Facebook Vital Signs

Facebook is one of the most fascinating social networking spaces present on the Internet today. I find the etiquette and social norms on Facebook vary drastically from other social networks. Media Richness Theory says that people will be very strategic about the means of communication they use. On Facebook, right at the top of the page you get a quick run down of people’s “vital signs.” I think because of this, people are very deliberate about how they present themselves in this section. I have observed in the past how people chose their relationship status, sexual orientation and their religion is very specific. I think part of this is due to the placement of where it is on Facebook’s page.
I interviewed a friend to see how he used this section of Facebook. His age, sex and location were all accurate. These are all assessment signals that are very difficult to change in real life and most of his friends/acquaintances would know this information from face to face interactions. He was also truthful about his sexual orientation and relationship status. The interesting parts of his profile versus what we discussed in the interview came from his political views and religion.
For political status he did not have that part filled in. I asked him to describe his political views to me. He said he was very liberal and registered as Green Party. When I asked him why he didn’t have that listed on his Facebook he said that he didn’t want people to associate him with Nader or Michael Moore. Even though he was registered as Green Party he would most likely not vote Green Party and didn’t want people to think that he would be stealing a vote from the Democratic Party, hence essentially voting republican.
This is an extremely strategic and thought out use of the medium. His message could also only be communicated this way in Facebook. When people omit information from that section of the profile, or have it set too private, it’s very obvious choice. Even though he didn’t actually say anything, he’s using a messaged based digital deception through omission.
Another interesting point in this section of his profile was the religion category. On his profile he has it listed as “who knows.” When I asked him what his religions believes were he said he was a non-practicing Mormon. I asked him why he didn’t list that and his answer was that he still believes in the religion but doesn’t want to be associated with the image people have of Mormons being over zealous polygamists. He understands the social context associated with Mormons and wants to distance himself from that.
In a face-to-face interaction religion could be an assessment signal. The medium of Facebook has allowed it to be easily disguised making it a conventional signal. Making it very easy to hide, change or omit. I believe that religion can be a large part of who a person is and an explanation of their behavior. The ability to hide this or disguise it makes it an identity-based deception.
Given that Facebook is a very lean medium and the locus in Facebook is the self, it lends itself to users easily presenting uncomfortable information about themselves. My friend chose to omit the information that he felt was not positive. That would prove this part of the media richness theory incorrect.