Lecture 4 - Interpersonal Processes in social media - impressions Flashcards
What is an impression?
We evaluate others and they evaluate us
Individual use ‘cues’ to form impressions of others;
- what they omit
- what people say about themselves
- what others say about them
Impression management
Actively engaging in creating, modifying, and maintaining an image that represents one’s ideal self
Impression formation
When meeting someone we develop a lot of ideas about them –> creating an impression
combine all these idea to a unified impression
Recall; Social Media
Communication as asynchronous
cues are reduced
the content shared
uncertainty reduced
Communication as asynchronous
different devices afford more or less delay in responses
most social media platforms allow individuals to edit or delete their posts
Cues are reduced
information social network sites have about a user are mostly provided by the user themselves
fits within a certain category (ex. age, place of birth)
The content shared
most social media sites have specific norms, rules and languages
gives perspectives of how to behave / what is appropriate
Uncertainty reduction
stranger motivate to reduce uncertainty
people seek to explain other people’s behaviour
sees behaviour as predictable
communication plays key role
uncertainty reduced through communication
Cues
Information that people put on social media that give cues into their personality and what kind of person they are
Hyperpersonal communication
Cues filtered out
- we lose nuance
- old strategies fail
- impressions are difficult
Cules filtered in
- we make use of available cues
- we ‘read into’ cues and use imagination
- relationships can become idealised over time
hyperpersonal model of computer-mediated communication
Communicating via mediated channels give us more control over our self-presentation
Impression Formation
Lens theory
Lens model (halls et al. 2014)
Lens theory
Elements in the environment acts as a lens through which observers indirectly perceive underlying constructs
Lens model (Halls et al., 2014)
Behaviors / personality of participants (targets) are recorded and assessed
Independent coders classify and quantify important cues from target recordings
strangers estimate the personality traits of strangers
Cue utilisations
link between observable cue / one observers judgements
cue validity
link between observable cues / occupants level of underlying construct
warrenting theory
some cues have more warranting values than others
especially cues that are less vulnerable to manipulation by self-presenter
Warrant (hall et al 2014)
online information shared that creates a perceived link between ones online/offline self
Warranting principle
The greater the difficulty to manipulate, the higher the value of the information
Warranting credibility
Degree to which online cues believe to be immune to manipulation
Warranting values
Degree to which observers rely on certain cues to judge personality
warranting diagnosticiy
degree to which any given cues actually indicate users offline personality
Which profile elements have most warrant
self generated - ex. photos, profile information
friend generated - ex. tags in photos, comments from friends
system generated - ex. number of friends
impression management
self presentation as performance
self presentation as museum
availability heuristics
humans base their judgements on information that is available to them
Correspondance Bias
tendency to assume that other’s actions / words reflect their personality / stable personality disposition –> rather than being affected by situational factors
Self disclosure vs self presentation
self disclosure is often part of self presentation (yet self presentation is broader)
self presentation varies by social context
self disclosure is determined mainly by level of attachment with relationship
Given and given off
given - everything explicitly (and strategically) communicated
given off- everything else
