skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173694acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How People Form Folk Theories of Social Media Feeds and What it Means for How We Study Self-Presentation

Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Self-presentation is a process that is significantly complicated by the rise of algorithmic social media feeds, which obscure information about one's audience and environment. User understandings of these systems, and therefore user ability to adapt to them, are limited, and have recently been explored through the lens of folk theories. To date, little is understood of how these theories are formed, and how they tie to the self-presentation process in social media. This paper presents an exploratory look at the folk theory formation process and the interplay between folk theories and self-presentation via a 28-participant interview study. Results suggest that people draw from diverse sources of information when forming folk theories, and that folk theories are more complex, multifaceted and malleable than previously assumed. This highlights the need to integrate folk theories into both social media systems and theories of self-presentation.

References

  1. Robert M Arkin. 1981. Self-Presentation Styles. In Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, James T Tedeschi (ed.). Academic Press, New York, NY, 311--334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeremy Birnholtz, Colin Fitzpatrick, Mark Handel, and Jed R Brubaker. 2014. Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Glenn A Bowen. 2006. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative methods, 5, 3: 12--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Taina Bucher. 2016. The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20, 1: 30--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kathy Charmaz and Liska Belgrave. 2002. Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (2nd), Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir B. Marvasti and Karyn D. McKinney (ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 347--365.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Michael A. DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2017. Platforms, People, and Perception: Using Affordances to Understand Self-Presentation on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 740--754. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael A. DeVito, Darren Gergle, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2017. "Algorithms ruin everything": #RIPTwitter, Folk Theories, and Resistance to Algorithmic Change in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3163--3174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2015. Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3, 3: 398--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Maeve Duggan. 2015. Mobile Messaging and Social Media 2015. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nicole B. Ellison and Jessica Vitak. 2015. Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, S. Shyam Sundar (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 205--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I "like" it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. In Proceedings of the 34rd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2371--2382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. "I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to {her}": Reasoning about invisible algorithms in the news feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Matthew Fisher, Joshua Knobe, Brent Strickland, and Frank C Keil. 2016. The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science, 41, 4: 1119--1134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Megan French and Jeff T. Hancock. 2017. What's the Folk Theory? Reasoning About Cyber-Social Systems. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Confrence of the International Communication Association (San Diego, CA).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tarleton Gillespie. 2014. The Relevance of Algorithms. In Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo Boczkowski and Kirsten Foot (ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 167--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Erving Goffman. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Shannon Greenwood, Andrew Perrin, and Maeve Duggan. 2016. Social Media Update 2016. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Eszter Hargittai and Yuli Patrick Hsieh. 2012. Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 1: 95--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Eszter Hargittai and Eden Litt. 2013. New strategies for employment? internet skills and online privacy practices during people's job search. IEEE Security & Privacy, 11, 3: 38--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Eszter Hargittai and Alice Marwick. 2016. "What Can I Really Do?" Explaining the Privacy Paradox with Online Apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2016: 3737--3757.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Natalie Jones, Helen Ross, Timothy Lynam, Pascal Perez, and Anne Leitch. 2011. Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecology and Society, 16, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Anne R Kearney and Stephen Kaplan. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people the conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behavior, 29, 5: 579--617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Frank C Keil. 2003. Folkscience: Coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 8: 368--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Frank C Keil. 2010. The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive science, 34, 5: 826--862.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Frank C Keil. 2012. Running on empty? How folk science gets by with less. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 5: 329--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. René F Kizilcec. 2016. How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2390--2395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mark R. Leary and Robin M. Kowalski. 1990. Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 1: 34--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Richard Lennox. 1988. The problem with selfmonitoring: A two-sided scale and a one-sided theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 1: 58--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 3: 330--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Eden Litt. 2013. Understanding social network site users' privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 4: 1649--1656. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media+ Society, 2, 1: 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. "Just Cast the Net, and Hopefully the Right Fish Swim into It": Audience Management on Social Network Sites. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1488--1500. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Eden Litt, Erin Spottswood, Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeff T. Hancock, Madeline E. Smith, and Lindsay Reynolds. 2014. Awkward encounters of an other kind: collective self-presentation and face threat on facebook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 449--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 1: 114--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Matthew B Miles and A Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Donald A. Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Frank A Pasquale. 2011. Restoring transparency to automated authority. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 9, 2011: 235--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Stephen J Payne. 2003. Users' mental models: The very ideas. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science, John M Carroll (ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 135--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter Pirolli. 2007. Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 1999. Information foraging. Psychological review, 106, 4: 643.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Emilee Rader and Rebecca Gray. 2015. Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Lee Rainie and Janna Anderson. 2017. CodeDependent: Pros and Cons of the Algorithm Age. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Jenny Rosenberg and Nichole Egbert. 2011. Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of selfpresentation tactics on Facebook. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 17, 2011: 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil. 2002. The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive science, 26, 5: 521--562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Gwendolyn Seidman. 2013. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 3: 402--407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Andrew Shtulman and Tania Lombrozo. 2016. Bundles of contradiction: A coexistence view of conceptual change. In Core Knowledge and Conceptual Change, D. Barner and A.S. Baron (ed.). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 53--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Martina Mahnke Skrubbeltrang, Josefine Grunnet, and Nicolai Traasdahl Tarp. 2017. #RIPINSTAGRAM: Examining user's counter-narratives opposing the introduction of algorithmic personalization on Instagram. First Monday, 22, 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Mark Snyder. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30, 4: 526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Kjerstin Thorson and Chris Wells. 2015. Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26, 3: 309--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Karl E Weick, Kathleen M Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16, 4: 409--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Elizabeth Whittaker and Robin M. Kowalski. 2015. Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence, 14, 1: 11--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How People Form Folk Theories of Social Media Feeds and What it Means for How We Study Self-Presentation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader