You are on page 1of 54

FACEBOOK VS.

FACE-TO-FACE A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACBEOOK USAGE, SOCIAL BEHAVIORS AND SOCIAL SKILLS By Andrew Peter Carson Submitted to the Department of Sociology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts In Sociology

Fall

08

2011 American University Washington, DC 20016

P a g e | ii

FACEBOOK VS. FACE-TO-FACE A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACBEOOK USAGE, SOCIAL BEHAVIORS AND SOCIAL SKILLS By Andrew Peter Carson ABSTRACT A preliminary study investigating the relationship between Facebook usage, both online and offline social behavior and interpersonal skills. Through the use of an online survey and interpersonal skills tests, individual s social abilities and behaviors were analyzed. Subjects were asked to rate their own social intelligence and explain why, how and how much time they were on Facebook. In tandem to the survey, individuals name and face memorization abilities were tested. Subjects were then assigned into groups according to their hourly Facebook usage. Each group s data was averaged and compared against one another. Results distinguished between three major Facebook user types, each with their own predictable behaviors and skills.

P a g e | iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & DEDICATION

Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt
The limits of my language mean limits of my world

He who never climbs the Great Wall, is not a true man

My advisor who puts up with my occasional lackadaisical antics and forgetfulness
To Professor Andrea Brenner

Amico di tutti e di nessuno e tutt uno
a friend to all and a friend to none is one in the same

To The Average Facebook User

Special Acknowledgements Lauren Carson, Nancy DeMarco, Gummy Jean Stack Yablonski, John Yablonski, Katherine Streit, Tia Chang, Madison Bee, Alyssa Trempus, William Zeman, Kelly Walbert, Sarah Souder, and my social imagination.

Pag e |1

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... iii SECTIONS
1.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 2 Social Evolution The Phenomenon of Facebook The Study

2. 3.

DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 6 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................... 8 Digital Social Behavior Psychology of Networking and Social Interactions

4.

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Method Rationale Questionnaire Layout Method Weaknesses

5.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................... 22 Theoretical Background Theoretical Application

6.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 28 Facebook usage vs. Interpersonal Skills Facebook usage vs. Qualitative and Quantitative Facebook usage Facebook usage vs. Social Behaviors Facebook usage vs. Projection of Ideal Self Facebook usage vs. Reasons for Usage

7.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 37 User Type Profiles Name and Face Memorization The Future

APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D The Online Questionnaire Questionnaire Data Consent Form Proof of IRB Approval

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Pag e |2
Sections

Introduction
Social Evolution Humans are undoubtedly social beings, as we thrive in the social sphere. Through family, work, or friends, we live life by sharing with others. As most would agree, our experiences are even best when shared with our network of friends and contacts. In truth, our ability to connect, socialize and empathize on such a magnitude is a relatively unique phenomenon. Individuals amass vast networks of friends and formal contacts over a lifespan and are well able to maintain many of these relationships (Black and Ornelles 2001). However, most curious is not that we are in fact able to network, but how we are able to network. In order to sustain such networks, the individual must possess some core social competencies. This may refer to social skills or dexterity that aid in the development and management of relationships. Behaviorally, it is only logical that we evolved skills to meet the demands of our social lives. And indeed people have developed an acute set of behavioral skills that help them better navigate social networks (Dunbar 2008). Language, non-verbal communication, face recognition and name recognition are all good examples of such social skills. An individual endowed with the ability to recall names and faces, for example, is able to better manage and appropriately communicate with contacts. However, as new experiences and ways of interacting are introduced into our social environment, our behaviors change. Our skills do not remain static, but adapt to best suit the needs of our surrounding environment. With the industrial

Pag e |3 revolution and the explosion of modern travel, for example, our social lives endured a drastic shift in focus. As Dunbar comments, In modern postindustrial societies, personal social networks have become dispersed [and this] may have significant consequences for their cohesiveness (2008:10). People have had to become accustomed to dealing with a much wider social audience. Dunbar argues that humans formed prescribed relationships, such as teacher-student, doctor-patient, which help us deal with the change in volume of social relations. This was the major adaption of the 20th century that forever changed how we interact. The question becomes: How is our social behavior adapting now? In the 21st century, the most cutting-edge social trend is online social networking. Whether humans communicate through email, blogs, discussion boards, MySpace or Facebook, we are increasingly choosing to communicate through the internet (Raine et al, 2011). With the invention of digital social relationships, our interaction has again changed. Users must now balance online and offline social worlds. The research question of my study then becomes: How is online social networking usage affecting our offline and online social interaction? The Phenomenon of Facebook With over 600 million users, Facebook is widely accepted to be the largest online social networking site. If Facebook users were to succeed and create their own country, they would be the third most populous country in the entire world (Facebook.com 2011). With such social capital, sites like Facebook have stark implications for modern social interaction. With access to one s profile 365 days a

Pag e |4 year, there have been many new curious social and behavioral phenomena developing on social networking sites. One such phenomenon, for example, is the creation of Facebook profiles for infants. This occurs when the parents create a profile for their baby, adding photos and other updates to the child s webpage. The implications of having Facebook at such a young age are still not completely known. However, it can be said that the individual will never know a time when they had no Facebook profile. As it was assigned to them at birth, their own profile would have been created while they were still unable to construct conscious thought. In addition, the child will have a complete and thorough online digital record of their entire life (including pictures, movies etc.), which will be available to all of their friends. Other behaviors that 18-30 year olds seem to engage in are the sociological phenomenon of reputation management, as understood through theories of Erving Goffman (1959). Online virtual space presents the ideal medium through which individuals can construct a performance. Users can bypass socially undesired physical traits (stuttering, shortness, introversion) and create an ideal version of themselves through performance, which is now readily and constantly consumed by other users, using many of Facebook s features (Zhao et al 2008). With the examples of infant Facebook profiles and social behaviors of 18-30 year old Facebook users, we can see that the online social world is quickly becoming more and more diverse. It is clear that such online social networks are changing the social topography, although the outcomes still remain to be seen.

Pag e |5 The Study My project will be a preliminary study looking into the connection between Facebook and our offline social lives. In particular, my study looks at the relationship between three distinct factors: Facebook usage, interpersonal skills and peer networking. My study will go about investigating these factors through an online questionnaire, which targets populations that match the following criteria:
y y y y y y

Female Sophomore or Junior Standing American University non-transfer student Facebook user Self-Identified as outgoing or social Willing to share statistical (non-identifying) Facebook information With this target population, my study will compare the interpersonal skills of

different types of Facebook users. The recruitment tools will be both a public event on Facebook as well as a public announcement on Today@AU, American University s daily student publication. Both tools will outline the criteria of the study and the topic of the project.

Pag e |6

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined in detail to clear up any confusion as to their usage in this study. Some of these terms are taken from other sources and some have particular meanings within the context of this study.

Social Network Site (SNS) In this study, a social networking site is any digital space where individuals are encouraged to interact and form relations and social ties. Face-to-Face (F2F) In this study, face-to-face refers to any social interaction that occurs in a physical setting, where all parties involved are present in the environment. Ideal Self In this study, ideal self refers to an individual s desired social personality. However, the desired social personality is nothing more than the desire for certain perceptions by society. Most importantly, this identity is completely self-assessed according to social pressures and norms. This term is mostly based off the theory of social self, constructed by George Mead (Schieman 2007). Peer Networking In this study, peer networking refers to building social connections within one s own certain social demographic (age, gender, race, religion etc.) Social Intelligence In this study social intelligence is taken from Greenspan and Granfield s definition. Social intelligence refers to the ability to read people

Pag e |7 and situations and respond appropriately given context. (1992). Facebook Usage In this study, Facebook usage is broken down into the following two categories. y Qualitative This type of usage refers to how individuals use Facebook both emotionally and socially. It refers to any measurements of usage that cannot be quantified. This measurement is subjective. y Quantitative This type of usage refers to how much individuals use Facebook in a given period of time. It also refers to which aspects of the Facebook website users use more or less often. In theory, this measurement is mainly objective, although in this study the measurement is self-assessed by subjects. Social Interaction In this study social interaction is broken down into the following two categories. y Interpersonal Social Skills This term refers to the measureable interpersonal skills and abilities, such as: face, name and body language recognition skills. y Interpersonal Social Behavior This term refers to the way in which the individual acts towards individuals within the framework of social networks, both online and offline.

Pag e |8

Literature Review
After completing an investigation on the literature focusing on social networking sites and interpersonal network skills, the research has not brought back many promising sources. Even after two intensive meetings with two separate American University research librarians, no suitable sources could be found. Both the two research librarians and I therefore concluded that this topic is relatively new. After utilizing American University s databases, almost no sources were found that researched this specific area within the topic of social networking. Due to this aspect of my study, the following literature review will be compiled from sociological, psychological, communication and technological academic resources. With this synthesis, the following review will draw from many different and seemingly off-topic sources, in order to bridge the divide in social research. The review will be divided into two different sections: digital social behavior and psychology of networking and social interactions. Digital Social Behavior Articles found that belong to this theme are undoubtedly most numerous of the entire literature review. This reflects the popularity of this topic among social researchers. From reviewing the literature, it appears that most authors who write about digital social behavior refer to the concept of identity construction. This is especially the case when online social network sites are involved. The majority of the results conclude that with the emergence of online social interaction a new form of identity production and interpretation has emerged (Zhao et al 2008).

Pag e |9 Erika Pearson s All the World Wide Web s a Stage: The performance of identity in online social networks (2009) is an analysis of social networking sites through the framework of Goffman and his theory of dramaturgy, specifically his work on reputation management. Pearson argues that with the emergence on online communities, social interaction has become disembodied, mediated and controllable. Users are able to claim any personality or qualities that they want, which effectively negates physical communicators (height, appearance, speech patterns etc.). Pearson goes on to suggest that social media blurs the lines between front and back stage, as understood in Goffman s framework (1959). With this aurora of intimacy, the individuals can sometimes forget that they are under the electronic eye, and that many individuals can view their performance at once without their knowledge or consent. The article also refers to the topic of strong and weak ties, and how social media is beneficial to their growth (Pearson 2009). Strong ties are defined by what individuals would identify as closeness. Best friend relationships that involve emotional investments are typically strong ties. On the other hand, weak ties are friends that do not require such emotional investments, who may only be seen as acquaintances. Pearson argues that social network sites are useful in the development of both strong and weak ties. As intimacy and privacy is mimicked online, the mundane aspects of social bond maintenance, such as keeping in contact, are slowly become easier to handle. Online users also have the ability to invest emotionally into relationships and test the waters, before they are required to invest face-to-face. In addition, online social media views are able to choose the

P a g e | 10 depth of their engagement on a performance by performance basis (ibid: 3). This means that individuals can electively involve themselves in certain relationships, developing weak bonds into strong bonds more quickly. The article Identity Construction on Facebook by Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin addresses the different tools and methods users go about identity construction (2008). First, the article talks about the disembodied nature of online identity construction, and how people can overcome gating features (socially stigmatized behaviors). It can lead certain socially stigmatized groups to identity empowerment, as they can ignore their stigmatization online. This is especially true of nonymous Facebook relationships. Zhao et al define nonymous as the opposite of anonymous. This is one defining features of Facebook. The majority of users actually use their offline identity and develop a set of online friends that mirror their real-world social network. This particular study surveyed 63 Facebook users to find out how they create their identity online. The results show that users go about identity production many different ways. A traditional Facebook profile has both implicit and explicit tools for identity production. Photos and wall posts are example of implicit tools that show, but don t tell, personality. Statuses and the about me box are explicit tools that tell and don t show personality. The study finds that users far prefer the implicit tools to infer personality. Interestingly, a majority of users in the study agreed that they use their Facebook profile to show individuality. Ironically, users of Facebook tend to use very similar tools and phrases to infer certain common socially-desirable characteristics, like well-roundedness (Zhao et al, 2008). However individualistic

P a g e | 11 the users feel themselves to be, the driving pressure is toward online social conformity. Indeed, information posted on Facebook by users succumbs to social pressures. Homosexuality, for example, was not indicated under sexual orientation for many users, despite the users actual offline preference. Many other such nonsocially desirable traits were left out of profiles. This topic of identity construction is also analyzed in the article Too Much of a Good Thing? by Tong, Van Der Heide and Langwell (2008). This particular study analyzes the relationship between number of online friends and interpersonal impressions. The study finds that there is a relationship between number of online friends and other s perception of their social desirability. Inversely, users with disproportionately low number of friends (under 50) were seen as socially awkward or to have some type of social problem (Tong et al 2008). The most useful single resource that I found during my literature review was the Pew Internet Research Center. From this free online source, I have managed to find three applicable and important articles: Reputation Management and Social Media: How people monitor their identity and search for others online, The Social Side of the Net, and The Future of Social Relations. The article on reputation management by Madden and Smith is a study based on phone interviews from subjects all over the United States, and was conducted by Princeton Research International (2010). The findings of the study show that people have become more aware of their online identity. Between 2006 and 2010, the amount of Internet users using search engines to search themselves increased to 57%. This is accompanied by an overall increase of online social network users, now

P a g e | 12 with 46% of all adult Americans having a social networking site (SNS) profile (Madden and Smith: 2010). As a result of the increased awareness of digital footprints, more Internet users are engaging in behavior of reputation management. This means that more and more people are looking to privacy settings on their online social networks. This phenomenon is especially prevalent in the younger generation, between the ages of 18-29. In this demographic, 44% of users say they have taken steps to limit the amount of personal information available (ibid 2010). This demographic was also more likely to change their privacy settings, delete unwarranted comments and detag themselves from photographs. Interestingly, older generations were not as aware of their online reputation, and therefore very rarely engaged in reputation management behavior. Also very important to my study, is the correlation found between SNS usage and awareness of online identity. Engaged users tended to be more aware of their online identity, and manage their reputation by very particularly controlling the public s access to their information (ibid: 2010). Pew s next article on the social side of the Internet, written by Rainie, Purcell and Smith addresses the Internet s effect on our social interactions (2001). This study was also conducted over the phone and involved people from all over the country. First, 68% of respondents said that the Internet had a major impact on their communications with friends. The majority of respondents agreed on the implications of the communication of groups, local communities and organizations. The study also found that Internet users were more active members of their communities. Internet users were more likely to attend group meetings, events and

P a g e | 13 volunteer in their community. However, they were also less likely to know their own neighbors, suggesting a fundamental change in offline face-to-face social interactions. Last is the article, The Future of Social Relations (2010). This study was an opt-in survey for over 895 technology stakeholders and critics. The result of this study is a multitude of block quotes containing the opinions of individuals, foremost in the field of online technology. Over the 895 people surveyed, 85% agreed that the internet had been a positive influence on their social life, with the rest agreeing that the internet had been a negative influence. One quote by David Ellis, director of communications at New York University was most relevant to my study and best summarized this article: Once you eliminate outliers and freakish behaviors, the Internet bestows tremendous opportunities for social growth on most people, in most circumstances. The internet creates a huge range of oftennovel choices from which end-users construct their own adaptive behaviors. The important determining factors in personal friendships, marriages and other relationship remains with the individual. Which isn t to say the Internet makes no difference because it does. (Anderson and Rainie. 2008: 13) Psychology of Networking and Social Interactions The next most significant theme in the literature review is the psychology of networking and social interactions. This section, however small, is very important to the theoretical framework of this study. The cognitive ability of the brain to hold relationships is very important and closely related to the face and name memorization of the brain, which this study tests. Even though no research was

P a g e | 14 found directly linking online social network use and cognitive ability, this following section represents the second half of the puzzle. This section will bridge the gap from sociology to psychology. R.I.M Dunbar s article Cognitive Constraints on the Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks talks about the relational cognitive limit of the social individual (2008). This articles stresses the importance of the social brain, as evolved through time, which is adept at dealing with social life. Interestingly, the cognitive limit of the social brain to maintain individual connections averages around 150. This means that the average social brain can only sustain 150 unique relationships. This number, however, poses a basic problem, especially when the size and scope of the post-industrial society is taken into account. Dunbar argues that 150 cognitive limit is easily explicable and even compatible in the context of such modern societies: In sum, then, there is growing evidence that human social group sizes have a cognitive limit. [However] this does not mean that humans cannot live in large-scale societies (they obviously do in the modern postindustrial world) Such [modern] social groupings extend far beyond the individual s capacity to know and understand the members as individuals, and so require different strategies for maintaining their coherence through time (2008: 10). Here Dunbar begins to reference the concept of the prescribed relationships, which are more common in modern societies (Dunbar 2008). Such relationships require minimal cognitive ability, as the relationships are socially administered, controlled and replicated. Examples of prescribed social connections found in modern society are the Student-Teacher, Doctor-Patient and Seller-Buyer

P a g e | 15 relationship. It is with this construct that individuals are able to have well over their cognitive limit of social relationships. Dunbar also attempts to explain the structure of an individual s social network. He argues that an individual s relationships can be grouped in concentric circles around the individual. As one moves further away from epicenter of the social net, the more informal and weaker the relationships become. Also, as social relationships move further and further away from the epicenter, the less the individuals need to groom and invest in them. Rhonda Black and Cecily Ornelle s article Assessment for Effective Intervention and Social Networks for Transition works at breaking down and analyzing the concept of social skill. This article argues that there are three basic types of intelligence: IQ, practical and social. IQ tests are very well known and test specifically rational logic skills. Due to the objective nature of this type of intelligence, IQ tests are very widely accepted as legitimate assessments of intelligence. The second type of intelligence is practical, which Black and Cecily describe as everyday logic . This intelligence of the mundane, the ability to put on your glasses or button your shirt is also easily testable. The last type is intelligence of social behavior. Since most social behavior is subjective and situationally dependent, it is hardest to test (Black and Cecily 2001). Black and Ornelle define social skills as, measurable interpersonal behaviors (2001:24). The article then outlines a common standardized social skills assessment. However, the authors argue that current tests are not measuring how individuals can read or act upon social cues, and therefore cannot adequately track how

P a g e | 16 individuals perform and adjust their social behavior in the correct situations. The article identifies four behavior scales that are used to diagnose social problems in school children, as the article begins to focus on the educational aspects of low social intelligence. The four scales are: Scales of Independent Behavior, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale (2nd Edition) and The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (Black and Cecily 2001).

P a g e | 17

Methodology
Due to the nature of this study, the methods chosen were a highly important and integral part of the research process. Indeed, the efficacy of the selected methods had a direct bearing on the results of the study, which ultimately had to be taken into account. The dependence on research methods is mainly due to the environment in which this study finds itself. Such a gap in literature and constant rapid evolution in online social networking makes for a relatively new and changing field of research. My study precariously attempts to bridge technology, social networking, communication, psychology and sociology. Method Rationale The target population for this study was female, Facebook-using, outgoing, non-transfer, sophomore or junior students. My study specifically targeted one sex in an effort to cut down on the number of variables in the research. Female students were chosen over Male simply because American University has more Female students. Subjects had to have a registered Facebook account in order to participate, because Facebook was hypothesized to be the most widely used online social network on campus. As Zhao et al states, Facebook usage among US college students has reached 90% (2008:1823). Subjects had to self-identify themselves as outgoing in order make sure there were social skills and behaviors that this study could analyze. Transfer students and freshman were all removed from the target population as my study hypothesized that they were probably not yet be integrated into campus life. In the case of the graduating seniors, they were assumed to be

P a g e | 18 preoccupied with matters of graduation, such as finding a job or graduate school applications, since the study took place during the spring semester. The seniors were therefore also not included in the target population. For my project, two types of data collection methods were chosen. An online questionnaire was created through surveygizmo.com that had two distinct sections, each with its own data collection method. One half of the questionnaire is a highly structured online survey. The second half of the questionnaire contains several aptitude tests, which were designed to test name and face memorization skills. The general questionnaire, one-part survey and one-part testing, was intended to collect mostly quantitative psycho-sociological data. A basic online survey was chosen as one method because the questions the study raises were determined to be mostly quantitative in nature. In addition, online surveys are easy to distribute and are therefore able to access a large percentage of the target population. Therefore, an online survey format was selected because of convenience, accessibility and data type. For the second part of the questionnaire general aptitude tests were chosen as a method because of the need to analyze the individual s interpersonal skills. This type of data could not be completely collected with self-assessment survey questions, as social desirability would play a role in influencing the respondent s answers. Through the use of online visual and audio tests, the tendency for the individual to exaggerate her own social abilities is negated. Questionnaire Layout The layout for the questionnaire was very important to the efficacy of the

P a g e | 19 study. Ultimately, the questionnaire had one survey section and two testing sections that worked in tandem. The order in which the subject moved through the sections of the questionnaire was very intentionally controlled. The need to control the layout stems from the nature of the visual and audio tests. Before starting the questionnaire, the subject was asked several demographic questions to determine if she passed the criteria of the target population. Then she began the first testing section where she had to complete audio and visual tests. The audio test was a simple audio clip of a conversation between man and woman at a party. The subject was asked to listen to the clip in its entirety. This clip tested the respondent s latent name memory ability, as the instructions did not implicitly direct the respondent to memorize names. Instead, they were being tested on the ability to passively memorize names, without being asked. The visual test was an embedded video that showed a random succession of 15 faces. The video instructed the subject to memorize the faces as they each passed by in half-second intervals. This concluded the first testing section of the questionnaire. Next, the survey section started by asking a couple of in-depth demographic questions that were completely non-identifying. Then the subject was asked questions to self-assess their own social skills and Facebook usage. Finally, the second testing section started with another embedded video. This second video presented 25 faces, seven of which were from the previous test. The subject was instructed to select out which faces she recognized. To follow up with the previous audio test, the subject was asked to recall the names of the characters

P a g e | 20 from the dialogue by writing them out. The reason to separate the two testing sections with the survey section in-between was to allow sufficient time to elapse in order to be able to test for memory ability. The two tests were scored on a simple point system. The video test s score system emphasized correct guesses. Every time a previous face out of the 25 was selected, the respondent received two points. However, whenever the respondent guessed incorrectly and chose a face that was not previously shown, they lost one point. The best an individual could achieve with Face recognition was a total of 14 points. The audio name recall test s point system, on the other hand, was based on syllables. Each of the six names (3 characters, each with first and last name) was broken down into syllables. Every time a respondent guessed a correct syllable in a name, the respondent received a point. If the correct name for example was Andrew and the respondent wrote Andy, they received one point for the And syllable, but did not receive any points for the y . As auditory memory captures sound in bits and pieces, individuals were scored on how many sound bites they could remember. With a total of 15 syllables between six names, there were a total of 15 points. Method Weaknesses As with every method, the survey and test methods that I have chosen all have certain weaknesses. The major weakness of the survey method is its rigidity. Due to the very nature of close-ended type questions that I chose, the answers and questions are all inflexible. With surveys, the hypothesis, assumptions and content of a study govern the survey layout and to a certain degree govern the answers. This

P a g e | 21 does not leave my study open to new viewpoints or analyses from the subjects themselves, which may have been relevant and insightful (Joel 2005). There is also the issue of recruiting subjects to take my survey, on which my study is completely dependent. In addition, there is the problem of question fatigue, especially with a questionnaire that comes in three parts. I am sure that many subjects did not completely finish my survey completely and I can only count fully completed questionnaires in my research (Joel 2005). Finally, my method for name and face aptitude testing also has some weaknesses that need to be addressed. Both tests consist of segments of media (video and audio clips) that the viewer is instructed to use only once. However, there is nothing stopping the subject from replaying either clip, which would skew her results. Also, the images of faces chosen in the aptitude tests were not from a very diverse background. This means that one demographic may have an innate advantage over another demographic.

P a g e | 22

Theoretical Framework
The development of a social self refers to the construction of self-perceptions and consciousness in a social framework. Humans build this identity through basic interaction both with individuals and the social mass. Facebook, being a social system, facilitates such micro and macro interactions. Facebook therefore also facilitates the development of a social self. With over 600 million active members, this particular system holds many implications for human social interaction as a whole. When users have constant access to social trends and pressures from a vast online social network, the system itself becomes a strong force of socialization. This new social force has a significant impact on the development on our social identities. Using certain sociological theoretical frameworks, the force can be analyzed to find out how it acts and affects its users. The socialization force of Facebook can be understood through the Cooley s looking-glass self (1902), Mead and Cooley s social self and finally Goffman s impression management (1959). Theoretical Background The concept, Looking-glass Self is a well known sociological term authored by George Horton Cooley (1902). Based on his notion of social self, Cooley began to research this phenomenon on his own children, watching how they began to develop self image (Dunn 2011). The concept of looking-glass itself has three stages. First, the individual imagines their appearance as perceived by other people. Second, the individual then imagines how that perceived appearance is judged by

P a g e | 23 others. Lastly, the individual has some emotional response based on their own evaluation of their appearance and judgment. This three-staged internal process is accompanied by the growth of a social self or self-concept. This term, coined by Cooley and also used by George Herbert Mead, refers to the development of a social referent identity. The evaluative and affective components of these two terms have been studied widely with respect to their affect on self-esteem and self-efficacy (Schieman 2007). Dramaturgy Theory, popularized by Erving Goffman (1959), is famous for assimilating social individuals to actors on a stage. This school of thought is based on three basic assumptions of social individuals. First, social behavior is vast, complex and its comprehension is completely dependent on the social cues of others. Second, human beings have an inherent need for order, and therefore perform social roles as a condition of sociality. Last, through the use of symbols, actions, behaviors, words, and facial gestures, individuals want to be understood (Manning 2011). Although many sociologists helped develop dramaturgical theory, Goffman was known for focusing on the actor s desire to manage his or her own impression. With his development of the concept of face, which he called positive social value, Goffman argued that social communication was based on the control of information, both through manipulation and exclusion (Hans 2011). With the goal of saving face and managing social reputation, actors will take on roles and edit information according to the role they have chosen. The discursive nature of this theory was equally important to Goffman because he stressed the interactions not

P a g e | 24 only between performers, but also between the actor and the audience (Manning 2011). Theoretical Application Through the lucrative medium of Facebook, users today are much more attune to others performances and ultimately have a much deeper experience of the looking-glass self. This heightened sense of performance is multiplied in Facebook is for several reasons. First, users are able to overcome certain physical gating features that are stigmatized (Pearson 2009). Attributes such as stuttering or shortness melt away in an online social world, where individuals can choose to upload whichever parts of their self they desire. This behavior is a type of impression management, as defined by Goffman. The digital actor is limiting certain information, certain social cues in order to preserve a convincing role. Impression management is all about the careful control of information, which is built into the very layout of Facebook. Individuals choose how much and what to share. Second, there is no real required connection between the offline self and online self, other than Facebook s requirement for academic or geographic affiliation (ie. the requirement that new users assign themselves to a certain college or city network). This not only allows actors to perform and control information, but drives most to perform. In the online social competitive market, where social desirability is valued above all else, all must compete through performing certain cool and hip roles.

P a g e | 25 In Zhao s study, results showed that socially desirable traits were expressed more frequently while most socially non-desirable traits were marginalized through Facebook (2008). A handful of openly bisexual individuals that were in the study, for example, gave into the heterosexual normative pressure and did not post their complete sexual orientation on Facebook (Zhao et al 2008). In addition, Zhao s study found that a majority of users tried to show social-connectedness through many photos of themselves and their social circles. All of these photos, comments and posts are all behaviors that are to be interpreted by the viewer. As Zhao et al writes: There were great variations in the kinds of self-images produced on Facebook however, regardless of levels of sophistication, Facebook users in our sample all attempted to project a self that is socially desirable. (1826-7). Third, with constant accesses to other s performances 24 hours a day, emphasis is placed on the performance aspect of Facebook. Knowing that their user accounts must reflect their own performance at all times, social actors use this to their benefit to transmit an unwavering performance of social desirability. Understanding Facebook as nothing more than a vast performance stage for social actors to craft their own managed roles helps reveal the true socializing power of Facebook. Through Facebook usage, individuals are exposed to the socially modified and inflated personalities of others. The Facebook newsfeed (where news of your friend s interactions is gathered and displayed), becomes a source of great social pressure. Through such pressure, individuals become more critical of themselves, which leads to a strong development of social self.

P a g e | 26 Individuals feel pressure to act a certain role on Facebook as they develop a social identity and move through the stages of the looking-glass self. Unlike in the physical world, users can look at a hard digital copy of their performance on their profile page and easily visualize how others would see their page. In fact, there is even an option in Facebook to view one s own profile page as if you were a third party. Online it is much easier to imagine how others would view your performance and therefore easier for the individual to imagine how others judge it. In the last step of the look-glass self, the individual has some emotional response to their own perceptions. Unfortunately, Facebook depression is a widely occurring new phenomenon, and a common affectation to social self development in Facebook. Facebook pages can make some kids feel even worse, if they think they don t measure up (Tanner 2011:1). As Facebook becomes an online social stock market, where socially desirable goods are distributed by users, exchanged and consumed, there is competition in performance. Tanner quotes on user, It s like a big popularity contest who can get the most friend requests or get the most pictures tagged (2011:2). The individual user can sometime feel inadequate, as their self-esteem is affected by their judgments of the performances of others. This inadequacy leads the individual to perform in order to cope or even bolster his or her own self-esteem. In end, this is the reinforcing cycle of performance on Facebook. Fist, individuals inherently are performing to some degree as they attempt to upload their personality to Facebook and inevitably interpret and produce identity online. Second, users exist in an online market of performance competition, where social

P a g e | 27 desirability is the highest commodity, whether it is through displays of uniqueness, individuality, roundedness or even down-to earth attitudes. Third, those who are still naïve and don t consciously perform, experience a heightened version of the looking-glass self, as the ability to reference other actors performances on Facebook is built into the very layout of the website. This inadequacy creates the need to perform and reinforces the cycle.

P a g e | 28

Analysis of Results
Over a period of three weeks a total of 31 respondents successfully completed the online questionnaire. However, there were an overwhelming number Demographic Breakdown % of Demographic Respondents Sophomore 29 Junior 71 CAS 48 SOC 12 SPA 19 SIS 25 Kogod 9 % of Online Social Respondents Network that are users Facebook 100 Linkedin 25 Twitter 41 Myspace 9 of respondents who either did not fit the criteria or never fully completed all sections of the questionnaire. The two greatest reasons potential respondents were rejected from the study were: the respondent s senior standing, and selecting no when asked whether they were social. Ironically, out of the total amount of visitors to the online questionnaire, over

60% were either rejected or lost interest in the project and never completed it. The table above shows a breakdown of the demographic information of the respondents by the 11 major measurements. The majority of respondents were junior students from the College of Arts and Sciences. The average age of all the respondents was 20. There is a noticeable lack of students from the Kogod School of Business, possibly due the limited range of my recruitment tools. It is no surprise that all of the respondents were Facebook users, as that was a requirement of the questionnaire. Also interesting was the very low usage of other online networking sites. Although Twitter had a little over 40%, sites like Myspace were only at 9%. The rest of the actual data from the questionnaire was analyzed based on

P a g e | 29 quantitative Facebook use. The data from each individual respondent was sorted out by how much time the respondent said they spent on Facebook. Out of all the responses from the 31 respondents, their self-assessed Facebook usage ranged from five minutes to seven hours. The respondents, once sorted by Facebook usage, were grouped in one of four sections based on their daily usage: 5 30 minutes, 31-59 minutes, 1-3 hours and more than 3 hours. Then the answers of each particular group was averaged and analyzed against one another. User Type Reference Table Daily Facebook Usage User Type 5 -30 minutes Casual User 31-59 minutes Average User 1-3 hours Addict > 3 hours Crazy For the purposes of analysis and interpretation, each of the four groups was given a name, shown in the table above which enabled quicker identification and ease in interpretation. It is important to stress, that this is purely an identification system. These names do not and should not reflect interpretation themselves. Facebook usage vs. Interpersonal Skills Face and Name Memorization
User Type Average Face Memorization Score % Score Average Name Memorization Score % Score

Casual User Average User Addict Crazy Background

3 6 6.8 10 14 points total

21% 43% 48% 71%

9.3 6.35 5.2 3 15 points total

62% 42% 34% 20%

As the data above shows, there was a clear trend in the numbers between Facebook usage and interpersonal skills score. Interestingly, this trend went both

P a g e | 30 directions depending on the user s Facebook usage. In review, the total possible scores on both the face and name memorization tests were 14 and 15 respectively. It appears that the crazy and addict users were very good at memorizing faces but where not as adept with name memorization. Those respondents that spent more than three hours on Facebook averaged 10 points for face memorization but only averaged three points for name memorization. However, the exact opposite was true for the casual and average users. Those users who spent five to 31 minutes on Facebook averaged three points for face memorization but managed to average 9.3 points for name memorization. There is a clear trend in this data: the more users spent time interacting with Facebook, the better they were at memorizing names and the worse they were with faces. However, the less users spent time interacting online, the worse they were memorizing faces and the better they were with names. This trend is reflected again in the percentage representation of scores. Facebook usage vs. Qualitative and Quantitative Facebook usage Facebook Tools
User Type Casual User Average User Addict Crazy Ranked 1st Private Messages Newsfeed Profile Pages Profile Pages Ranked 2nd Profile Pages Profile Pages Newsfeed Newsfeed Ranked 3rd Facebook Chat Private Messages Private Messages Private Messages Ranked 4th Event Pages Facebook Chat Facebook Chat Facebook Chat Ranked 5th Newsfeed Event Pages Event Pages Group Pages

The table above shows a breakdown of usage of Facebook tools between user types. This table compares hourly usage against Facebook tools that respondents ranked from one to seven. Facebook tools that were ranked with one represented

P a g e | 31 frequent use and those ranked with seven represented rare use. The above table only shows the average five top ranked tools on Facebook, as two tools were consistently at the bottom. They were deemed insignificant and not included in this table (see Appendix A). While there seems to be no noticeable trend in the data to point out, there are a few interesting things happening. Profile pages, private messages and the newsfeed tools are consistently ranked among the top three most important aspects of Facebook. However the casual user ranked the newsfeed surprisingly low and seemed to buck the trend, where all other users ranked it either first or second. Other than this major oddity in the data, the average, addict and crazy users all ranked the tools relatively identically, with only a few minor exceptions. Networking Behavior and Communication
User Type Casual User Average User Addict Crazy Background Friending Behavior 4.5 4.36 4.27 4 1 = active 9 = passive Facebook is a Primary Means of Communication 3.5 4 5.27 7 1 = Strongly Disagree 9 = Strongly Agree Facebook Friends 575.5 689 783.4 963

The table above shows a breakdown of the networking behavior of users. The data in the first column entitled Friending Behavior refers to whether users were active or passive when adding friends. This question was recorded on a likert scale from one to nine. For this question, one represented the desire to actively friend others, while seven represented the desire to passively wait to be friended by others. The Facebook is a Primary Means of Communication column refers to a question that asked respondents whether they used Facebook as a primary means

P a g e | 32 of communication with their circle of friends. For this question, one represents a strong disagreement and nine represents a strong agreement with the statement. The Facebook Friends column is simply the amount of friends the users had on Facebook. The data found in this table is very logical and should be expected for each group. As users spend more time on Facebook, they accumulate friends and they rely more and more on the website for communication. It is therefore no surprise that the addict and crazy users both had on average, more friends, and believed they used the site as a primary means of communication. The friending behavior across user types was generally the same. All users tended toward being more active in friending people, with the crazy users leading this trend by a slight margin. Facebook usage vs. Social Behaviors Self-assessed Social Intelligence User Type Belief in Social Ability Casual User 7.07 Average User 7.16 Addict 7.05 Crazy 6.35 1 = Weak (Not Able) Background 9 = Strong (Able) This table shows the relationship between Facebook usage and belief in social ability. The belief score, on the right column, was reached by averaging seven questions that all asked participants to assess their own social abilities in different ways. The seven questions can be found in section two of the questionnaire under social interactions (see Appendix A). For each of the seven questions, a nine corresponded to strong belief in social ability, while a one corresponded to a weak belief in social ability.

P a g e | 33 Although very subtle, there is an extremely slight bell curve occurring in the data. This would mean that average users think themselves to be most social, with casual and addict users coming in second. The data more clearly demonstrates that crazy users are on average less confident in their social abilities than the other three user types. Interaction Preference User Type Facebook vs. F2F Casual User 6.27 Average User 7.36 Addict 5.96 Crazy 4.16 1 = Facebook preference Background 9= F2F preference This table shows the breakdown between Facebook usage and offline vs. online social preference. The number on the right column was reached by averaging three questions which measured the user social preference of online or offline interaction. The three questions can be found in section two of the questionnaire under Facebook (see Appendix A). For all three questions, a one corresponded to strong online social preference, while a nine corresponded to a strong offline social preference. The comparison of these two variables better emphasizes the bell curve, which was slightly visible in the previous table. In this table the average users clearly believe they are more social offline than all of the other user types. The low scores in this table are found at both ends, with the casual users averaging 6.27 and the crazy users averaging 4.16. With these numbers, the casual users still preferred F2F interaction, although not as much as the average user. However the crazy user

P a g e | 34 was clearly the only user type to believe they were more social online than face-toface. Facebook usage vs. Projection of Ideal Self Self-assessed Ideal Self Projection Belief in Projection of Ideal Self User Type Casual User 6.16 Average User 6.5 Addict 6.36 Crazy 7 1 = Weak (Not Projected) Background 9 = Strong (Projected) The table above represents the comparison of Facebook usage and belief in projection of ideal self or personality. The belief in projection of ideal self number was calculated by averaging together three questions. These questions can be found in section two of the questionnaire under Facebook (See Appendix A). For these questions, a nine represented a strong belief in ideal self-projection and a one represented a weak belief. The data shows that there is a clear trend. The more the user interacted with Facebook the greater they believed they were projecting an ideal version of themselves. Casual users only averaged 6.16 and crazy users averaged 7, a slight increase. This is not completely surprising, as the more time the user has on Facebook the more time he or she interacts with the social performances of others. As discussed in my theoretical framework, interacting with others performances only drives the individual to want to project ideal self.

P a g e | 35

Reputation Management Behavior
User Type De-friended Someone De-tagged a Photo Deleted a Comment

Casual User Average User Addict Crazy Background

83 100 81 100

83 100 100 100 % of occurrence in user type

66 54 81 100

This graph compares Facebook usage against several specific reputation management behaviors. If a user de-friends, de-tags a picture or deletes a comment, as discussed in my theoretical framework, the user is engaging in performance behavior of managing social perceptions. The three columns were calculated from yes and no type questions. The findings from the first two columns are fairly inconclusive. There is no trend or variation in the data. Therefore either these variables are irrelevant or it is representative of the need for a sample size larger than 31. However the column entitled Deleted a Comment does seem to show a trend. Here is another bell curve, were the average users had the lowest number. 54% means that just over half of the users in the average type group said they had deleted a comment. What is also interesting is that 100% of the crazy type users admitted to engaging in each reputation management behaviors. Facebook Usage vs. Reasons for Usage Reasons for Facebook Usage
User Type To network with friends To feel attached to a social group To gather information and learn things To pass away the time

Casual User Average User Addict Crazy Background

1st 2nd 1st 1st

3rd 4th 2nd 2nd
1st = Most Important

2nd 3rd 4th 5th
9th = Least Important

4th 1st 3rd 3rd

P a g e | 36 This table above is a comparison of Facebook usage against reasons for using Facebook. The user was asked to rank nine reasons for using Facebook with 1st ranked as most important and 9th ranked as least important. Eight of these reasons were taken from the previous study Online Social Networks: Why do Students Use Facebook? (Cheung at al 2010). I decided to add the reason to network with my friends as it was an important variable in my study, and it was not in the original list provided from the previous study. The five reasons selected in the table above were deemed to be most relevant and important to this project. The four other reasons for using Facebook can be found in section two of the questionnaire under Facebook (see Appendix A). There does not appear to be much of interest happening in this table, as all of the important variables were selected in the top five every time with every user type. It is also not surprising that the option to network with my friends was chosen multiple times as 1st and 2nd, and was overall the most important variable across user types. The only notable trend in the table was how the average user did not follow the trend of the other users, ranking to pass away the time as most important. Causal, addict and crazy users ranked this reason as 3rd and 4th.

P a g e | 37

Discussion & Conclusion
In reality, the implication of Facebook usage upon sociality is a very complicated issue. A proper answer would require a much more comprehensive study that looks in-depth at many aspects of Facebook and daily life. In addition, while it is easy to establish correlation between two variables, causality is a much more difficult to pin down. This study can only go so far as to make some general inferences about Facebook user types, which is only one piece of the puzzle. Looking at the data and analysis, there are several conclusions that can be drawn. First, not all users make use of social networks in the same way. Facebook means different things to different people. In general, there seems to be three main user types in the data: casual, average and addict. The crazy user type was not included in this discussion section, but their data was reintegrated into the addict type category. This was done mainly because there were only two crazy user types, not a large enough sample size to make accurate predictions and conclusions. Each of these three user types has certain online personalities, preferences, and social-concepts of themselves. These behaviors seem to be very fixed and therefore predictable across each user type. For example, by gathering two basic Facebook usage measurements: hourly usage and friend count, a lot can be predicted about any given user s offline and online personality. User Type Profiles Casual users, who spend on average up to 30 minutes a day online, are likely to have the least amount of Facebook friends. Although they are not completely

P a g e | 38 dependent on the site to communicate with friends, the few minutes they do spend online are all dedicated to networking and gathering information. Casual users are much more efficient when online, as they rely on direct tools such as: private messages, profiles pages and Facebook chat. These tools allow for direct one-to-one communication between people. Other tools like the newsfeed, which they ranked as less important, have no real communicative purpose other than tracking other individuals usage of the Facebook. As they spend little time online, they do not have time to construct social performances and therefore believe that they project an honest version of their personality in their profiles. Perhaps casual users are social individuals; however they are not as interested in broadening their social horizons. The data does support this idea, as casual users were least likely to actively friend others on Facebook and were involved in a minimal amount of clubs on campus. Maybe these users are mainly concerned with maintaining the connections they already have established and therefore see Facebook as way to stay in touch with their circle of pre-established friends. In comparison to casual users, average users spent more time on Facebook, about an hour a day. It is not surprising that average users were then somewhat more concerned with their online identity, and ranked the newsfeed as the most important tool. As these users spent more time on Facebook they became more and more reliant on the site to communicate with their friends. However another interesting trend also appears at this level of user. Even though they are more dependent on Facebook, they also see themselves as more outgoing than casual

P a g e | 39 users and are engaged in the most number of clubs on campus. Average users even admitted that they were better at F2F interactions, than online interactions. It seems that average users may represent a change in Facebook usage. They answered that they use Facebook mostly to pass away the time. Perhaps average Facebook users are more dependent on Facebook to communicate but not to establish social ties. Facebook is not as meaningful or necessary for their social interaction, as they ranked to feel attached to a social group as the least important reason they used Facebook. Indeed average users would be just as social without Facebook as they preferred offline interaction. Perhaps, unlike casual users who depend on Facebook to interact with their circle of friends, average Facebook users see the site as a means for diversion, entertainment or news. The newsfeed was ranked as the most important tool, with Facebook acting more as a social newspaper than a vehicle for social interaction, average users were still well able to involve themselves in the community around them. Lastly, is the addict user, who clocks in at using Facebook between one and three hours a day. Addict users answered that they preferred Facebook interaction to offline interaction, which helps explain why they were least confident in their offline social abilities. With this online preference and slight introversion, it is understandable that they would use Facebook as a means to modify their social behavior and identity. This is why addict users engaged in the most reputation management behavior, all admitting to having de-friended, de-tagged and deleting content. It is therefore unsurprising that they had the strongest belief in projecting

P a g e | 40 ideal self. They were even the most aware of this phenomenon, as they also strongly believed others projected ideal self on Facebook. Addict users possibly see Facebook as a means to overcome physical and social gating features and stigmas, which hold them back. They treat their online social behavior as replacement for their offline behavior, which may be why they have the most online friends and friend most actively out of all other user types. Name and Face Memorization Each of the three discussed user types had a clear personality that emerged from the data. However one part of the study that was intentionally not included in the conclusions above was their face and name memorization scores. The users social abilities (face and name memory) were the most puzzling variables in the entire study. This variable is therefore analyzed separately from the individual user type caricatures because it is hard to understand it in that context. First, it is clear that there is a direct relationship between Facebook usage and visual face memorization ability. Second, it is clear that there is an inverse relationship between Facebook usage and latent auditory name memorization ability. Although this study is not completely prepared to understand or analyze this complex relationship, one possible analysis can be offered. Facebook is, for the most part, a visual experience. Users surf, click, navigate and look at content and tagged pictures of users. Besides posting YouTube videos or other audio clips, Facebook stresses visual skills. The more users spend on Facebook the more these skills are used and perhaps therefore users become more capable of performing such visual recognition tasks. As some skills are stressed, others atrophy

P a g e | 41 and fade out. In Facebook s case, auditory skills are not stressed. It is therefore possible that addict users may not be adept at latent auditory name memorization, as Facebook does not stimulate this skill. This phenomenon can be related to compensatory nature related to sense atrophy in humans. People who are blind, for example, say that they experience a heightening of other senses in the body, such as hearing. This phenomenon occurs as the body tries to compensate for one lost sense by heightening others and expanding their capabilities. This same thing may be occurring among Facebook users, which would help to explain the data in this study. The body is responding to Facebook s stimulating visual effects, and atrophying other senses (such as hearing), to support this new demand for visual ability. However the question of causality still remains: Which causes what? Does the system force our social skills to adaption or are certain individually determined skills and personalities attracted to the format of the system? In other words: Does the format of Facebook select for and determine abilities the more users interact? or -

Are visually capable people drawn to the visually stimulating nature of Facebook? The Future This study, in its current form, is not prepared to answer these more complex questions. These questions, however, should be the topic of further research. It is highly important to the future evolution of our social environment to understand how technology influences us both on a macro and micro scale. 

P a g e | 42

Appendices
Appendix A The Online Questionnaire Introduction (criteria) 1. Do you consider yourself outgoing? 2. Are you an American University student? 3. What is your academic standing? 4. What sex do you identify as? 5. Do you have a Facebook account? 6. Are you a transfer student? 7. Are you 18 or older? Section 1: Interpersonal Skills (part 1) Video Section Please make sure this video plays in full screen Remember: You can only watch this video once Audio Section Please make sure to use headphones or speakers with this test Remember: You can only listen to this clip once 8. Which tests have you completed? Section 2: Question and Answer 9. Where is your major housed at AU? 10. Please mark any of the following social networks for which you have an account
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Myspace Wiki-Groups Academia.com Google Groups Friendster

11. Have you ever been in an organization on campus as a member or leader? 12. How old are you?

P a g e | 43 Social Interactions The following questions are out of a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the most 1 being the least 5 being neutral 13. How social do you consider yourself in everyday life? 14. If you were to walk into a party, how comfortable are you introducing yourself or saying hello to people? 15. How likely are you to start a conversation with a stranger in a new class at the beginning of a semester? 16. Do you consider yourself to be an outgoing person? 17. Are you good at becoming fast friends with peers? 18. Do you consider yourself a good face-to-face peer networker? 19. Do others consider you to be an outgoing person? Facebook The following questions are out of a scale of 1 to 9, with 5 being neutral 20. Do you believe your personality differs between Facebook and face-to-face? 21. Are you more social on Facebook or face-to-face? 22. Are you more outgoing on Facebook or face-to-face? 23. Are you a better peer-networker on Facebook or face-to-face? 24. Please rank the ways in which you use Facebook from most important to least important. _______Profile Pages _______Private Messages _______Facebook Chat _______Newsfeed _______Group Pages _______Event Pages _______Fan Pages 25. On your Facebook account, have you ever: Yes No

P a g e | 44 De-friended someone De-tagged a picture of yourself Deleted a friend's comment () () () () () ()

26. Do you believe that your Facebook account contains an accurate representation of your personality? 27. Do you use Facebook as the primary means of communication with your close friends? 28. Typically, how much time per day do you interact with Facebook? ( ) 5 minutes or less ( ) 6 minutes - 30 minutes ( ) 31 minutes - 59 minutes ( ) 1 hour ( ) 2-3 hours ( ) 4-5 hours ( ) 6-7 hours ( ) 8-9 hours ( ) 10 hours or more 29. Do you believe that you create an ideal version of yourself on your Facebook account? 30. When adding friends on Facebook, are you more likely to look for people or wait for people to friend you? 31. Do you believe that others create an ideal version of themselves on their Facebook account? 32. How many friends do you have on Facebook? 33. Please rank your reasons for using Facebook from most important to least important _______To pass away the time _______To get a sense of human sociability or human warmth _______To feel important _______To learn about myself _______To get information and learn new things _______To network with friends and acquaintances

P a g e | 45 _______To feel attached to my social group _______To appease the social-pressure of having a Facebook account _______To feel important as a member to a group Section 2: Interpersonal Skills (part 2) Select face(s) that you have seen previously. []j []a []k []b []l []c []m []d []n []e []o []f []p []g []q []h []r []i

[]s []t []u []v []w []x []y

34. Without re-listening to the audio clip at the beginning of this survey, can you recall the names of the people? Please fill out as much of each name as you can, every syllable you remember counts! 35. Do you know anyone with these first or last names? 36. Which tests have you completed?

P a g e | 46

Appendix B Questionnaire Data

P a g e | 47

Appendix C Consent Form Participation in this study will require 10 minutes of your time. Identification of Investigators & Purpose of Study You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Andrew Carson from American University. The purpose of this study is to understand the effects of the recent phenomenon of online social networks. In particular, their effects on our own face-to-face interactions. This questionnaire will help better analyze the relationship between an individual's Facebook usage, their interpersonal skills and their social abilties. This study will contribute to the student's completion of my senior thesis. Survey Layout Section 1: Interpersonal Skills (part 1) This section will consist of two short tests, which are used to analyze a person's interpersonal skills and abilities. For this section you will need either headphones or speakers to hear an audio clip. Section 2: Question and Answer In this section, a majority of questions will focus on your academic life and selfidentified social skills. Section 3: Interpersonal Skills (part 2) In part 2 of the test section, you will be asked to take a quick follow up test. Risks The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in this study. Benefits Potential benefits from participation in this study include a better understanding of your own Facebook usage and social skills. Confidentiality Those who participate in this survey will have full anonymity and confidentiality, as no major demographic information will be required from this survey. The researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. While individual responses are confidential, aggregate data will be presented representing averages or generalizations about the responses as a whole. All data will be stored in a secure location accessible only to the researcher. Upon completion of this study, the information will be stored offline as a secure file. Participation & Withdrawal Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without

P a g e | 48 consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any individual question without consequences.

Questions about the Study If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study, or after its completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of this study, please contact: Andrew Carson Sociology American University ac2464a@American.edu Professor Andrea Brenner Sociology American University Telephone: (212)885-2478 artbrenner@aol.com Questions about Your Rights as a Research Subject Dr. David Haaga Matt Zembrzuski Chair, Institutional Review Board IRB Coordinator American University American University (202)885-1718 (202)885-3447 dhaaga@american.edu irb@american.edu Giving of Consent I have read this consent form and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I freely consent to participate. I have been given satisfactory answers to my questions. The investigator provided me with a copy of this form. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age. Please click next to agree to these terms of consent.

P a g e | 49

Appendix D Proof of IRB Approval The following email is my proof of IRB approval for my project.

Von: Matt Zembrzuski <zembrzus@american.edu> An : Andrew Carson <ac2464a@student.american.edu> cc : artbrenner@aol.com Datum: 25. März 2011 07:49 Betreff : IRB Exemption of your Protocol, # 11090 Facebook vs. face-to-face Gesendet von: american.edu

Andrew, The IRB reviewed the above-mentioned protocol and determined that this research meets the criteria for exemption. You may now begin the research. Any proposed changes to the protocol that could potentially change the exemption status must be submitted to the IRB for review and approval prior to implementation, unless such a change is necessary to avoid immediate harm to subjects. Any unanticipated problems that involve risks to subjects or others must be reported to the IRB in accordance with American University s policies and procedures. A formal exemption notice can be provided at a later date if needed.
_________________________________________________________ Matt Zembrzuski Research Compliance Manager American University http://www.american.edu tel: (202) 885-3447, fax: (202) 885-3453, zembrzus@american.edu

P a g e | 50

References
Anderson, Janna and Lee Rainie. 2010. The Future of Social Relations Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 1st, 2011. http://pewinternet.org/topics/future-of-the-internet.aspx. 

(Hans) Bakker, J. I. "Facework." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 12 April 2011 http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g97814051 24331_chunk_g978140512433112_ss1-1 Bargh, John and Katelyn A. McKenna. 2003. The Internet and Social Life. Annual Psychological Review 55:573-90. Black, Rhonda and Cecily Ornelles. 2001. Assessment of Social Competence and Social Networks for Transition. Assessment for Effective Intervention 26(23):23-38. Cheung, Christy, Pui-Yee Chiu, Matthew K.O. Lee. 2010. Online Social Networks: Why do Students Use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior. Dunbar, R. I. M. 2008. Cognitive Constraints on the Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 12(1):7-16. Dunn, Jennifer. "Looking-Glass Self." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 12 April 2011 http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g97814051 24331_chunk_g978140512433118_ss1-59 Dwyer, Catherine. 2007. Digital Relationships in the Myspce Generation: Results from a Qualitative Study. The 40th Hawaii International Confrence on System Sciences Joel R. Evans, Anil Mathur. 2005. "The value of online surveys", Internet Research, 15(2): 195 219. Kujath, Carlyne. 2011. Facebook and MySpace: Complement or Substitute for Faceto-Face Interaction? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 14(1):75-78.

P a g e | 51 Madden, Madden and Aaron Smith. 2010. Reputation Management and Social Media: How people monitor their identity and search for other online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 1st, 2011. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/reputation-management.aspx Manning, Peter Kirby. "Dramaturgy." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 12 April 2011 http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g97814051 24331_chunk_g978140512433110_ss2-43 Miller, Claire. 2010. The Many Faces of You The New York Times, October 16th. Retrieved March 1st, 2011. Pearson, Erika. 2009. All the World Wide Web s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 13(3):1-8 Penard, Thierry and Nicolas Poussing. Internet Use and Social Capital: The Strength of Virtual Ties. Journal of Economic Issues 44(3):560-595. Raine, Lee, Kristen Purcell and Aaron Smith. 2001. The Social Side of the Internet. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 1st, 2011. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/the-social-side-of-the-network.aspx. 

Schieman, Scott. "Self-Concept." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 12 April 2011 http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g97814051 24331_chunk_g978140512433125_ss1-69 Tanner, Lindsey. 2011. Docs warn about Facebook and teen depression. Associated Press March, 27th. Tong, Stephanie, Brandon Van Der Heide and Lindsey Langwell. 2008. Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13:531-549. Wayne, Teddy. 2010. Managing Reputations on Social Sites. The New York Times, March 3rd. Retrieved March 1st, 2011. Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck and Jason Martin. 2008. Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 24:1816-1836.