


3/16

and online self-presentations varied according to the nature of the settings (Zhao et al. 2008).

The study results also indicate that the identity construction behavior varies between the initial

anonymous environments and less anonymous ones like Facebook.Thus self-presentation began

to take a new form on less anonymous platforms such as online dating websites and social

networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn.

Identity construction and self-presentation

The question of identity, what it is and how it is constructed, is difficult to answer in

everyday life. How does the process of identity construction change when the complexity of

online social structures is added? The study below will address the idea of identity construction

in an online setting and how it is influenced by the society.

The first college version of Facebook required the use of a registered official campus

email address linked to the Facebook profile (Zhao et al. 2008). This created an almost perfectly

non-anonymous platform since the real name of users was displayed along with some personal

information derived from their student account. This provided the trust factor that users wanted

to see during their online communication events. Since Facebook was initially provided as a

means of socializing within the campus, its functionality was restricted to a specific user type.

Users did not have the need to edit their profile as it already had important personal information.

As Facebook began gaining popularity, the need to cater to users outside the registered campus

circle gave birth to the online identity construction/self-presentation feature in Facebook. When

users outside the campus circle came in contact with the network, they could not be verified with

a campus profile. This created the opportunity for an identity construction by the user to choose

what traits he wants to present to his viewer community.


4/16

User groups and their identity construction and self-presentation strategies

Self-presentation is composed of expressions given (information that is intended) and

expressions given off (information that leaks out) (Goffman 1959). Users intend to showcase

some information to their audience, but there are certain traits that may leak into their self-

presentation in spite of efforts to hide them. Users have control over their identity towards

specific audience. Goffman in The presentation of self in everyday life revolves his views

around the belief that every human has two behaviors on stage and off stage. He compares the

social interactions of humans to that of a theatrical performance. The stage is analogous to a

social context and the actors are the people present in a society. The on stage space is where the

positive aspect of the self and desired impressions are highlighted. The back stage region is

where individuals can be their self without having to worry about their identity in society. This is

like the time a person gets with himself where he does not have to portray to have certain traits,

nor perform for viewers. The space is entirely for him where he is his true actual self. In a social

network, an actor has to perform on stage everyday as he interacts with the audience and co-

actors. According to Goffman, the social actor has the ability to choose his props and audience.

His only goal is to keep coherent with the various stage performances, which is done by the

interaction with other actors. When actors move from role to role and switch between settings, it

creates the need for multiple identities The true-self back stage and the multiple on stage

persona. Drawing from the actor stage interaction, the on stage space is analogous to the Internet

where the actor is constantly interacting with other actors. The actor can chose his identity in the

online space and control which traits are visible to the other social actors in that network. The on

stage space is considered to be for self-idealization where no negative traits are exposed. The


5/16

actor on stage performs in a manner adhering to social norms and rules (Goffman 1959). We

have thus identified the first user group based on their motive to use an online identity. The first

user group of identity construction is a person who turns to an online identity to self-idealize and

to hide negative traits. User groups are a key deciding factor in the acceptance and diffusion of a

new technology/feature (Bijker 1997).

Whilst the view of Goffman states that the backstage is for ones true actual self and

idealization is highlighted on stage, there are contrary arguments. People find it difficult to

portray their true self on a face-to-face interaction especially when it is against social norms and

expectations. Those aspects could be more easily expressed through ones online profile since

their physical appearance is hidden (Tosun 2012). True self involves ones actually existing

characteristics but are not fully expressed in social life. Individuals need to express their true self

in a social environment. When they are unable to do so, they look for alternate frameworks in

which they can express those traits. The study by Tosun in his Motives for Facebook use and

expressing true self on the Internet suggested that individuals that are more likely to showcase

their true traits are more prospective to use Facebook often since they tend to look at this as a

chance to initiate new inter personal relationships (Tosun 2012). Their identity construction will

be on lines to portray a characteristic they are not comfortable showcasing in a conventional

social setting. This is the second user group based on motives and users look to identity creation

as a second chance to be oneself whilst hiding their physical appearance.

Facebook is used in 2 ways: to maintain already anchored offline relationships and to

create new ones online. According to a study conducted byZhao, Grasmuck, & Martin across 63

Facebook accounts including a sample of men and women hailing from 5 different ethnic groups,

modes of identity creation strategies were based on the extent to which visible and verbal


6/16

techniques were involved. Self-presentation on Facebook varied from implicit to explicit identity

claims. The farthest end of the continuum, the implicit identity claims are predominantly visual

involving the use of photographs with friends and social involvement in a community of friends

by numerous wall posts and comments. The user aims at generating the desired impression on

their viewers by showing without telling. They are more interested in depicting the depth of their

social ties by portraying interaction and bonding in every communication they make.

The continuum of implicit and explicit identity claims on Facebook(Zhao et al. 2008).

The second cluster of users is the cultural self. Such users engage in enumerative

cultural description and tend to portray details about themselves by listing their hobbies, favorite

food, tv shows, movies they have watched, places visited etc. They do not implicitly claim their

identity by a bunch of pictures, neither do they explicitly describe about themselves. Rather they

give an intermediate level of detail about things they do or like. They expect the viewer to

conclude on their personality based on the information they provide. The third mode is the

explicit verbal description of self. This type of user directly introduces themselves to their

viewers by self-description (Zhao et al. 2008).

Another result of this study is the type of identity claims that users make. Being popular

among friends was a claim that was present on almost all user profiles. Majority of the users

had no solo pictures at all or had pictures along with friends indicating the effort to construct a

group social identity. Well-roundedness was another characteristic to emphasize the interest in


7/16

hobbies and other activities. The last was thoughtfulness. The impression of possessing this

trait was achieved through the use of positive thought-provoking quotes. While the non-

anonymity of the environment does seem to make people more realistic and honest in their

self-presentation, the reduction ofgating obstacles in the online setting enables the users to

stretch the truth a bit (Strano 2008). This re-emphasizes the claim by Goffman about trying

to idealize on an on stage setting.

The online identity as the social actor creates it, is comprised of anything the user wants

to portray. The first aspect that reaches the eyes of the viewer is the profile image. The

qualitative analysis of the choices people make while choosing their Facebook profile image

would throw light on additional user groups based on gender and age differences. Profile images

are a form of implicit identity construction.

Women tend to change the appearance of their websites more often than men do. Also Women

are more likely to display a photograph of them smiling in an online dating forum. This may not

apply directly to Facebook since the primary purpose of Facebook is not dating for more than

16% of the population but can be extended to Facebook identities (Strano 2008). From personal

observation I see that women are more interested in finding out how popular they are based on

the number of likes they receive for their pictures and posts, that drives them towards a more

dynamic profile page. Men are driven by highlighting an achievement or special event and hence

have lower dynamics on their profiles.

One interesting observation based on age differences is that Younger participants

constructed their identities through visually elaborate and individualized profiles, while older

adolescents preferred an aesthetically plain profile appearance that highlighted social

connections through "links to others' profiles and by posting photos of the peer group socializing


8/16

offline (Strano 2008). The reason for this being that older population probably already has

strong anchored relationships offline and just want to keep in touch with them online, whereas

the younger generation is also on the lookout for new connections that creates the visually

elaborate profiles. There is clearly a distinction between users of different gender and age group.

Below are some graphical representations of results from the study:

Gender based variations

Age based variations

Original data available in Appendix A (Strano 2008).

The percentage of women who have their profile images showcase friends or special

events is much higher than men giving proof that their profile tends to me more dynamic.


9/16

(Women 19.8%, Men -8.9%) (Strano 2008). Though there are some traits that seem to be

common among men and women, the profile image being a depiction of how attractive and fun

loving they are seems more essential to women. Users separated by gender and age differences

have different motives and needs that have to be accommodated in the design of a feature.

Users may not always have a single self-presentation online. They may use more than

one SNS (Social Networking site), which creates the necessity to manage multiple online

personas. Another type of multiple identity management comes into play when the user has 2 or

more audience groups on the same platform. As the user moves from one stage of life to another,

they interact with people from different phases of their life (DiMicco & Millen 2007). It is

common that users what to share only a specific part of their life to specific audience. The users

have the capacity to choose what traits they want to explicitly show off to their audience base

(Miller 1995). Drawing from personal experience, I have friends from my school, undergraduate

and graduate phases of life. There are some pieces of information that I may want only my

school friends to be aware of. This creates a multiple identity management on a single Facebook

account since I want different friends to view different pieces of information about myself.

Based on a study of 63 corporate Facebook user profiles the 3 types of indiviuals were

identified in a context of multiple identity management. They are: Reliving the college days,

Dressed to Impress and Living in the business world (DiMicco & Millen 2007). The

Reliving college days individuals primarily use Facebook to stay in touch with their college

friends. They do not have to manage their identity for the corporate world since their primary

motive to use Facebook is to keep in touch with their college mates. Their only primary target

audience is friends from college and hence would not require an alternate identity. They tend to

carry the identity construction that was made during the initial use of Facebook as a socializing


10/16

platform on campus. The information about their corporate space is very limited and could

probably be thought of as mere information to their old friends rather than a split corporate

identity. The other two types are managing their self-presentation to some extent. This is because

they have at least two sets of viewers: Professional colleagues and old friends.

The user groups discussed above are summarized as follows:

1. Users who look to self idealize on Facebook and hide their negative traits2. Users who tend to use Facebook as a chance to show their true self which they are unable

to do in a conventional social set up

3.

User types based on identity claim

a. Implicit user who shows rather than tellingb. Explicit user who tells via self descriptionc. Cultural self who is an intermediate

4. User groups based on Profile imagesa. Separated by genderb. Separated by age

5. Based on multiple identity managementa. Reliving college daysb. Dressed to Impressc. Living in the Business world

User groups influence on Technology

While the diffusion and acceptance of a new technology largely depends on these groups,

they also form the basis for any new or future change that is ought to happen in the field (Bijker


11/16

1997). The identity construction on Facebook has a variety of user groups and hence would

require design flexibility to satisfy all users while providing the essential functionality. The

evolution of online identity construction as a feature has been changing as the new user groups

had fresh needs. The design features and privacy controls lend it to be used by diverse user

groups in specific ways. While the users groups need to attain closure (Social groups see no

problem with the new feature) to eliminate the need for alternative designs, they also help in

changing present design to accommodate user needs. For example, initially Facebook was meant

to be used by college students with a registered email address, but as the target group expanded,

there were some design changes made to accommodate the needs of new users. The need for a

campus email address was no longer enforced. The user groups thus play a vital role in the

evolution of a technology and the way it changes over the years (Bijker 1997). The profile image

and other contents on the Facebook profile can be have a specific set of audience that can be

controlled by the user. But in the current design, the cover image is by default visible to

everyone and cannot be controlled. Over the years we could expect a change or ability to control

this feature. As more people start using their cover photo as an aspect of their online identity, a

need for privacy and trust would arise thereby causing design changes. Technology would thus

keep evolving as the user base expands and as the users increase, their diverse motives alter the

technological feature to accommodate the new social needs.

Identity as a product of sociocultural context

While technology is shaped by social needs and behavior of its users, the user traits in the

first place are also influenced by the sociocultural context in which they prevail (Baumeister &

Mark 1996). Identity itself is a characteristic that is affected by the social setting. Adaptation


12/16

may be the best way to conceptualize the complex, multilateral relationship between individual

identity and sociocultural context, because it recognizes the causal importance of culture yet

also recognizes individual choice and change. This argument is developed by considering how

several historical changes in the sociocultural context (i.e. increasing freedom of choice,

changed interpersonal patterns, loss of traditional value bases, and rising tension between desire

for uniqueness and difficulty of achieving it) have led to changes in the nature of identity.

Although identity adapts to changes in its sociocultural context, these changes sometimes create

new problems, including the specially problematic nature of modern selfhood. (Baumeister &

Mark 1996). Identity is not a product of the society, but is influenced by the sociocultural

context. Also from another study results identity is not an individual characteristic;

it is not an expression of something innate in a person, it is rather a social product,

the outcome of a given social environment and hence performed differently in varying contexts.

Depending on the characteristics of the environment in which they find themselves,

individuals will choose to claim identities that can help them better situate within the given

social environment. True selves, real selves, and hoped-for possible selves are

products of different situations rather than characteristics of different individuals (Zhao et al.

2008).

Technology and the society A broader perspective

The interaction between online user identity and the technology that supports it will be

always interconnected and influence each other. The difficulty in accurately capturing social

requirements such as privacy, trust and self-presentation and in creating a cognitive model for

social requirements would cause the interaction between the technology and society to stay alive


13/16

since this creates a socio technical gap (Dwyer 2007). The technology is unable to accurately

capture social needs, which results in a product that does not accommodate the need completely.

As a result, a new technology is developed for a user need, the society interacts with it and tries

to adapt to it. This in turn alters the behavior of the society and new needs are born. This process

will be a continuous one, which will lead to the co evolution of technology and society. These

two processes will go hand in hand and cannot function on their own since neither of them is in

isolation. Thus the society adapts to the evolution of any new technology and that technology

shapes the society that created it.

Word count: 3640

References

1. Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. "Identity construction onFacebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships." Computers in human

behavior 24.5 (2008): 1816-1836.

2. Goffman, Erving. "The presentation of self in everyday life." (1959): 1-17.


14/16

3. Tosun, Leman Pnar. "Motives for Facebook use and expressing true self on theInternet." Computers in Human Behavior (2012).

4. Strano, Michele M. "User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation throughFacebook profile images." Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on

Cyberspace 2.2 (2008): 5.

5. Dwyer, Catherine. "Task technology fit, the social technical gap, and social networkingsites." Proceedings of the 13th Americas conference on information systems. Accessed.

Vol. 2. No. 10. 2007.

6.

Coenen, Tanguy, Wouter Van den Bosch, and Veerle Van der Sluys. "An analysis of the

socio-technical gap in social networking sites." Handbook of research on socio-technical

design and social networking systems. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI (2009).

7. Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark Muraven. "Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, andhistorical context." Journal of Adolescence 19.5 (1996): 405-416.

8. DiMicco, Joan Morris, and David R. Millen. "Identity management: multiplepresentations of self in facebook." Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM

conference on Supporting group work. ACM, 2007.

9. Miller, Hugh. "The presentation of self in electronic life: Goffman on the Internet."Embodied knowledge and virtual space conference. Vol. 9. 1995.

10.Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark Muraven. "Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, andhistorical context."Journal of Adolescence 19.5 (1996): 405-416.

11.Ackerman, Mark S. "The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between socialrequirements and technical feasibility." HumanComputer Interaction 15.2-3 (2000):

179-203.


15/16

12. Bijker, Wiebe E. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnicalchange. The MIT Press, 1997.

Appendix A(Strano 2008)


16/16

Social implications of imformation

Documents