Introduction
I chose to study the spotlight effect and how well it applies to status updates. I selected this topic because it merges a psychological tendency with a technological advancement and as a psychology major I am interested in the way people think and the reasons they behave certain ways. This question is important because status updates are a common use of networking sites like facebook and it is interesting to see what motives really lie behind them and what people are thinking as they post the updates. I focused my research on facebook because of its popularity and my own personal familiarity with the site.
Annotated Bibliography
The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency in social anxiety (Brown & Stopy)
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/45092/01/SE_and_IOT.pdf
Brown, M.A., & Stopa, L. (2007). The Spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency in
social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 804-819.
Both public and private sources of information contribute to the idea of the self which in turn affects social anxiety. The article looks at the spotlight effect in social judgment and defines the spotlight effect as “an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance”. It also focuses on the illusion of transparency of “biased assessments of other’s ability to read one’s own emotional states.” The researchers experimented with participants either being put into a condition of high or low social evaluation. People in the high social evaluation condition had higher levels of the spotlight effect in a negative manner thinking that people were looking at them negatively. There was no difference in the transparency illusion. The researchers concluded that the spotlight effect could be specific to social-evaluative concerns but the illusion of transparency may be a feature of the social anxiety itself.
Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondent bias (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich)
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=3&sid=9a18ec68-0059-4173-be57-238b433a8c5e%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=psp-83-2-300 (must be signed onto psycarticle database off library webpage)
Epley, N., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2002). Empathy neglect: reconciling the
spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(2), 300-312.
This article discussed the relationship between when people think others are judging them harshly and when others really are judging them. The article concluded that those with the spotlight effect that do something embarrassing are only judged harshly if the observer is unable to have empathy (see things through the eyes of the other person).
The spotlight effect revisited: overestimating the manifest variability of our actions and appearance (Gilovich, Kruger, & Medvec)
http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/Spotlight.pdf
Gilovich, T., Kruger, J., & Medvec, V.H. (2002). The Spotlight effect revisited:
overestimating the manifest variability of our actions and appearance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 93-99.
The article follows three studies in which people estimate the perceived variability of how they look to others in terms of physical appearance, athletic accomplishments, or performance on videogames. The results show that people continuously overestimate the amount of attention people are paying to their actions and abilities. One of the studies suggests that the spotlight effect is caused by our egocentrism and inability to consider the observers own actions and thoughts about themselves.
The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions an appearance (Savitsky, Gilovich, & Medvec)
http://psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Medvec.Sav.pdf
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V.H. (2000). The Spotlight effect in social
judgment: an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions
and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211-222.
This article simply examines the spotlight effect defines as “people overestimate the extent to which their actions and appearance are noted by others.” In two studies participants had to wear an embarrassing t-shirt and were asked to predict how many observers would remember what their shirt was (obviously they overestimated this number). In another study, people overestimated how much people judged the way they spoke in a group setting, thinking others paid attention to the good and bad things they said far more than people actually did. Two other studies reflect how people are incapable of looking through the other person’s eyes and since we are the key player in our perspective, we assume this is true for others as we guess their reactions.
Online disclosure: An empirical examination of undergraduate facebook profiles (Kolek & Saunders)
http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol45/iss1/art2/
Kolek, E.A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: an empirical examination of
undergraduate facebook profiles. Journal of Students Affairs Research and
Practice, 45(1), 1-25.
The article outlines a study examining a random sample of facebook profiles. They analyzed the profiles quantitatively and found that 1. the vast majority of students have a facebook account (at this particular university). 2. Only a small percentage of those students restricted their profile access to University staff. 3. A significant amount of student’s profiles contained contact info, course schedules, positive reference to the university, and pictures of the student consuming alcohol. Consequences of participation in such habits are then discussed at the end of the article.
Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the facebook (Hewitt & Forte)
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:cgcxx_399wwJ:scholar.google.com/+crossing+boundaries+hewitt+forte&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: identity management and
student/faculty relationships on the facebook. CSCW, Banff, Alberta.
The article looks at both the relationship and the perceptions between students and their university faculty on facebook. The study surveyed college students whose professors were indeed on facebook. They survey did not include facebook and merely addressed the perceptions of the professor; quality of education, personal characteristics, ect. Then another survey was given asking if they thought that professor was on facebook and whether or not it is appropriate. The results indicate that having a facebook profile does not affect the perceptions students have on their professors and that 1/3 of students didn’t thing that professors should be on facebook.
Twitter and status updating: Pew internet & American life project (Lenhart & Fox)
http://fortysouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Twitter-and-status-updating.pdf
Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American Life
Project, 1-11.
This Pew survey analyzed the use of both twitter and facebook status updating. The most key fact included the popularity of such habits (11% of online American adults). The survey goes on to explain social perceptions of twitter, the high percentage of youth that participate, and the “average” updater. This average twitter/status updater is in their early adulthood, racially and ethnically diverse, and urban. They also receive a lot of their information from mobile devices.
Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self awareness and visual anonymity (Joinson)
http://estudy.openu.ac.il/opus/Static/binaries/Upload/Bank94/Joinson2002_0.pdf
Joinson, A.N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer mediated communication: the role of
self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31,
177-192.
The article outlines three difference studies looking at how self-disclosure is higher when communication is “computer mediated”. People are far more likely to self-disclose online than face to face. The second study looked at the effects of visual anonymity. Computer Mediated self-disclosure may be linked to the fact that those seeing your self-disclosed information cannot actually see you. The third study examined how when you are in private, your public self-awareness and subsequent behavior is reduced significantly. This leads to a false sense of privacy online.
Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review (Collins & Miller)
Collins, N.L., & Miller, L.C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475.
This journal article reviewed numerous different studies on the relationship between self-disclosure and being seen positively by others. They then conducted a statistical meta-analysis to determine if the numerous articles saw significant correlations. Statistically significant results were found suggesting that the research on the subject indeed finds a correlation. Their findings include that self-disclosure is linked with being liked more than people who don’t self-disclose, initially liking the person leading to more self-disclosure, and liking the person who you self-disclosed to.
I’ll see you on “facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds)
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=6&sid=aa551270-871a-4fc7-a6e5-e7d9481062e0%40sessionmgr14
Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R.E., & Simonds, C.J. (2007). I'll see you on "facebook": the effect
of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective
learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.
This study looked at how students perceive their levels of motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate would be after looking at a professors facebook that was high in self-disclosure. The participants suggest that with high self-disclosure under such terms, the students anticipated higher more positive levels of each variable. However, serious credibility issues were suggested as well. The article suggests a balance between self-disclosure in a mature professional manner as respect and their careers could be linked to a poor image on facebook.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/45092/01/SE_and_IOT.pdf
Brown, M.A., & Stopa, L. (2007). The Spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency in
social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 804-819.
Both public and private sources of information contribute to the idea of the self which in turn affects social anxiety. The article looks at the spotlight effect in social judgment and defines the spotlight effect as “an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance”. It also focuses on the illusion of transparency of “biased assessments of other’s ability to read one’s own emotional states.” The researchers experimented with participants either being put into a condition of high or low social evaluation. People in the high social evaluation condition had higher levels of the spotlight effect in a negative manner thinking that people were looking at them negatively. There was no difference in the transparency illusion. The researchers concluded that the spotlight effect could be specific to social-evaluative concerns but the illusion of transparency may be a feature of the social anxiety itself.
Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondent bias (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich)
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=3&sid=9a18ec68-0059-4173-be57-238b433a8c5e%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=psp-83-2-300 (must be signed onto psycarticle database off library webpage)
Epley, N., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2002). Empathy neglect: reconciling the
spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(2), 300-312.
This article discussed the relationship between when people think others are judging them harshly and when others really are judging them. The article concluded that those with the spotlight effect that do something embarrassing are only judged harshly if the observer is unable to have empathy (see things through the eyes of the other person).
The spotlight effect revisited: overestimating the manifest variability of our actions and appearance (Gilovich, Kruger, & Medvec)
http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/Spotlight.pdf
Gilovich, T., Kruger, J., & Medvec, V.H. (2002). The Spotlight effect revisited:
overestimating the manifest variability of our actions and appearance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 93-99.
The article follows three studies in which people estimate the perceived variability of how they look to others in terms of physical appearance, athletic accomplishments, or performance on videogames. The results show that people continuously overestimate the amount of attention people are paying to their actions and abilities. One of the studies suggests that the spotlight effect is caused by our egocentrism and inability to consider the observers own actions and thoughts about themselves.
The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions an appearance (Savitsky, Gilovich, & Medvec)
http://psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Medvec.Sav.pdf
Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V.H. (2000). The Spotlight effect in social
judgment: an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions
and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211-222.
This article simply examines the spotlight effect defines as “people overestimate the extent to which their actions and appearance are noted by others.” In two studies participants had to wear an embarrassing t-shirt and were asked to predict how many observers would remember what their shirt was (obviously they overestimated this number). In another study, people overestimated how much people judged the way they spoke in a group setting, thinking others paid attention to the good and bad things they said far more than people actually did. Two other studies reflect how people are incapable of looking through the other person’s eyes and since we are the key player in our perspective, we assume this is true for others as we guess their reactions.
Online disclosure: An empirical examination of undergraduate facebook profiles (Kolek & Saunders)
http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp/vol45/iss1/art2/
Kolek, E.A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: an empirical examination of
undergraduate facebook profiles. Journal of Students Affairs Research and
Practice, 45(1), 1-25.
The article outlines a study examining a random sample of facebook profiles. They analyzed the profiles quantitatively and found that 1. the vast majority of students have a facebook account (at this particular university). 2. Only a small percentage of those students restricted their profile access to University staff. 3. A significant amount of student’s profiles contained contact info, course schedules, positive reference to the university, and pictures of the student consuming alcohol. Consequences of participation in such habits are then discussed at the end of the article.
Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the facebook (Hewitt & Forte)
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:cgcxx_399wwJ:scholar.google.com/+crossing+boundaries+hewitt+forte&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: identity management and
student/faculty relationships on the facebook. CSCW, Banff, Alberta.
The article looks at both the relationship and the perceptions between students and their university faculty on facebook. The study surveyed college students whose professors were indeed on facebook. They survey did not include facebook and merely addressed the perceptions of the professor; quality of education, personal characteristics, ect. Then another survey was given asking if they thought that professor was on facebook and whether or not it is appropriate. The results indicate that having a facebook profile does not affect the perceptions students have on their professors and that 1/3 of students didn’t thing that professors should be on facebook.
Twitter and status updating: Pew internet & American life project (Lenhart & Fox)
http://fortysouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Twitter-and-status-updating.pdf
Lenhart, A., & Fox, S. (2009). Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American Life
Project, 1-11.
This Pew survey analyzed the use of both twitter and facebook status updating. The most key fact included the popularity of such habits (11% of online American adults). The survey goes on to explain social perceptions of twitter, the high percentage of youth that participate, and the “average” updater. This average twitter/status updater is in their early adulthood, racially and ethnically diverse, and urban. They also receive a lot of their information from mobile devices.
Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self awareness and visual anonymity (Joinson)
http://estudy.openu.ac.il/opus/Static/binaries/Upload/Bank94/Joinson2002_0.pdf
Joinson, A.N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer mediated communication: the role of
self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31,
177-192.
The article outlines three difference studies looking at how self-disclosure is higher when communication is “computer mediated”. People are far more likely to self-disclose online than face to face. The second study looked at the effects of visual anonymity. Computer Mediated self-disclosure may be linked to the fact that those seeing your self-disclosed information cannot actually see you. The third study examined how when you are in private, your public self-awareness and subsequent behavior is reduced significantly. This leads to a false sense of privacy online.
Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review (Collins & Miller)
Collins, N.L., & Miller, L.C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475.
This journal article reviewed numerous different studies on the relationship between self-disclosure and being seen positively by others. They then conducted a statistical meta-analysis to determine if the numerous articles saw significant correlations. Statistically significant results were found suggesting that the research on the subject indeed finds a correlation. Their findings include that self-disclosure is linked with being liked more than people who don’t self-disclose, initially liking the person leading to more self-disclosure, and liking the person who you self-disclosed to.
I’ll see you on “facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds)
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=6&sid=aa551270-871a-4fc7-a6e5-e7d9481062e0%40sessionmgr14
Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R.E., & Simonds, C.J. (2007). I'll see you on "facebook": the effect
of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective
learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.
This study looked at how students perceive their levels of motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate would be after looking at a professors facebook that was high in self-disclosure. The participants suggest that with high self-disclosure under such terms, the students anticipated higher more positive levels of each variable. However, serious credibility issues were suggested as well. The article suggests a balance between self-disclosure in a mature professional manner as respect and their careers could be linked to a poor image on facebook.
Data, Methods, and Ethics
I analyzed two types of data. I archived data from the facebook site and I surveyed some facebook participants. This was appropriate to my question because I wanted to see people’s behaviors online versus their thoughts and feelings about what they were doing.
Retrieving Archival Data:
Before I even started my archiving, I formed some operational definitions of key terms I would be analyzing. A facebook user “liking” a status update is defined by an overt pressing of the “like” button beneath each status update which allows others to see your response to the update. These “likings” are showed underneath each status update on my newsfeed. My operational definition of “attended to” was if a status update was commented on or “liked”. It is important to note that I could only record physical proof of a status being attended to. It is highly possible and probably that status updates were read and then not commented or “liked”.
First I set out to retrieve archival data. I needed to look at people’s status updates in order to make claims about them. Most importantly, I had to look at if people had commented or “liked” each status update. To do this, I went to facebook.com and signed on to my own account at 3:50pm on Tuesday, January 26th. I then went to “status updates” and copied and pasted the status updates that were recorded on my newsfeed within a two hour time span. I included all of the comments and “likings” in my archive. I then proceeded to code how many status updates were included in the two hours, which of those were commented on and how many comments were made. Additionally I included in the data how many times each comment was “liked” by someone. I then analyzed the average comments and “likings” of each comment and also calculated the percent of status updates “attended to”.
I repeated this process two more times (Sunday, January 31st at 11am and Friday, February 5th at 6pm). I wanted to get a variety of archival times so that day of the week or time of day wouldn’t be a confounding variable in my data. I postulated that perhaps people would attend to status updates more or less at certain times.
I only included the status updates on my newsfeed. This is problematic because the only status updates seen on my newsfeed are those of my friends. This biases my sample considerably. It is possible that my friends attend to status updates more or less than the average person. Further research on the subject would require a randomized sampling of facebook profiles.
Retrieving Survey Data:
On February 15th I created a survey on surveymonkey.com. The actual survey can be accessed via link on the “Multi-media, Links, Relevant information ect.” Page. The survey questions and possible answers were as follows:
1. How often do you guess that you update your status?
· More than once a day
· About once a day
· About once a week
· Rarely or never
2. How often does someone comment or "like" your status?
· Every single time you post
· Almost every time
· Occasionally
· Rarely or never
3. What do you typically put as your status update. check all that apply.
· Quotes
· Jokes
· What you’ve done lately
· What you are going to do later
· Random thoughts
· Personal opinions
· Other (Please specify) ___________________________
4. What kind of status updates do you like to read?
· Quotes
· Jokes
· What you’ve done lately
· What you are going to do later
· Random thoughts
· Personal opinions
· Other (Please specify) ___________________________
5. How often do you comment on other people's status updates?
· Every time I read one
· Often
· Sometimes
· Never
· I don’t read people’s status updates
After making the survey I attached the link to my status update at 2:09pm on February 15th. I made my status read:
Retrieving Archival Data:
Before I even started my archiving, I formed some operational definitions of key terms I would be analyzing. A facebook user “liking” a status update is defined by an overt pressing of the “like” button beneath each status update which allows others to see your response to the update. These “likings” are showed underneath each status update on my newsfeed. My operational definition of “attended to” was if a status update was commented on or “liked”. It is important to note that I could only record physical proof of a status being attended to. It is highly possible and probably that status updates were read and then not commented or “liked”.
First I set out to retrieve archival data. I needed to look at people’s status updates in order to make claims about them. Most importantly, I had to look at if people had commented or “liked” each status update. To do this, I went to facebook.com and signed on to my own account at 3:50pm on Tuesday, January 26th. I then went to “status updates” and copied and pasted the status updates that were recorded on my newsfeed within a two hour time span. I included all of the comments and “likings” in my archive. I then proceeded to code how many status updates were included in the two hours, which of those were commented on and how many comments were made. Additionally I included in the data how many times each comment was “liked” by someone. I then analyzed the average comments and “likings” of each comment and also calculated the percent of status updates “attended to”.
I repeated this process two more times (Sunday, January 31st at 11am and Friday, February 5th at 6pm). I wanted to get a variety of archival times so that day of the week or time of day wouldn’t be a confounding variable in my data. I postulated that perhaps people would attend to status updates more or less at certain times.
I only included the status updates on my newsfeed. This is problematic because the only status updates seen on my newsfeed are those of my friends. This biases my sample considerably. It is possible that my friends attend to status updates more or less than the average person. Further research on the subject would require a randomized sampling of facebook profiles.
Retrieving Survey Data:
On February 15th I created a survey on surveymonkey.com. The actual survey can be accessed via link on the “Multi-media, Links, Relevant information ect.” Page. The survey questions and possible answers were as follows:
1. How often do you guess that you update your status?
· More than once a day
· About once a day
· About once a week
· Rarely or never
2. How often does someone comment or "like" your status?
· Every single time you post
· Almost every time
· Occasionally
· Rarely or never
3. What do you typically put as your status update. check all that apply.
· Quotes
· Jokes
· What you’ve done lately
· What you are going to do later
· Random thoughts
· Personal opinions
· Other (Please specify) ___________________________
4. What kind of status updates do you like to read?
· Quotes
· Jokes
· What you’ve done lately
· What you are going to do later
· Random thoughts
· Personal opinions
· Other (Please specify) ___________________________
5. How often do you comment on other people's status updates?
· Every time I read one
· Often
· Sometimes
· Never
· I don’t read people’s status updates
After making the survey I attached the link to my status update at 2:09pm on February 15th. I made my status read:
Then I reposted my status at 6:46pm that same night making my status read: 
I then waited 24 hours to close the survey. 29 people completed my survey and 6 people commented on my status claiming they had participated in the survey.As, taking the survey posted on a link of my status was used as an additional means of assessing attention given to status updates I did not ask or seek out participants in the survey. The participants chose themselves based on who had 1. read my status update and 2. wanted to participate and 3. actually did so. This obviously biases the sample of responses because as these people defined themselves as people who attend to status updates simply by taking the survey posted on mine.
My only concerns in terms of ethics was keeping the archived status updates anonymous. I did so by deleting the names of the people whom I archived. I also kept my data completely clear of all personal information including what was actually said in the status updates. I obtained no informed consent to archive the status updates as it would have been difficult to contact each person after the fact. In addition I am not friends with all of the people who commented or “liked” my friend’s status updates so I would have been unable to obtain consent. Because of this, I had to limit my data collection and analysis to examining the attention given to each update, not what was said in each update. Further research could include a component on what is being said in each update and how people are commenting, but this will require consent.
My survey was completely anonymous and I don’t have any information about who answered what or who even participated. Interestingly, 6 participants offered comments on the link giving an unsolicited response claiming they had taken the survey.
Analysis
There has been a lot of research pertaining to the spotlight effect, the use of facebook, and the effects of self-disclosure. My hypothesis is that if we review the current research we will see a possible connection between the spotlight effect and the use of self-disclosure in facebook status updates. Further, in my own research, we will see the effect played out with people thinking that others are paying more attention to their status updates than the amount of attention really given.
According to the research, the spotlight effect is “an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance”. (Brown & Stopa, 2007). This basically means that the average person has the tendency to think that more people are paying more attention to them than they are.
One study suggests that the spotlight effect is caused by our egocentrism and inability to consider the observers own actions and thoughts about themselves. (Gilovich, Kruger, & Medvec, 2002). The later point means that we are incapable of understanding that one person’s perspective is different than our own. Because we are bombarded by what we see, know, and understand, it is difficult to step outside of that and put yourself into a world where hypothetically those things don’t exist. You cannot fool yourself into not knowing something that you know, therefore you cannot forget your own perspective as you try to understand or predict someone else’s.
This spotlight effect is seen for both good and bad attention. One article concluded that those with the spotlight effect that do something embarrassing are only judged harshly if the observer is unable to have empathy (see things through the eyes of the other person). (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002). But it isn’t just the embarrassing things that we think people attend to. In another study, people overestimated how much people judged the way they spoke in a group setting, thinking others paid attention to the good and bad things they said far more than people actually did. (Gilovich, Savistky, & Medvec, 2000). We think people watch out for both our negative and positive behaviors.
According to a Pew survey, 11% of online American adults participate in updating their status either on facebook or twitter (Lenhart & Fox, 2009). Because of the popularity of such habits, research has been done to assess some of the reasoning behind and eventually effects of such public self-disclosure. One study analyzed profiles quantitatively and found that 1. the vast majority of students have a facebook account (at this particular university). 2. Only a small percentage of those students restricted their profile access to University staff. 3. A significant amount of student’s profiles contained contact info, course schedules, positive reference to the university, and pictures of the student consuming alcohol. (Kolek & Saunders, 2008). This shows that there is a huge potential for a wide variety of effects with so much personal information being available to practically anyone about practically anyone. A few studies have shown the results of perceptions of people based on their facebook profiles. One such study’s results indicate that having a facebook profile does not affect the perceptions students have on their professors (Hewitt & Forte, 2006). The study did go on however to discuss the practical implications on one’s professional life with certain inappropriate disclosures online.
Connecting the use of status updating and the spotlight effect is self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is exactly what it sounds like, when you talk about yourself, especially more intimate things about yourself. Collins & Miller (1994), conducted a meta analysis of all the studies on disclosure and concluded that self-disclosure is linked with being liked more by people who don’t self-disclose. In connecting self-disclosure to the technological world, one article outlines three difference studies looking at how self-disclosure is higher when communication is “computer mediated”. People are far more likely to self-disclose online than face to face. This Computer Mediated self-disclosure may be linked to the fact that those seeing your self-disclosed information cannot actually see you. (Joinson, 2001). In discussing the implications of such use of computer mediated self-disclosure, Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007), suggest a balance between self-disclosure in a mature professional manner as respect and their careers could be linked to a poor image on facebook.
Looking at all of the research it is not hard to see that self-disclosing online through status updates could be a perfect example of the spotlight effect. So my research was formed in order to prove that. My goal in my research was to look at how people update their status, what they thought about that, and then how many people attended to those updates. I guessed that less people would be paying attention than the updaters assumed.
Results of the archival data:
The results of the archival data were analyzed using Excel. The actual archived data was not included because of privacy issues as even with making the facebook user anonymous the content of the status updates was often enough to determine who the writer was. Instead, each status update is listed and number of comments or “likings” are recorded on an excel spreadsheet. The link to the data can be found on the Multi-Media, Links, Relavent Information, ect page.
The first day of archival data was retrieved on Tuesday, January 26the at 3:50pm. Eleven status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 2.45 comments and 0.09 “like” button hits with a total of an average of 2.55 overt attention given per update. 55.93% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons. The second archive data retrieval day was Sunday, January 31st at 11am. Twenty two status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 1.18 comments and 0.23“like” button hits with a total of an average of 1.41 pieces of overt attention given per update. 50.0% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons. The third day of archival data was retrieved on Friday, February 5th at 6pm. Twenty eight status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 1.89 comments and .04 “like” button hits with a total of an average of 1.93 overt attention given per update. 60.71% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons.
Looking at all three days archived, on average updates received 1.84 comments and were “liked” 0.12 times. That is an average of 1.96 cases of attention given to each status update. Between the three days, 55.93% of status updates were given some sort of overt attention.
Results of the survey data:
The results of the survey were analyzed per the surveymonkey.com webpage. 29 people responded and completed the survey. Of those, 6 people commented on the status update containing the link outing themselves publicly as having taken the survey. The link to the statistics analyzed can be found on the Multi-Media, Links, Relavent Information, ect page.
The responses to each of the survey questions are given below
QUESTION 1:
We see that status updating is highly prevalent among the survey participants.
QUESTION 2:
This question was to assess the participant’s views on how often they are being attended to. Clearly, the participants of the survey recall being attended to more often than not. Only one person claimed to be attended to every single time. The results of this question illustrate the belief that people do have the perception that others are paying attention to them.
QUESTION 3:
QUESTION 4:
Questions three and four were included when my project included content analysis of status updates which eventually had to be dropped for sake of ethics and the privacy of the participants who could not be given a chance to consent. Instead now they can be looked at in terms of what people claim they like to read versus what they post. Interestingly, people claim to practice posting personal activity information more than they claim to enjoy reading other’s personal activity posts. This means that some people responded to the survey saying that they don’t like reading what they themselves post for others to read.
QUESTION 5:
This question shows that the majority of the survey participants comment on other people’s status updates. Only two people claimed to never comment on other’s status updates, but this should not be taken to mean they do not attend to people’s updates. Obviously, based on the fact that they did this survey which was posted on my status update, these two people do attend to other people’s statuses they just claim to not comment. This says a lot about the spot light effect as everyone is in agreement that they attend to other people’s updates.
Results of the survey should be examined knowing that the sample was extremely biased and with complete anonymity and no feed back there was no reason for the participant to be honest.
According to the research, the spotlight effect is “an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance”. (Brown & Stopa, 2007). This basically means that the average person has the tendency to think that more people are paying more attention to them than they are.
One study suggests that the spotlight effect is caused by our egocentrism and inability to consider the observers own actions and thoughts about themselves. (Gilovich, Kruger, & Medvec, 2002). The later point means that we are incapable of understanding that one person’s perspective is different than our own. Because we are bombarded by what we see, know, and understand, it is difficult to step outside of that and put yourself into a world where hypothetically those things don’t exist. You cannot fool yourself into not knowing something that you know, therefore you cannot forget your own perspective as you try to understand or predict someone else’s.
This spotlight effect is seen for both good and bad attention. One article concluded that those with the spotlight effect that do something embarrassing are only judged harshly if the observer is unable to have empathy (see things through the eyes of the other person). (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002). But it isn’t just the embarrassing things that we think people attend to. In another study, people overestimated how much people judged the way they spoke in a group setting, thinking others paid attention to the good and bad things they said far more than people actually did. (Gilovich, Savistky, & Medvec, 2000). We think people watch out for both our negative and positive behaviors.
According to a Pew survey, 11% of online American adults participate in updating their status either on facebook or twitter (Lenhart & Fox, 2009). Because of the popularity of such habits, research has been done to assess some of the reasoning behind and eventually effects of such public self-disclosure. One study analyzed profiles quantitatively and found that 1. the vast majority of students have a facebook account (at this particular university). 2. Only a small percentage of those students restricted their profile access to University staff. 3. A significant amount of student’s profiles contained contact info, course schedules, positive reference to the university, and pictures of the student consuming alcohol. (Kolek & Saunders, 2008). This shows that there is a huge potential for a wide variety of effects with so much personal information being available to practically anyone about practically anyone. A few studies have shown the results of perceptions of people based on their facebook profiles. One such study’s results indicate that having a facebook profile does not affect the perceptions students have on their professors (Hewitt & Forte, 2006). The study did go on however to discuss the practical implications on one’s professional life with certain inappropriate disclosures online.
Connecting the use of status updating and the spotlight effect is self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is exactly what it sounds like, when you talk about yourself, especially more intimate things about yourself. Collins & Miller (1994), conducted a meta analysis of all the studies on disclosure and concluded that self-disclosure is linked with being liked more by people who don’t self-disclose. In connecting self-disclosure to the technological world, one article outlines three difference studies looking at how self-disclosure is higher when communication is “computer mediated”. People are far more likely to self-disclose online than face to face. This Computer Mediated self-disclosure may be linked to the fact that those seeing your self-disclosed information cannot actually see you. (Joinson, 2001). In discussing the implications of such use of computer mediated self-disclosure, Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007), suggest a balance between self-disclosure in a mature professional manner as respect and their careers could be linked to a poor image on facebook.
Looking at all of the research it is not hard to see that self-disclosing online through status updates could be a perfect example of the spotlight effect. So my research was formed in order to prove that. My goal in my research was to look at how people update their status, what they thought about that, and then how many people attended to those updates. I guessed that less people would be paying attention than the updaters assumed.
Results of the archival data:
The results of the archival data were analyzed using Excel. The actual archived data was not included because of privacy issues as even with making the facebook user anonymous the content of the status updates was often enough to determine who the writer was. Instead, each status update is listed and number of comments or “likings” are recorded on an excel spreadsheet. The link to the data can be found on the Multi-Media, Links, Relavent Information, ect page.
The first day of archival data was retrieved on Tuesday, January 26the at 3:50pm. Eleven status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 2.45 comments and 0.09 “like” button hits with a total of an average of 2.55 overt attention given per update. 55.93% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons. The second archive data retrieval day was Sunday, January 31st at 11am. Twenty two status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 1.18 comments and 0.23“like” button hits with a total of an average of 1.41 pieces of overt attention given per update. 50.0% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons. The third day of archival data was retrieved on Friday, February 5th at 6pm. Twenty eight status updates were included on my newsfeed during the two hour time slot. Each update had an average of 1.89 comments and .04 “like” button hits with a total of an average of 1.93 overt attention given per update. 60.71% of updates were given some kind of overt feedback either through comments or “like” buttons.
Looking at all three days archived, on average updates received 1.84 comments and were “liked” 0.12 times. That is an average of 1.96 cases of attention given to each status update. Between the three days, 55.93% of status updates were given some sort of overt attention.
Results of the survey data:
The results of the survey were analyzed per the surveymonkey.com webpage. 29 people responded and completed the survey. Of those, 6 people commented on the status update containing the link outing themselves publicly as having taken the survey. The link to the statistics analyzed can be found on the Multi-Media, Links, Relavent Information, ect page.
The responses to each of the survey questions are given below
QUESTION 1:
We see that status updating is highly prevalent among the survey participants.
QUESTION 2:
This question was to assess the participant’s views on how often they are being attended to. Clearly, the participants of the survey recall being attended to more often than not. Only one person claimed to be attended to every single time. The results of this question illustrate the belief that people do have the perception that others are paying attention to them.
QUESTION 3:
QUESTION 4:
Questions three and four were included when my project included content analysis of status updates which eventually had to be dropped for sake of ethics and the privacy of the participants who could not be given a chance to consent. Instead now they can be looked at in terms of what people claim they like to read versus what they post. Interestingly, people claim to practice posting personal activity information more than they claim to enjoy reading other’s personal activity posts. This means that some people responded to the survey saying that they don’t like reading what they themselves post for others to read.
QUESTION 5:
This question shows that the majority of the survey participants comment on other people’s status updates. Only two people claimed to never comment on other’s status updates, but this should not be taken to mean they do not attend to people’s updates. Obviously, based on the fact that they did this survey which was posted on my status update, these two people do attend to other people’s statuses they just claim to not comment. This says a lot about the spot light effect as everyone is in agreement that they attend to other people’s updates.
Results of the survey should be examined knowing that the sample was extremely biased and with complete anonymity and no feed back there was no reason for the participant to be honest.
Conclusion and Reflection
We can see from the archival data that 55.93% of status updates archived were given some kind of attention. The average of all the comments and “likings” for each status update was 1.96. This means that the majority of status updates are given a significant amount of overt attention.
From the survey results we can conclude that 1. at least 29 people saw my status with the survey posted on it and 2. the majority of people claim to both attend to other’s status updates and have others attend to theirs.
It is extremely important to note that my data can only look at overt examples of attention paid. It can be assumed that not every person who reads a status comments on it or “likes” it. This means that the people who are paying attention to the status updates are significantly more than those overt expressions of attention paid that I archived.
We can infer from this data that while people do indeed think that others are paying attention to them, this is not an error in judgment or perception on their parts. Indeed people are paying attention. My hypothesis was wrong because status updates can only be an example of the spotlight effect if people think others are paying attention to them more than they actually are, when in fact, according to my research, people are paying attention.
Originally I looked at those who updated their status with constant personal information with distain. I had thought they were clearly victims of the spotlight effect and had equated them with a gross sense of self importance. What I learned from the research project is in two parts.
1. We all possess the tendency to exert the spotlight effect, even myself. After reading the research, it is clear that if the average person succumbs to such a phenomenon I can no longer hold myself above that standard or else I have fallen prey to a similar form of egocentrism that I had labeled the status updaters.
2. After doing this project it is clear that facebook status updates are NOT an example of the spotlight effect as I had presumed. The spotlight effect dictates that people think others are paying more attention to them than they actually are. It is clear that status updates are a sign that people think others are paying attention. But what we see from my research is that people are paying attention! Instead of judging those who update their statuses constantly, instead I should be looking at those who are reading these statuses.
Reflection on the digital civic engagement:
The future of the digital civic engagement will have many different effects on society. The future society will improve significantly with the ease of information access. Isolation, at lease on a technological level will be difficult. People will be able to keep in touch with those far away or from the distant past. Relationships will be formed, strengthened, and kept. Things like online dating and friend sites will greatly enhance our ability to get to know people.
On the other hand, all of these things will be purely technological, perhaps making us vulnerable to a dependence on technology for all of our relationships. Will this be detrimental to our “real life” relationships? In terms of this research, it is already apparent that we act significantly different on the internet in terms of self-disclosure. Will this affect how we act with our in person relationships. Perhaps in the long term after so many years of status updating to strangers online, we will begin to be more and more comfortable with self-disclosing in real life.
The research that I conducted can contribute to the knowledge about the digital society by illuminating the attention given to people online. It is important to know that what you are putting online be it status updates, photos, information about yourself, ect is being looked at by people. No longer can I or a reader of this researcher think that people aren’t paying attention. This speaks volumes to the privacy issues surrounding what we disclose online. We must assume that if we put it out there, people will see it.
To be a digital citizen means to partake in the world within the internet. Any facebook user is undeniably a part of this digital society and should consider themselves a citizen. Preferably, this citizenship is not your only one. As we move to a more and more technological world, it becomes easier and easier, to retreat into a solely technological world. It is important for you to have a real life world outside of your computer.
From the survey results we can conclude that 1. at least 29 people saw my status with the survey posted on it and 2. the majority of people claim to both attend to other’s status updates and have others attend to theirs.
It is extremely important to note that my data can only look at overt examples of attention paid. It can be assumed that not every person who reads a status comments on it or “likes” it. This means that the people who are paying attention to the status updates are significantly more than those overt expressions of attention paid that I archived.
We can infer from this data that while people do indeed think that others are paying attention to them, this is not an error in judgment or perception on their parts. Indeed people are paying attention. My hypothesis was wrong because status updates can only be an example of the spotlight effect if people think others are paying attention to them more than they actually are, when in fact, according to my research, people are paying attention.
Originally I looked at those who updated their status with constant personal information with distain. I had thought they were clearly victims of the spotlight effect and had equated them with a gross sense of self importance. What I learned from the research project is in two parts.
1. We all possess the tendency to exert the spotlight effect, even myself. After reading the research, it is clear that if the average person succumbs to such a phenomenon I can no longer hold myself above that standard or else I have fallen prey to a similar form of egocentrism that I had labeled the status updaters.
2. After doing this project it is clear that facebook status updates are NOT an example of the spotlight effect as I had presumed. The spotlight effect dictates that people think others are paying more attention to them than they actually are. It is clear that status updates are a sign that people think others are paying attention. But what we see from my research is that people are paying attention! Instead of judging those who update their statuses constantly, instead I should be looking at those who are reading these statuses.
Reflection on the digital civic engagement:
The future of the digital civic engagement will have many different effects on society. The future society will improve significantly with the ease of information access. Isolation, at lease on a technological level will be difficult. People will be able to keep in touch with those far away or from the distant past. Relationships will be formed, strengthened, and kept. Things like online dating and friend sites will greatly enhance our ability to get to know people.
On the other hand, all of these things will be purely technological, perhaps making us vulnerable to a dependence on technology for all of our relationships. Will this be detrimental to our “real life” relationships? In terms of this research, it is already apparent that we act significantly different on the internet in terms of self-disclosure. Will this affect how we act with our in person relationships. Perhaps in the long term after so many years of status updating to strangers online, we will begin to be more and more comfortable with self-disclosing in real life.
The research that I conducted can contribute to the knowledge about the digital society by illuminating the attention given to people online. It is important to know that what you are putting online be it status updates, photos, information about yourself, ect is being looked at by people. No longer can I or a reader of this researcher think that people aren’t paying attention. This speaks volumes to the privacy issues surrounding what we disclose online. We must assume that if we put it out there, people will see it.
To be a digital citizen means to partake in the world within the internet. Any facebook user is undeniably a part of this digital society and should consider themselves a citizen. Preferably, this citizenship is not your only one. As we move to a more and more technological world, it becomes easier and easier, to retreat into a solely technological world. It is important for you to have a real life world outside of your computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
