ID 269
Thais de Oliveira Sardá
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil
absTracT
This paper aims to understand how social networking sites affordances lead the identity management on Facebook and LinkedIn simultaneously. In a context in which the personal and professional interactions also occur online, there are motivations and stra- tegies for social presentation in these spaces. So, this work presents a theoretical review of concepts such as social networking sites, affordances, social presentation and identity management. In addition, it also reveals affordances from Facebook and LinkedIn to stimulate performance of users. In the case study, it was used research techniques such as non-participant observation, content analysis and in-depth interviews in order to identify strategies of self-presentation and how the affordances of the sites encourage these behaviours. Besides, this research analyse posts and profiles of 10 Information Technolo- gy (IT) professional on Facebook and LinkedIn, for a period of two typical months. From this data collection, identity management on social networking sites is recognizable in at least 15 conscious strategies, guided by sites affordances: creating profiles on social networking sites; seeking a self-presentation strategy for each site; choosing a picture for each site; maintaining a different position in each site; forming distinct networks; estab-
lish self-censorship about posted contents; mincing words before publishing a post; assu- ming what the audience will think about the posts; exposing about personal life or not;
understanding sites as exhibition spaces; keeping an expectation about the interactions in the posts; tracking time on social networks; updating or not the profiles; consciously dealing with the identity multiplicities; and justifying their stance by the aims of the sites.
Keywords
Social presentation, identity management, affordances, Facebook, LinkedIn
INTRODUCTION
The social networking sites are largely overspread nowadays. Most popular of these sites, Facebook counted 968 million daily active users in June 2015. Meanwhile, LinkedIn had 380 million members in September 2015. In a sociological function, these sites play a critical role in our lives, connecting resources and providing information (Watts, 2011).
Facebook and LinkedIn can be distinguished by purpose. Facebook’s slogan is
“connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook”. For LinkedIn, the call is “join the world’s largest professional network”. Thus, both are complementary:
they promote socialization by a self-presentation and encourage the sharing of events in different networks.
Therefore, this study aims to understand how Facebook and LinkedIn affordances encourage identity management. With this purpose, it offers firstly a theoretical review. For the methodology, it is used non-participant observation, content analysis and interviews to identify strategies of self-presentation and how the affordances sustain these behaviours.
SOCIAL NETwORKING SITES, AFFORDANCES AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT
Social presentation is a chosen part of reality that someone gives to others looking for certain impression (Goffman, 1974). Therefore, our lives are structured to repeated behaviour patterns (Carlson, 2009). In this way, identity is an autonomous construction of a personal story that makes sense (Gaulejac, 2004) and fills the space between personal and public worlds, aligning self-projection and culture, subject and social structure (Hall, 2006).
DESIGNA2015 - PROCEEDINGS - SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AFFORDANCES AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT: A STUDY ABOUT HOW (...) 59
Nowadays, social networking sites stimulate the culture of connectivity on contemporary society (Van Dijck, 2013). In these spaces, social presentation is a game of information exchange, with great control over deliveries and omissions (Papacharissi, 2002). A profile gives the option to emphasize or minimize characteristics, even appearance — so it is a personage, and the cyberspace is a stage (Bullingham & Vasconcelos, 2013).
This online self-presentation depends of interface and affordances. Interface is a channel to reach a point beyond and takes meaning and effect in the appropriation
— it is always an effect —, suggesting interaction (Galloway, 2012). On the other hand, affordance is the available information about the use of something (Gibson, 1979). So, it is what an object has to offer to a person and what clues of this use are able to give (Norman, 2002). For sure, any person makes an appropriation according to skills and experience (Hsieh, 2012).
The cognitive role of affordances suggests that systems are developed in order to inform users how they should be used, in case of human-computer interaction (Fragoso et al, 2012). There is a mutual influence between affordances and practices of users in a system, so affordances are linked to an expressive control in a self- presentation (Fragoso et al, 2012).
The ability to drive action among users is noteworthy in social networking sites.
Facebook’s interface encourages users to share information, composing a profile and updating (Van Dijck, 2013). Because of the question “What’s on your mind?”, this site inspires an imperative of sharing (Van Dijck, 2013). At the same time, LinkedIn is a semiformal space that incentives the best behaviour (Russell, 2014).
Indeed, the inducement to interaction is regular. Facebook, e.g., sends notifications about posts, encourages users to share thoughts and suggests friends. The same on LinkedIn: it warns when someone looks a profile; asks data through the button
“upgrade your profile”; and suggests groups. So, both sites encourage identity management (Van Dijck, 2013).
At the same time, the user presents to others an idealized self-version, in a profile with limitation of truth and reality (Young, 2013). The reason for that is the struggle to make sense and fit in different social contexts (Boyd, 2014). However, the
interactions are now less spontaneous, as if emotional expressions are always under control (Zarghooni, 2007). This work shows how this occurs in practice.
METHODOLOGY
According to LinkedIn, 19 of the 25 most desirable professional skills refer to technology. So, this work decided to study information technology professionals, with one prerequisite: updated profiles on LinkedIn and Facebook. It was used the snowball technique (Patton, 1990) to create a group, with a chain of indications. The final group has 10 subjects (from Subject A to Subject J), with image and identity preserved.
Thus, this work applies three methods. Firstly, non-participant observation (Marconi, 2012) of profiles and posts made on Facebook and LinkedIn for 61 days (August and September 2014). Secondly, content analysis (Bardin, 1977) of the collected data, with procedures for understands the message. And thirdly, in-depth interviews (Marconi, 2012). After that, the researcher shows patterns of identity management in social networking sites.
SOCIAL NETwORKING SITES AFFORDANCES AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT: ANALYSIS
The subjects have a common vision about the two social networks. For Subject A, e.g.: “I have Facebook to interact socially and expose information of my life and the way I think for a limited number of people. However, I use LinkedIn to stay alert to opportunities related to my field and also to acquire knowledge”. His motivation is the same for publish content just on Facebook: “I do it based on the basic premises of each one”.
According to Subject D, the profile depends of the network: “I have Facebook to make contact with family, friends and former classmates. So, I use LinkedIn for professional contact with work colleagues, former colleagues, suppliers, business partners and to follow the market”. Understanding these objectives, he made a standard: “I created a rule to add people on Facebook since a episode of a supplier commented on posts to appear intimacy. So, I don’t add suppliers in this social network anymore, just on LinkedIn”, he says. Subject H has one main motivation to be on LinkedIn: “An online curriculum vitae”.
Therefore, all subjects understand that Facebook is a space for share ideas and to interact with family and friends. So, the users want to be on Facebook. But, LinkedIn is a network in which subjects observe the market and present themselves as professionals. Thus, for this group, LinkedIn is a network where they need to be.
DESIGNA2015 - PROCEEDINGS - SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AFFORDANCES AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT: A STUDY ABOUT HOW (...) 61
Another point analysed was the amount of posts. During two months, it was counted 514 posts on Facebook and none on LinkedIn. The group agree that LinkedIn is a space to listen more than talk. For the Subject J: “People apply certain filters, because they are concerned with what others will think. So, they think before to post, but only on LinkedIn”.
About Facebook’s interactions (likes, comments and shares) in the period, there were 8,290 interactions (average of 16 by post). Responsible for 77.22% of total interactions, Subject F talks about a vicious circle: more interactions he receives, more he wants. The same for the Subject A: “In all spheres of life, acceptance is something we please”.
Besides, only Subject F uses the exactly same photo on Facebook and LinkedIn: “I am the same, professionally and personally. I just use the appropriate social network for each contact I wish to make”. Subject A chose different cuts for the same image: on Facebook, the wife appears at his side; on LinkedIn, just him. The Subject A says: “On LinkedIn, the first interest is my professional skills, so I put information only about me”.
Supporter of cosplay, Subject I omits this on LinkedIn: “I usually choose funny profile photos on Facebook, which unfortunately some Human Resources departments will not find so fun as I do”. For the Subject J: “We are in an market that uses the appearance as selection criteria”. So, this group select a serious image on LinkedIn, while the picture on Facebook can be informal. They can use a formal photo on Facebook, but never the opposite.
DISCUSSION
Identity management on social networking sites is a set of conscious and intentional strategies that a person considers to create and maintain personal profiles and to posi- tion him in a certain way in networks to cause a specific effect (Sardá, 2015). Therefore, this work demonstrates how this occurs in practice on Facebook and LinkedIn, encou- raged by site’s affordances. So, there are a some points to expand this discussion.
Firstly, there is a dissociation between both networks. The group can easily split contacts, strategies and goals of LinkedIn and Facebook, understanding the identity multiplicity (Santaella, 2013). These subjects assume different uses for both sites and present themselves in accordance with the objectives of each one, because the structure tells how to deal (Fragoso et al, 2012). Moreover, the sites affordances leads subjects in their appropriations, so site and subject are moulded in their functions (Hsieh, 2012).
Another point to discuss is the appropriations of these sites, such as the label code of LinkedIn, with special care about image (Russell, 2014). The subjects use distinct photos in the same way they take different fronts depending on the group (Goffman, 2012; 2013). And these choices are crucial to social networking sites (Turkle, 2011), with a social pressure for performance, which exists in any conscious human activity (Carlson, 2009). This is appellant on LinkedIn: everyone is so afraid of wrong self-expose that chooses not to expose at all.
In addition, these sites play a crucial influence in the group over the possibilities of the interface (Norman, 2002). The Facebook states: “you are in charge. We are here to help you have the experience you want”. In turn, LinkedIn has a user’s guide with golden rules: build real relationships; send congratulations; reject invitations that do not add value to your network; selectiveness when sharing information.
Furthermore, it is possible to list 15 strategies of identity management on social networking sites: 1) create profiles; 2) seek a self-presentation for each site; 3) choose a picture for each site; 4) maintain a different position in each site; 5) form distinct networks; 6) self-censorship about posted contents; 7) mince words before to publish; 8) assume what the audience will think; 9) expose personal life or not; 10) understand sites as exhibition spaces; 11) keep an expectation about interactions;
12) track time on social networks; 13) update or not the profiles; 14) deal with the identity multiplicities consciously; 15) justify their stance by the aims of the sites.
CONCLUSION
Finally, social presentation (Goffman, 2013; 2012) is largely observed on this group.
To start, keeping a profile on these sites is a way to fit into a social dynamic. The profile with personal information is a front. Each front search an impression: from the subject to the network. In addition, the person strives a coherence on both sites.
And the understanding of each site, through its affordances, maintains the social order in cyberspace.
This work claims that subjects manage their identities on social networking sites through conscious decisions. They decide to build a profile, which information to provide, how to behave, what to post or not, which network to create. And they do this consciously, taking into account the site’s affordances, with behaviour expectations. So, identity management depends of site’s affordances in cyberspace.
DESIGNA2015 - PROCEEDINGS - SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AFFORDANCES AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT: A STUDY ABOUT HOW (...) 63
reFerences
BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1977.
BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Modernidade e ambivalência. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Ed., 1999.
BOYD, Dana. It’s complicated. New Haven/London: Yale University Press: 2014.
BOYD, D.; ELLISON, N. Social networking sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, v. 13, n. 1, 2007.
BULLINGHAM, Liam; VASCONCELOS, Ana C. The presentation of self in the online world: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, Sheffield Hallam University, UK, v. 39, p. 101-112, 2013.
CARLSON, Marvin. Performance — Uma introdução crítica. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2009.
FRAGOSO, Suely; REBS, Rebeca Recuero; BARTH, Daiani Ludmila. Interface Affordances and Social Practices in Online Communication Systems. AVI ‘12, May 21-25, 2012, Capri Island, Italy.
FRAGOSO, Suely; RECUERO, Raquel; AMARAL, Adriana. Métodos de pesquisa para internet. Porto Alegre:
Sulina, 2012a.
GALLOWAY, Alexander. The interface effect. Cambridge: MPG Books, 2012.
GAULEJAC, Vincent de. O âmago da discussão: da sociologia do indivíduo à sociologia do sujeito. Cronos, Natal-RN, v. 5/6, n. 1/2, p. 59-77, jan./dez. 2004/2005
GIBSON, J. J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Publishers, 1979.
GIDDENS, Anthony. Modernidade e identidade. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Ed., 2002.
GOFFMAN, Erving. A ordem da interação. In: Os momentos e os seus homens. Papers chosen and presented by Yves Winkin. — Lisboa: Relógio d’Água Editores, 1999.
_____. A representação do eu na vida cotidiana. 19. ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013.
_____. Frame analysis — An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974.
_____. Ritual de interação: ensaios sobre o comportamento face a face. 2. ed. — Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2012.
_____. The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh. The Bateman Press: 1956.
GRANOVETTER, Mark S. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. Volume 78, Issue 6 (May, 1973), p. 1360-1380.
_____. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, Volume 1 (1983), p.
201-233.
HALL, Stuart. A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade. 11. ed. Rio de Janeiro: DPeA Editora, 2006.
HSIEH, Yuli Patrick. Online social networking skills: the social affordances approach to digital inequality.
First Monday, v. 17, nº 4. 2 April 2012.
JACOBSEN, Michael. The contemporary Goffman. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
JOAS, H. Interacionismo simbólico. In A. Guiddens e J. Turner (Orgs.), Teoria social hoje. São Paulo: UNESP, 1999.
LIPOVETSKY, Gilles. Os tempos hipermodernos. São Paulo: Editora Barcarolla, 2004.
LOVINK, Geert. Networks without a cause: a critique of social media. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2011.
MAFFESOLI, Michel. O instante eterno: o retorno do trágico nas sociedades pós-modernas. São Paulo: Zouk, 2003.
MARCONI, Marina de Andrade; LAKATOS, Eva Maria. Técnicas de Pesquisa. 7. ed. 6. Reimpr. São Paulo: Atlas, 2012.
NORMAN, Donald. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
PAPACHARISSI, Zizi. The presentation of self in virtual life: characteristics of personal home pages.
Journalism & Mass Communication (J&MC) Quarterly, v. 79, nº 3, p. 643-660. Autumn 2002.
PATTON, M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1990. pp. 169-186.
PRIMO, Alex. Interação mediada por computador. 3. ed. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2011.
RECUERO, Raquel. Redes sociais na internet. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2009.
RUSSELL, Matthew A. Mining the social web. 2. ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2014.
SANTAELLA, Lucia. Intersubjetividade nas Redes Digitais: Repercussões na Educação. In Interações em rede.
Organized by Alex Primo. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2013.
SARDÁ, Thais de Oliveira. A Gestão de Identidade dos Sujeitos nos Sites de Redes Sociais Facebook e LinkedIn. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: 2015.
SILVERSTONE, Roger. Por que estudar a mídia? 3. ed. São Paulo: Loyola, 2011.
SKEELS, Meredith; GRUDIN, Jonathan. When social networks cross boundaries: a case study of workplace use of Facebook and LinkedIn. 2009.
DESIGNA2015 - PROCEEDINGS - O DESIGN COMO VEÍCULO DE COMUNICAÇãO PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO DE UMA MARCA (...) 65