social norms and self- presentation on social network ...€¦ · identified social norms that were...

new media & society 1 –18

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1461444814543164

nms.sagepub.com

Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action

Suvi UskiHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Finland; University of Helsinki, Finland

Airi LampinenHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Finland; University of Helsinki, Finland; University of California, Berkeley, USA

Abstract“Profile work,” that is strategic self-presentation in social network sites, is configured by both the technical affordances and related social norms. In this article, we address technical and social psychological aspects that underlie acts of sharing by analyzing the social in relation to the technical. Our analysis is based on two complementary sets of qualitative data gleaned from in situ experiences of Finnish youth and young adults within the sharing mechanisms of Facebook and Last.fm. In our analysis, we identified social norms that were formed around the prevailing sharing practices in the two sites and compared them in relation to the sharing mechanisms. The analysis revealed that automated and manual sharing were sanctioned differently. We conclude that although the social norms that guide content sharing differed between the two contexts, there was an identical sociocultural goal in profile work: presentation of authenticity.

KeywordsAuthenticity, automated sharing, manual sharing, online sharing, profile work, self-presentation, social network site, social norms

Corresponding author:Suvi Uski (nee Silfverberg) Department of Social Research, PL 54, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: [email protected]

543164 NMS0010.1177/1461444814543164new media & societyUski and Lampinenresearch-article2014

Article

at UNIV CALIFORNIA IRVINE on April 26, 2015nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://nms.sagepub.com/

2 new media & society

Introduction

Sharing personal content online has become a common everyday activity for increasing numbers of people. When engaging with social network sites (SNSs), such as Facebook, users can publicize pictures, music, links, and short text-based updates, to name just a few examples. In doing so, they make efforts to present themselves and maintain their social relations in ways they can feel good about. They react to the possibility of being seen and judged by others, although they often do not know whether someone is actually watching (e.g. boyd, 2010; Marwick, 2012).

Content sharing differs across SNSs: The manual sharing of user-generated content continues to thrive. Recently, the automated real-time sharing of behavioral data, such as updates of music listening (e.g. Last.fm), news reading (e.g. Scoopinion), or physical exercise (e.g. SportsTracker), has become more widely available, too. Moreover, although individuals differ in how much and what types of content they share, it is com-mon to see service-specific patterns of content sharing (e.g. Ellison et al., 2006; McLaughlin and Vitak, 2011; Strano, 2008). When new users enter a service they will learn from others how to act in that particular context (Burke et al., 2009). We employ self-presentation and social norms to understand the social psychology behind content sharing in SNS contexts.

While the two services we consider in this article, Facebook and the music-focused Last.fm, share a social sharing mission, they rely upon different sharing mechanisms: manual sharing of purposely user-generated content on Facebook and automated sharing of behavioral, algorithmically tracked content on Last.fm. These differences have impli-cations for the formation of social sharing practices, and also for how self-presentation (Goffman, 1959) is reconfigured in these SNS contexts.

While specific functionalities vary across SNSs, boyd (2010) lists profiles, friend lists, public commenting tools, and stream-based updates as four types of features that play a salient role in defining SNSs. Even if people have the right to decide whether or not to share something on their profiles, they often have scarce control over the content others disclose about them in SNSs (Lampinen et al., 2011). This can amplify problems emerging from individuals’ limitations of control over participation and identity in online contexts (Palen and Dourish, 2003).

Our study investigates how the interplay of sharing mechanisms and social norms affect strategic self-presentation and through that the resulting usage of the service in question. We argue that sharing mechanisms and related social norms concerning online sharing are intertwined and shape strategic online self-presentation, or profile work. Our analysis is based on two sets of qualitative data focused on the experiences Finnish youth and young adults have of using the differing sharing mechanisms of Facebook and Last.fm.

Online content sharing

The empirical phenomenon of online content sharing has been approached from many theoretical and conceptual frameworks. One of the most popular approaches has been to analyze how people regulate interpersonal boundaries in networked settings. Investigating the self-presentational goals of online expressive behaviors has been another common



Uski and Lampinen 3

focus in the study of SNSs. Both approaches recognize that the characteristics of tech-nologies play a considerable role in how and why people choose to share digital content.

Tufekci (2008) found that instead of regulating the personal information disclosure on Facebook and Myspace, participants preferred managing their technological boundaries by tuning their privacy settings. boyd and Marwick (2011) found that Twitter users con-duct management of imaginary audiences in maintenance of their Twitter profiles. Lampinen et al. (2011) depicts the management of interpersonal boundaries on SNSs as a cooperative endeavor in which SNS users rely on each other and an expectation of a “shared code of conduct” as they negotiate interaction in circumstances where it is pos-sible to share content on behalf of others.

Additionally, Stutzman and Hartzog (2012) identified four motivational mechanisms to control online content sharing: to withdraw access to the self from others selectively, to cope with multiple audiences, to optimize disclosure appropriately, and to conform to prevailing customs and usages. From an interpersonal perspective, a study of self- presentation by DeAndrea and Walther (2011) shows how the inconsistencies between offline and online self-presentations are reasoned. Specifically, they found that inconsist-encies in friends’ self-presentations are less sanctioned than inconsistencies in acquaint-ances’ self-presentations. This was the case even though the inconsistencies in friends’ self-presentations might be more easily perceived. One knows one’s friends’ history bet-ter than that of one’s acquaintances’ history (DeAndrea and Walther, 2011). Finally, the social realm of an SNS user has been approached by research that focuses explicitly on the social norms that guide online sharing (McLaughlin and Vitak, 2011; Strano, 2008). While this line of research has proven to be fruitful for understanding users’ engagement with SNSs, there have been too few attempts to address social norms underlying sharing practices and especially the ways in which they are reflected in strategic online self-presentation (except for online dating services, see, for example, Ellison et al., 2006).

Social norms guiding online user behavior

Social norms guide our everyday behavior in all interactional situations and enable groups of people to interact together. In social psychology, research on naturally emerging con-textual social rules and order dates back all the way to the early days of the discipline (e.g. Sherif, 1936). Social norms are dynamic in their nature; a group influences how an indi-vidual behaves, and individuals influence a group’s behavior (e.g. Postmes et al., 2000).

Social norms are understood in multiple ways, and they are central in many disci-plines, ranging from law to cognitive and social sciences. We approach social norms as implicit norms, that is, unwritten social rules that guide people’s behavior. Implicit norms are best observed when a person does not comply with them, and thus, makes them vis-ible by breaking them either intentionally or unintentionally. In this study, we point out implicit norms by qualitatively analyzing normatizing speech related to online content sharing in the data.

Social norms do not emerge in a vacuum. According to Schwartz (1999) cultural val-ues form the basis of social norms. The salient sociocultural contexts relevant to our inquiry are varied as many cultures are brought together on socio-technical platforms (e.g. Orgad, 2006), such as on Facebook, where they may co-exist, collide, or collapse.




This article has been written with culture in mind and with sensitivity toward the com-plexities of defining the context of online sharing. We remain cautious to attempt defin-ing culture in any exact way, as capturing the real contexts that participants experience and in which we as researchers operate seems to necessitate acknowledging their com-plex and fluid nature. To make our reasoning more solid, we prefer using the term “con-text” to “culture.”

Social norms have been studied in the field of SNS research through technology-specific studies that have addressed, for instance, online dating services (Ellison et al., 2006) and Facebook (McLaughlin and Vitak, 2011; Strano, 2008). McLaughlin and Vitak (2011) present an analysis of how social norms guide Facebook use among college students in the United States. Their findings show that norm violations on Facebook are sanctioned differently depending on the closeness of the relationship. McLaughlin and Vitak identify social norms considering, among others, friending practices, photo shar-ing, and shared privacy goals among friends. Strano’s (2008) findings focus on self-presentation through photographs and especially on social norms guiding photo-sharing practices. Social norms are prevalent in online behavior, but how do they relate to self-presentation?

Social norms guiding profile work

Erving Goffman’s (1959) original ideas of self-presentation refer to the continuous stra-tegic expression of the self. When the self is presented to others in a social context, some aspects are emphasized and others concealed. As the process of self-presentation involves both self and others (Goffman, 1959), a tension may occur between what is accepted socially and what is desired personally (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Interactions on SNSs differ from face-to-face settings at least in four specific ways, including their persistence, replicability, scalability, and searchability (boyd and Ellison, 2007). While the social mechanisms Goffman depicted remain relevant in SNS contexts, the functionalities of SNSs require adopting more specialized analytical tools. We employ a theoretical con-struct for understanding strategic online self-presentation: “profile work” (Silfverberg et al., 2011), a concept that captures users’ experience and action in SNSs as they make efforts to maintain and manage their online profiles. Profile work concentrates on the self. Its analytical reach extends to explain concrete actions that take place on SNSs.

Profile work (as defined in Silfverberg et al., 2011) emphasizes that while possibilities for strategic self-presentation are multifold online, the possibility to choose what to reveal, omit, or underplay forces individuals to make many choices to manage how they are perceived. Profile work is a means for self-presentation via an online profile and related aspects of an SNS, such as stream-based updates. It encompasses one’s presence in the SNS as a whole, considering the social psychological aspects of the experience. Profile work is a continuous, strategic process that is guided by interpretations an indi-vidual makes of her or his behavior and that of others (Silfverberg et al., 2011).

Profile work encompasses four dimensions: First, profiles are products, comparable to business cards, curricula vitae (CVs), or to a bookshelf that describes its owner through the literature collection it showcases. Second, there is a cycle of interpretation related to profile work. People direct their own behavior through expectations of how others will



Uski and Lampinen 5

interpret the content they share (e.g. imagined audience in boyd, 2010; Marwick, 2012), and equally, interpret and evaluate the actions of others through their profiles. The third dimension, the focus of this article, characterizes conflicting goals, most notably the ten-sion between maintaining a self-presentation that is in line with the contextually relevant social norms and taking action that meets personal desires. The fourth dimension is pro-file regulation: the “concrete” actions that people take to regulate their profiles. Both the actions suggested by the technology and the actions that require efforts that take place beyond the technology are included. For instance, one might modify privacy settings, delete some content, or manipulate one’s behavior (Silfverberg et al., 2011).

By contrasting two services that provide differing sharing mechanisms we offer a detailed account of the relation of self-presentation and social norms in SNSs. We link social norms and self-presentation both to the technological features of services and to the sociocultural context in which these technologies are used by employing profile work, a construct that facilitates addressing context analytically. We contribute to the understanding of how strategic self-presentation is constrained by social norms that are sometimes contradictory in the expectations they set for the individual. We analyze how automated and manual sharing mechanisms, as well as the emerging social norms, guide users’ profile work, and thus shape online content sharing. We apply the theoretical ideas of self-presentation (Goffman, 1959) and social norms (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Goffman, 1959; Sherif, 1936) as we relate the concept of profile work (Silfverberg et al., 2011) to the technological features that SNSs provide, most importantly different sharing mechanisms.

Method

Facebook and Last.fm were selected as our case SNSs due to their differences, especially the differing sharing mechanisms they provide to their users. In this way we sought richer bases of comparison that could help us understand profile work in various SNS contexts. Our analysis is based on two sets of research material that were collected in fall 2009 to spring 2010. The first set consists of focus-group interviews about Facebook and the second of in-depth one-to-one interviews with Last.fm users. We will now provide an overview of the two SNSs, present our research materials, and describe our analysis procedure.

Overview of Facebook and Last.fm

Facebook and Last.fm are both SNSs on which individuals can share personal content, comment on it, and show their “friend” connections. Ellison and boyd (2013) define a SNS as

a networked communication platform in which participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and/or system-provided data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of user-generated content provided by their connections on the site. (p. 158)




This study focused on the late 2009–early 2010 versions of these services. At that time, both Facebook and Last.fm met these defining criteria, albeit in different ways especially in that Facebook was built on the ideal of sharing all kinds of content on varied topics, whereas Last.fm promoted music discovery and the sharing of content concerning music-listening behavior. More importantly, from the perspective of the study, there are four key differences between the services: First, use of one’s real name is encouraged on Facebook while Last.fm users more frequently use pseudonyms. Second, content shared on Facebook is uploaded mostly manually, whereas on Last.fm the key profile content, music-listening information, is published automatically through a separately download-able feature called the Scrobbler. Third, related to the second key difference, posting updates on Facebook requires both intention and effort from an individual while on Last.fm, when the Scrobbler is used, the system automatically makes continuous, real-time updates of a user’s behavior. And fourth, related to the first key difference above, the very nature of the relationships is different. Users are more likely to be connected to friends who know them only by their pseudonyms, whereas in Facebook connections are built around “real names.” Therefore, the methodologies used to investigate these two social networks differed accordingly.

In order to scrutinize automated sharing of behavioral data in a targeted manner, we chose to focus solely on those users of Last.fm who employ the Scrobbler, and not neces-sarily all other features of the site. Similarly, we focus on manual sharing on Facebook, although also Facebook has features allowing for automated sharing.

Data collection

Our study is based on two complementary sets of research material: focus-group inter-views with Facebook users and one-on-one interviews with Last.fm users. The wider context of the study is the socially and culturally specific setting of Finnish society. Psychological research of self (e.g. Markus and Kitayama, 1991) indicates that the con-struction of self varies in different cultures. Taking this into account, in line with our methodological commitment to cultural sensitivity, we focus on self-presentation in SNS contexts in the Finnish culture in particular. Our view of qualitative research requires acknowledging the significant role of culture in all social interaction. As such, there are no specific parts in the material that could be labeled out as “cultural” or “exotic” but rather the entire material is a representation of the culture of a specific context (e.g. Alasuutari, 1996). For the Facebook part of the study, the participants were young adults who shared a relatively similar demographic background: In total, 18 people, 6 women, and 12 men, participated in five focus-group interviews we analyzed. Initially they were recruited by extending the invitation to the study within two student bodies in the capital region. The groups were formed by the participants schedule by “first signed up first participating” order. The participants of four of the focus groups were Finnish university students 18–23 years of age. All used Facebook and other SNSs but with varying and duly noted degrees of activity. The focus-group interviews lasted approximately an hour each. The fifth focus group comprised foreign students at Finnish institutions of higher education. The language of conversation was English. This group provided a basis for triangulation, since we wanted to know if a multicultural focus group shared the same social norms as the Finnish groups.



Uski and Lampinen 7

For the second set of material, 12 Finnish Last.fm users, 5 women and 7 men, were interviewed in-depth. They were contacted on Last.fm through the site showing “now active users,” and after inbox messaging with the possible candidates selected based on their availability and location. Their ages ranged from 17 to 21 years. They came from relatively heterogeneous Finnish backgrounds, some working and others studying. All Last.fm interview participants had a portable music player (MP3 player), either as a part of their cellular phone or a standalone unit, which meant they were able to scrobble their listening even while they were not by their computer. The interviews ranged in length from 30 minutes to 1 hour and 50 minutes.

In both sets, each participant received a movie ticket as an incentive for participation. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in Finnish (except the multicultural focus group), audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interviewees are presented with pseudonyms.

Use of the focus-group material served our analysis of Facebook because the ser-vice was constructed strongly in terms of “friend” connections and since we were able to interview users who knew one another both online and offline. The discussions within the focus groups were sparked by the moderators who brought up aspects of sharing that are unexpected and less frequently discussed, such as how to interpret overtly conflict-provoking commentary and how to deal with others’ disclosures con-cerning oneself. Last.fm is construed quite differently, with less emphasis on connect-ing with offline friends. Thus, one-to-one interviews were more appropriate in the Last.fm context for the purposes of this study. To spark the dialog, interviewees were asked to ponder provocative statements, such as “All the songs I listen to fit well to my profile.”

To contextualize the data-collection processes, the authors gained deep familiarity with both Facebook and Last.fm through their own usage. The field notes captured how the study and the analysis process evolved and provided a frame of reference.

Data analysis

We approached sharing behavior from a phenomenological-hermeneutical perspective. Since we wanted to identify social norms delimiting online content sharing, we analyzed normatizing speech in the research materials.

In order to capture normatizing speech, we conducted a content analysis of the com-bined data using elements from discursive analysis (Potter and Wetherell, 1987) and interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith et al., 2009). To unpack the social norms of content sharing, we scrutinized how users ought to share content on the SNS. That was done by focusing on the parts of the material pointing to any type of sharing and systematically analyzing them in relation to each other. From the Facebook material, we extracted sections in which socially acceptable or unacceptable topics were dis-cussed, as well as those sections in which interviewees commented on either their own or others’ behavior. As for the Last.fm material, we extracted sections in which inter-viewees considered their own behavior and related it to others’ behavior as well as to their expressed expectations of how others should behave. We synthesized the analysis by comparing the norms identified in the two SNSs in relation to the sharing mechanisms.




The body of research focusing on self-presentation (e.g. DeAndrea and Walther, 2011; Ellison et al., 2006; Goffman, 1959; Strano, 2008) gives reason to be careful in tackling the possible challenges of data analysis on the topic. In our analysis process, we acknowl-edged and took into account that we might be dealing with “deceptive” self-presentation on many levels. First, in focus group and interview situations, social desirability is inbuilt in the interaction. Second, the participants may not be as “truthful” as they could in their overall online presence, and third, the pseudonym use on Last.fm might enable fully deceptive strategies for self-presentation. However, expressions of “deceptive” self-presentation benefited, rather than hindered, our analytical pursuit because we approached self-presentation with the lens of profile work by identifying social norms.

Translation of interview excerpts from Finnish to English was accomplished using a systematic literal/cultural process. That is, both literal translations and translation of meaning were combined to achieve as much literal and subtle stylistic and meaning accu-racy as possible. All Finnish interviews were transcribed into, and coded in, Finnish. As themes emerged, major sections of transcripts were translated into English. The research-ers sought verification through word and statement checks with English scholars, and, at times, relied on other translators for cross-checking.

Social norms on Facebook and Last.fm

In the Facebook material, participants described sharing by providing and discussing personal examples in the focus groups. When illustrating their views, participants criti-cized or condemned mostly sharing practices either of individuals who were not present in the interview or of stereotypical characters imaginable by everyone in the focus group. Some remarks on sharing were made, however, also in reference to other interviewees.

Normatizing speech on Facebook

First, a central category of normatizing speech had to do with excessive sharing of non-significant content. Maiju (from Group 2) accounted, “It irritates me what people share on the wall, and that you are forced to watch it, at least for a second, so that the wall is filled with all that nonsense.”

The interviewees discussed users who share “too much.” Excessive sharing of routine and boring content was seen as conveying a poor image of having either “no life” or one that is pitiful. It was deemed better to share only “remarkable,” personally newsworthy content. Petra (from Group 4) shared a story of a friend who was sharing too much:

Yeah, and a friend of mine, she has ten status updates a day […] and then you get a pretty sad image of her, since her life is like eat, go out with the dog, watch TV, sleep, then Facebook, “in a relationship,” “not in a relationship,” “I hate men.”

Second, another central category of normatizing speech condemned profile tuning. It was considered important for the profile to look as naturally formed as possible. Intentional profile tuning, such as uploading extremely flattering pictures or presenting personal information favorably, was considered unacceptable. A well-presented profile



Uski and Lampinen 9

was to be achieved “naturally,” without polishing or enhancing one’s image manually. Here, participants talk about job-hunting and the importance of having an appropriate profile picture. Another interviewee (Group 3) is teasing Jussi about his profile enhancement:

Jussi: That’s why I did it too: you don’t have your own face as your profile pic, but I hung mine as well when I was looking for a summer job, so that if they would search for me by my name on Facebook, they could see a slightly more realistic picture of me.

Antti: You wore a suit or what?Jussi: What are you talking about? I’m not listening to that.Antti: Nothing, forget it. Let’s just go on.Jussi: Wearing a suit? I wasn’t wearing a suit in any of my pictures. I’m wearing

collars in one. But I didn’t put it as a profile pic.

Attention-seeking status updates were condemned. If it seemed obvious that another user wanted as many comments as possible on his or her status update, the sharing was considered fake and it was disapproved. Kristiina commented, “I think it’s a bit ridicu-lous when you see that some people are kind of living for their status updates. You can see that they have thought carefully about how to get as many comments as possible [laughs].”

Third, we identified a category of normatizing speech concerning the number of friends. Collecting friends purely to have more of them and befriending strangers were condemned practices. Antti (from Group 3) disapproved of people who increase their friend count as much as they can:

It’s interesting that there are some who have 500 friends, of whom they know 50. I have a lot of these kinds of friends: you don’t want to ignore them when they send a friend request, so you just accept it and put them in a group that you strictly limit. It’s a bit of a problem on Facebook when some people increase their friend count just to get as many as possible.

The expectation was that all of one’s friends should, at the very least, be acquaint-ances of some kind. No guidelines as to what would be an appropriate number of friends were explicated, although interviewees tried to negotiate a reasonable range. These pre-sented findings among the Finnish groups were not present in the multicultural group that was included for the purposes of triangulation.

Normatizing speech on Last.fm

While sharing on Last.fm was discussed in a somewhat more positive light than that on Facebook, normatizing speech still emphasized disapproved aspects of sharing. We iden-tified three implicit social norms related to certain types of sharing from the Last.fm material, too, all expressed in terms of disapproval.

A core aspect of normatizing speech was giving a misleading presentation of one’s musical preferences. According to the interviewees, it is easy to see from users’




music-listening information whether they pretend something. In general, pretending meant trying to look better in others’ eyes than is warranted. Both misrepresenting one’s musical tastes and making fake improvements to one’s profile were considered preten-sion. Such faking was seen as leading to profiles that no longer effectively convey an authentic image of their owners’ listening. There was an implicit rule that the music-lis-tening information in one’s profile should present one’s true musical tastes correctly:

Taina: You have to give the right image of your listening so that you don’t force yourself to listen to something else—that it looks like what I listen to. You can’t just put only some Finnish polka there if in reality you listen to metal.

Another category of normatizing speech about sharing on Last.fm was giving a mis-leading presentation of music-listening behavior, which meant taking concrete action to hide one’s behavior, whether it was related to music-listening or non-listening as Sanna and Miina describe:

Sanna: For example, I know many people who don’t scrobble everything they lis-ten to. They might have their own [musical taste] secrets. So it’s as if they wouldn’t listen to that kind of music. But they still do.

Miina: It would be cheating if you deleted songs from there.

Giving a misleading presentation of music listening was understood as fake enhance-ment of one’s listening information. Switching off the Scrobbler was seen as one of the most concrete ways to “cheat,” since others could point out the breaks in the flow of listening information and conclude that something was being hidden.

In all interviews, one core aspect of normatizing speech was disapproval of narrow-mindedness in musical tastes. Versatile musical tastes were the ideal, whereas narrow musical taste was considered non-acceptable, a reflection of narrow-minded-ness in personal life as well. The interviewees expressed listening to only one type of music as indicating immaturity. The most stereotypical example interviewees gave was that of a “metalhead,” a person who listens only to substantial amounts of heavy metal:

Weera: Yes. Because I listen to such a range [of music], so it has been quite annoy-ing when I catch even a couple of friends who like nothing but metal. All other music is shit, and heavy is the only thing that is good. So it’s way annoying.

[…]

Well, they are narrow-minded; so they are narrow-minded like metalheads, […] there are so many good bands out there. It’s so boring if you have a one-track mind, so I don’t know; it gets outdated.

Alasuutari (2009) has noted a similar perception in contemporary Finnish youth cul-ture: the concept of “versatile musical taste” is recognized collectively. Our interviewees



Uski and Lampinen 11

considered versatile musical taste worth striving for, because it was believed to commu-nicate musical expertise and ability to enjoy “different worlds offered by music.”

Unsophisticated musical tastes were questioned, sometimes harshly. People who lis-tened to music others believe is superficial—Britney Spears and Lady Gaga were men-tioned as examples—were looked down upon by interviewees. Listening to superficial artists was considered acceptable only if the relevant individuals listened to diverse art-ists and if the superficial artists added to the versatility of one’s musical tastes. Ville is confident that his shared music-listening information is versatile enough, and, therefore, he feels free to listen to whatever he likes: “I put everything there; even if it’s on shuffle and there was Britney Spears, it can go there. I’m not ashamed of what I listen to.”

Commonality in normatizing speech: being real

In contrasting the normatizing speech concerning sharing in our research materials, an interesting difference emerges: On Facebook, social acceptance is related to sharing per se, whereas on Last.fm it has to do with not the shared information but the behavior underlying it, music-listening. Beneath this veneer of difference, however, normatizing speech in both cases is focused on the goal of “being real.” Artificiality, faking, and excessive enhancing of one’s image are condemned, and individuals caught engaging in such activities are frowned upon.

On both SNSs, the interviewees expect others to give as “real” an image of their selves as possible. Yet, in the case of manual sharing on Facebook, being “real” did not mean sharing everything: An appropriate amount of relevant content should be shared, and one should not seek attention by sharing content. On Last.fm, the interviewees disap-proved of pretentious illustrations of musical taste, although sharing of vast amounts of listening information was expected as long as it stemmed from “real” listening. In both cases, it was considered socially condemnable to intentionally enhance or modify one’s image manually. The ideal of a profile was to be as “natural” as possible, meaning that the conscious and strategic aspects of self-presentation were to remain hidden.

Profile work on Facebook and Last.fm

The pursuit of being real led the participants to a challenging situation with regard to sharing. On both SNSs, participants’ sharing was guided by the fear of failing to comply with social norms. On Facebook, the challenges included balancing appropriate quantity and quality of sharing. On Last.fm, central interpretations involved music-listening information and the characteristics of the profile owner that could be derived from this information.

Profile work on Facebook

With Facebook, the normatizing speech about sharing had to do with the quality and quantity of the content shared as well as the number of “friends.” Yet, because normatiz-ing speech did not provide any specific guidelines, it was hard for the interviewees to articulate appropriate sharing practices.




Since excessive sharing was not considered admirable, it was hard for the interviewees to determine how much they could or should share. Even if excessive sharing was high-lighted as unacceptable behavior, how much is too much went undefined. As participants did not want to be considered to share excessively, they depicted their sharing behavior in line with the social norm. Petteri (from Group 2) emphasized not wanting to share much:

I at least, very seldom share anything on my Facebook. I don’t know if it’s because I’m connected to people who are less than friends or because I just like to do so. So I always try to think it through in detail before I post anything.

Second, next to the quantity of sharing, Facebook users were expected to pay atten-tion to the quality of the shared content. Interviewees opined that one’s profile could convey an image that was unintended, or even contradictory with what was intended. Saku (from Group 4) depicts how an inaccurate image was conveyed:

Say you’ve got ten pictures posted, every one of them from parties, but let’s say they are from a two-year period. Whether you’ve been to dozens of parties or two parties you give a partygoer image, even if you’d been to only two parties.

Initially, Saku did not want to share pictures at all but later felt forced to do so, to prevent the forming of an image that he considered false due to the pictures he was tagged in. Since profile tuning was not socially accepted, it was necessary to be clever when the aim was to improve one’s profile without others noticing. The stress of consid-ering what and how to share and the risk of conveying the wrong “message” sometimes made profile work so burdensome that individuals opted for non-sharing, even when there was something they would have wanted to share.

Third, because the suitable number of friends was undefined, justifications were given equally for having a very small and a very large number of friends. According to prior research (boyd, 2006; Tong et al., 2008), the number of friends seems to be a strongly value-laden and concrete part of the prevailing norms of SNSs. In our participants’ accounts, a further difficulty in balancing the number of friends arose from social pres-sure to accept all friend requests.

Profile work on Last.fmOn Last.fm, giving a misleading presentation of musical preferences and listening behav-ior were condemned lines of action, but, ironically, the pursuit of “being real” sometimes required faking. Sami explains how perceived social pressure affects both his listening and personal enjoyment:

… especially when I’m at home at the computer, I intentionally question if I dare listen to this. As I know, I should be listening to this and that, so that I wouldn’t give an image of listening to only one track.

Since normatizing speech condemns purposive pretension, Sami worried about his profile, making efforts to balance his music listening between being honest and listening




to what he wanted. Presenting a misleading image of music-listening preferences, such as scrobbling music incessantly to boost one’s profile or switching the Scrobbler off to hide some listening, was considered lying. Individuals who tried to cheat were easily caught, which led to losing credibility. When interviewees contemplated their actions, they did, however, clarify that some cheating was allowed:

Katri: I don’t switch it off unless there is a song I feel embarrassed about.Sanna: …For instance, in some movies there have been songs that don’t sort of fit

into my profile. And then sometimes I have switched the scrobbler off.

Attitudes toward false depictions of the users’ profiles ranged from acceptance to rejection. Is casting a false image of one’s musical tastes cheating? Many interviewees reported that they used to cheat, when they were younger, but were not doing so any-more. Markku commented, “…back then when I used to do it, I was a teenager and might have thought that the music was bad.”

Last.fm’s Scrobbler collects music-listening information automatically, as long as the music is listened to on a connected device. This limitation seemed to cause some pres-sure to cheat because not all types of listening could be scrobbled automatically. Ville depicts the process of getting his “complete” music-listening information into his profile:

Well, it is a bit difficult to scrobble vinyl. Sometimes I work it in such a way that if I’ve got the CD recorded on my computer and the same thing on vinyl, I press Play at the same time on the computer when I’m listening to the music on vinyl, so I can manage the scrobbles.

Interviewees struggled with the ubiquitous nature of music because music was lis-tened to in situations where their personal devices were not present—for instance, at a friend’s home. Such music-listening information did not end up in the profile, and some interviewees were worried about this biasing their profiles. Equally, an incessant flow of listening information, considered by others to be cheating, could have been caused simply by forgetting to pause the music player. Finally, there were technologi-cal failures where behavior did not result in the digital traces that were expected or even wished for. Ville said, “There’s no huge reason to panic. But I am disappointed, if Last.fm has crashed and I’ve been listening for three hours or so and nothing has gone there.”

In these ways, automation seemed to increase the need for profile work. Since the profile was considered a self-presentational whole, active music-listeners needed to make an effort if they wanted to have everything in their profile. The interviewees ended up getting caught in a conundrum in terms of their interpretations: if one wanted to get and give as real an image as possible of one’s listening, one was obliged to cheat, literally manipulating one’s profile.

In line with the normatizing speech, all interviewees indicated they each possess a versatile musical taste. Unsurprisingly definitions of versatility varied. Some interview-ees reported having had narrower musical tastes when younger, explaining how their musical tastes had become more open over time.




Minimizing profile work

From the participants’ depictions of the disapproved sharing practices on Facebook and Last.fm, a difference between the services became evident. The main aim in profile work is to minimize it, meaning that the users’ psychological burden should be as light as pos-sible. To minimize their profile work Facebook participants were minimizing their con-tent sharing, whereas Last.fm interviewees were maximizing theirs.

Facebook participants engaged in profile work to decide what to share and often con-sidered it easier to share nothing than to take the risk of “failing” to share “in the right way,” that is, the right amount of the right information with the right people. Another solution was to share only content that seemed so harmless that unexpected audiences were not a concern, as Joni (from Group 1) explained, “Well, I post so little, I hardly ever have that problem. If I post something, it’s the kind of thing that can be shown to most people.”

The Last.fm interviewees, on the other hand, engaged in profile work, since achieving the coveted profile with “real” and diverse listening information often required “cheat-ing.” Most interviewees stated that they let every track they listened to go to their profile. Some reported having solved the problem of risking “embarrassing” information in their profile by changing their music listening for the sake of Last.fm. Switching off the Scrobbler would have been a technologically easy way to prevent embarrassing tracks from being uploaded. However, interviewees considered switching off the Scrobbler too burdensome or risky: They did not want others to see suspicious breaks in the flow of their listening information and invented tricks to avoid these situations:

Jenni: So I kind of think that I should listen to little bits of something else to dilute that (embarrassing) track from there. If there are many of them I won’t nec-essarily dilute them. But in case, if there was a couple of tracks that were disturbing to me, I might dilute the other one by listening to something else to get it away from there.

Trying to present themselves in line with the social norms, participants in both SNSs opted for tactics that seemed effective but necessitated as little profile work as possible. On Facebook, it was easiest to minimize profile work through minimizing sharing, although non-sharing entailed the risk of being invisible to others and missing out on the benefits of participation. On Last.fm, in contrast, automated sharing pushed participants to maximize their sharing in order to succeed in “being real” while minimizing the amount of profile work included: The more tracks one scrobbles, the more versatile one’s profile becomes. Second, the more content there is in one’s profile, the less likely it is that others would notice the occasional embarrassing tracks. Third, suspicious breaks in scrobbling were carefully avoided.

In summary, in our cases, automated and manual sharing were sanctioned differently. While this resulted in differing sharing tendencies, users of both SNSs aimed at minimiz-ing the amount of profile work required to maintain self-presentation. In both SNSs, the main goal of strategic self-presentation was the presentation of authenticity. Ironically, even when one tries to “be real” in an SNS, others can always find a way to interpret any act of sharing as “faking.” On Facebook, a photo could always be seen as either too




attention-seeking or too mundane. On Last.fm, others might interpret an incessant flow of data as “cheating” when the individual had, for instance, simply forgot to pause the music player.

Based on our findings, social norms concerning sharing serve the presentation of authenticity both on Facebook and Last.fm. The presentation of authenticity is con-structed differently in the two SNSs, and the social norms emerged in these contexts direct how authenticity is established. In stark contrast to the way authenticity is popu-larly understood as something straightforwardly true and unintentional, our study makes apparent how authenticity is ascribed, constituent (Van Zoonen, 2013: 46). Authenticity is an intentional presentation that is given for others to see and appreciate. It differs from the concepts such as self-coherence (Swann et al., 2005), self-continuity, or enduring self (Swann and Bosson, 2010) for it is produced and maintained primarily for others, mean-ing that the need for authenticity awakes only when the others are present. Appearing authentic in one’s online sharing is not a simple outcome of “truthful” sharing but the result of successful profile work.

DiscussionThe pursuit of giving a “real” presentation of one’s self to others entails a paradox: while social norms required individuals to “be real” in their sharing behavior, presenting one-self “in the right way” through sharing often necessitated “faking.” The norms concern-ing manual sharing on Facebook focused mainly on what and how one should share. In contrast, the norms sanctioning automated sharing on Last.fm targeted primarily music listening, the “actual” behavior. This tension between self and others was manifested in the difficulty of aligning one’s behavior with social norms regarding sharing.

Social norms concerning sharing were at times contradictory. While “being real” and “not faking” were two seemingly matching pursuits that existed in parallel, in practice, living up to both demands caused a conundrum to individuals. In the case of both Facebook and Last.fm, although more obviously in the case of automated sharing, par-ticipants had to adapt their behavior in one of two ways to comply with social norms: They could either change the way they behaved, or, they could try to “fake being real” in hopes of making a convincing presentation of the self.

Due to the imperfection of technology and the importance set on communicating one’s “real” behavior, social norms guide individuals who engage with automated sharing to make efforts to ensure that their behavior is recorded as fully and truthfully as possible. The social norms identified in the context of Last.fm seemed to address the imperfection of the automated sharing mechanism by socially enforcing the media-tion of “actual listening” that is in line with the user’s own “real” musical preferences. This finding of authenticity is not a novelty in SNS research (e.g. boyd and Marwick, 2011; Ellison et al., 2006). Rather, our study supports the creation of a synthesized conceptual frame for analyzing authenticity and its wider meaning in our networked era.

We have showcased that paradoxical social norms pushed participants to set presentation of authenticity as the main goal of profile work. We conclude that the objec-tive of appearing authentic is not easily accomplished, since the subtle social norms that sanction online sharing are unsettled and under negotiation. Since the multicultural focus




group did not share the normatizing speech with the Finnish groups, we argue that culture plays an undefined, yet, important role. The salient cultures in SNS contexts are difficult to pin down. By focusing on one national culture, this study has allowed us to analyze in-depth the social norms that underlie sharing practices and strategic self-presentation in a specific context. We add to the body of knowledge regarding the relation between social norms and sharing mechanisms (McLaughlin and Vitak, 2011) and the relation between social norms and self-presentation in online services (Ellison et al., 2006).

In our pursuit to understand strategic self-presentation in the context of SNSs, we call for further studies on how social norms are intertwined and affect the process of self-presentation in SNSs. We recognize especially the need for research that is sensitive to the interplay of culture and technology in strategic self-presentation. An individual engaging with an SNS might experience a tension between the overall culture of the service and the user’s particular background culture in what is expected and accepted in terms of strategic self-presentation.

The paradox of presentation of authenticity is a prominent sign of the self-presenta-tional challenges posed by different technologies, but also an illustration of the salient context: it being Finnish culture or a blend of SNS-specific, national or international cultures. Social norms are culture and context specific, and these findings contribute to the representation of cultural values. As Van Zoonen (2013) suggests, the concept of authenticity is empowered and cultivated in cultural environments.

Authenticity as a theme has run through the history of theorizing self-presentation. Goffman (1959) discussed the notion of “real” in self-presentation of face-to-face interaction:

We tend to see real performances as something not purposely put together at all, being an unintentional product of individual’s unselfconscious response to the facts in his situation. And contrived performances we tend to see as painstakingly pasted together, one false item on another, since there is no reality which the items of behavior could be a direct response. (p. 70)

Following Goffman’s thinking, manual sharing is purposeful and self-conscious: every act of sharing can be perceived inauthentic. When it comes to automated sharing, sharing is less conscious because it is a direct outcome of the situation itself, at least in principle. In this article, we have shown that automated sharing, at minimum when linked to voluntary behavior, does not necessarily produce desired authenticity any more than manual sharing.

We argue that Goffman’s writing about self-presentation, social norms, and authentic-ity is contested in SNS contexts. Based on our findings the presentation of authenticity is produced with a greater deal of effort on SNSs than in face-to-face interaction. This is because of the technological mediation of the self-presentational efforts—even when content sharing is automated. The notion of profile work captures these efforts to balance the discrepancies between social norms and personal desires in SNS contexts, providing an effective analytical tool for addressing online sharing in a contextually sensitive way.

SNSs promote performing authenticity even though the behaviors and characteristics that are considered desirably “authentic” vary contextually. Differing sharing mechanisms may direct individuals to share in particular ways to accomplish a desired self-presentation




that is compliant with relevant social norms. When individuals perform authenticity in managing their online presence, they engage in profile work. In other words, the authentic-ity displayed in SNSs is the result of profile work, not a simple outcome of “truthful,” unencumbered sharing.

Acknowledgements

Moreover, we are grateful to Paul Ilsley, Vilma Lehtinen, Lassi Liikkanen, Coye Cheshire, and Niklas Ravaja for their valuable support and feedback.

Funding

This project was funded by the post-graduate schools UCIT and SOVAKO, as well as Possi, Otasizzle, & Musiquitous research projects.

References

Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alasuutari P (1996) Theorizing in qualitative research: a cultural studies perspective. Qualitative Inquiry 2(4): 371–384.

Alasuutari P (2009) Snobismista kaikkiruokaisuuteen: Musiikkimaku ja koulutustaso [From snobism to omnivorousness: musical taste and level of education]. In: Liikkanen M (ed.) Suomalainen vapaa-aika [Finnish Free Time]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp. 81–100.

boyd d (2006) Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday 11(12). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336 (accessed 6 July 2014).

boyd d (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: Papacharissi Z (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.

boyd d and Ellison N (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 210–230 (article 11).

boyd d and Marwick A (2011) Social privacy in networked publics: teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies. Paper presented at “A Decade in Internet Time: symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet,” Oxford, UK, 22 September.

Burke M, Marlow C and Lento T (2009) Feed me: motivating newcomer contribution in social network sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April. New York: ACM Press.

DeAndrea DC and Walther JB (2011) Attributions for inconsistencies between online and offline self-presentations. Communication Research 38: 805–825.

Ellison N, Heino R and Gibbs J (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2): 415–441 (article 2).

Ellison NB and boyd d (2013) Sociality through Social Network Sites. In: Dutton WH (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172.

Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.Lampinen A, Lehtinen V, Lehmuskallio A, et al. (2011) We’re in it together: interpersonal man-

agement of disclosure in social network services. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May. New York: ACM Press.




McLaughlin C and Vitak J (2011) Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society 14(2): 299–315.

Markus HR and Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2): 224–253.

Marwick A (2012) The public domain: surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance and Society 9(4): 378–393.

Orgad S (2006) The cultural dimensions of online communication: a study of breast cancer patients’ internet spaces. New Media & Society 8(6): 877–899.

Palen L and Dourish P (2003) Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 5–10 April. New York: ACM Press.

Potter J and Wetherell M (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behavior. London: SAGE.

Schwartz S (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Pyschology: An International Review 48(1): 23–47.

Sherif M (1936) The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper.Silfverberg S, Liikkanen AL and Lampinen A (2011) I’ll press play, but I won’t listen: profile work

in a music-focused social network service. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on com-puter supported cooperative work, Hangzhou, China, 19–23 March. New York: ACM Press.

Smith JA, Flowers P and Larkin M (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory Method and Research. London: SAGE.

Strano MM (2008) User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook pro-file images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 2(2): article 1.

Stutzman F and Hartzog W (2012) Boundary regulation in social media. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, WA, 11–15 February. New York: ACM Press.

Swann WB and Bosson JK (2010) Self and identity. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT and Lindzey G (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 589–626.

Swann WB, Rentfrow PJ and Guinn JS (2005) Self-verification: the search for coherence. In: Leary MR and Tangney JP (eds) Handbook of Self and Identity. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 367–383.

Tong ST, Van Der Heide B, Langwell L, et al. (2008) Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer: Mediated Communication 13(3): 531–549.

Tufekci Z (2008) Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure management in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science and Technology Studies 11(4): 544–564.

Van Zoonen L (2013) From identity to identification: fixating the fragmented self. Media, Culture and Society 35(1): 44–51.

Author biographies

Suvi Uski (nee Silfverberg) is a PhD candidate in social psychology at University of Helsinki and a researcher at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT)/Aalto University. Her research interests include online profiles, social interaction, and self-presentation in digital cultures.

Airi Lampinen is a postdoctoral researcher at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT)/Aalto University. Her research interests include boundary regulation, interpersonal pri-vacy, and the social implications of “the sharing economy.” She holds a PhD in social psychology from University of Helsinki. She was recently a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at University of California, Berkeley.



social norms and self- presentation on social network ...€¦ · identified social norms that were...

Documents