Confession: I changed my friend's Facebook picture to a Pokemon character for this assignment.

From our class discussion, I was fairly convinced that the majority of online cues could be classified as assessment. Like most of the world, I was certain that accuracy was trivial online: identity could be faked like a Halloween mask. In my defense, it’d be hard to argue the ease of fabrication in such psychological spaces. So, for this project, when I had to dissect the anatomy of a Facebook profile, I was certain I would find very few assessment cues.
I was mostly right. Facebook allows its users the ability to build their online persona with an array of text boxes and drop-down menus. No need to provide a birth certificate or driver’s license, in Zuckerberg’s world you are believed at face-value (errrr… should I say profile picture value?). The only true assessment cue on Facebook deals with your “Network.” For instance, to become a part of the Cornell network, you have to verify you are a member of the Cornell community by typing in your Cornell email address. This is a weighty assessment cue: proving your legitimacy and, arguably, much more about your character. Still, it is only one facet of your online persona. However, I did find a few other hidden assessment cues lurking within the depths of the Facebook profile.
For instance, I found that it is very difficult to fake tagged pictures or photo albums. Sure you can be super-selective, detagging pictures that are less than favorable or taking a wealth of pictures that you are not in (this one personally amuses me; it’s like the “stalker cam”). Yet in the end, I would say that pictures are fairly accurate and you can get a good idea of an individual (what they are, and what they aspire to be) based on these two Facebook features. For instance, the friend I choose for this project has 76 Facebook albums and 1111 (lucky, eh?) tagged photos. With even a brief scan of her photos, you can tell something about her personality, and it is unlikely that the assumptions you make will be that far off the mark. For example, her albums are filled with pictures of people, her and her friends, not black-and-white landscapes or pictures of her dogs. I think that such choices of pictures say something about personality (extraversion, etc.)—and judging from both her self-assessment and my personal knowledge, it’s true; she’s a social person who enjoys the constant company of others.
It would also be difficult to falsify your Facebook wall or friends. All these are social indicators that directly require others approval. You can’t write on your own wall (or if you do, you are a tool—see, even I’m passing judgment!). The only reason my friend judged her Facebook friends as less accurate was because she felt that often the terms of friendship on Facebook are very weak. Many people she had “friended” after a night on the town were simply acquaintances or, in some cases, no longer even friends. This leads me to wonder why people are so quick to make friends on Facebook but so opposed to “unfriending” these pals when the relationship turns stale. . . or sour.
In terms of conventional signals, I found the following: most anything you fill in a text box can be faked like a tan. For instance, as a junior in college, my friend is definitely not still involved in high school Model U.N. or Mock Congress. Also, scarily enough, you can also lie about such things as your name (I’ve had several friends change their names in hopes of alluding potential employers) and sex, or the “Basics” as Facebook calls them. Lying about the basics?! Does this actually happen? I’d like to claim no, but I know of several cases where it has happened (such as the relationship status I mention in the last paragraph), however I believe that people mostly do not lie about those basic characteristics. I think this is mainly because most people know their Facebook friends from F2F interactions and therefore are less able to falsify such information without being caught. They are more accountable, in that manner, for what they choose to reveal on Facebook. This is different from other online mediums that often do not have a layer of accountability (also because they may have no intention of future F2F interaction).
I further wonder what the addition of the recent Facebook applications could add to this deception mix. Some, like Bumper Stickers (that you can receive from friends) and Top Friends (that friends must approve) are less vulnerable to manipulation than others listing personal interests, for example.
Lastly, I would like to remark that, in my opinion, it’s often what you leave out of your profile that says the most about your personality. For example, the friend I interviewed left her relationship status field empty (she’s in a relationship). She claimed she likes to leave it blank because it can get “messy” during a breakup. With a little prying I discovered the real reason (which I already accurately guessed): she wants to be able to flirt with other guys and gain their interest. This speaks LOADS about her impression management and personality. Clearly she believes that she would be unable to attract attention if she was listed as “In a Relationship” (it would be interested to find out if her assumption is true). It also shows that she uses Facebook in a very strategic manner, presenting a formulated version of herself that was very well thought-out. People also omit things such as their wall or tagged photos. I find these choices intriguing and wonder whether such omissions could be considered digital deception.

As for the Pokemon character profile picture, I doubt many people would consider this deception. Most people with half-a-brain can see that it was chose in humor, not in intent to decieve. Hopefully my friend will have some humor when she comes home and finds out that she now bears an uncanny resemblance to Jigglypuff.