Anonymity on Facebook? Don't need it!

Stephanie and I worked on coding a Facebook group that dealt specifically with Eating Disorders (ED) specifically in Princeton, NJ. As you know, Facebook, while leaving you some anonymity generally reveals you, your interests, friends, etc. depending on how much information you wish to post. At the very least, a name is necessary and an email address is needed to sign up to Facebook. Therefore, a support group on this online social network reveals a person. However, this fact did not seem to phase the respondents in the least. Most were patients of this specific treatment center and were willing and able to share insights of being a patient.

After tallying our data, the results showed that some of the percentages were similar to Braithwaite, but others weren’t. Information and emotional support did indeed rank highest in our coding. This was probably due to the shared experiences of the people in the support group so they were able to give advice and provide encouragement as well as show understanding for those still suffering from the disorder. Our data was similar also to Braithwaite where the esteem support was somewhat high as well. Again, this was probably due to the fact that the people responding understand and remember how it felt to be on the other end of the spectrum and was much more aware of giving out praises and encouragement than others might have thought to.

The difference lies in our coding for tangible assistance. Perhaps this was because we perceived the definition of tangible assistance, as something similar to what we thought was esteem support. Our coding had the same percentage for both tangible assistance and esteem support. In our definition, we thought tangible assistance meant active participation and express willingness to help. By that definition, we thought that being there to talk and share experiences was apparent in the responses so many times we would have a ‘yes’ for that section. Therefore, our data for that section may be somewhat skewed.

Finally, our lowest percentage was network support, which, while falls in line with Braithwaite, does not follow in line with how low that percentage should be. This difference could possibly be that this support group is specific about a place they share in common, and, as I’ve mentioned earlier, having Facebook be less anonymous with responses, allowed for people to open up their network to the people who seemed to need it in the group. However, even so, many were still not as willing to share their network support with the person they are responding to.

Overall, our data supported Braithwaite’s analysis of social support groups in CMC. The only discrepancy we had was mostly due to our misinterpretation of the meaning of ‘tangible assistance’ and the difference between Facebook support groups versus other social network support groups. I guess not all CMC support groups have to have anonymity in order for it to be truly helpful for those in need.