Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Study-Of-The-Role-Of-The-Profile-Pict 👈

1. DOI : 10.1870l/imsmanthan.vl Oi2.11124
A stardy of the E"els of prmffile
pietarres ixa Exarpressism
ffileElegemesmt CIm F.aee foosk
*,4ditySaxena
{Eanerjee}
**FaBEavi&{ajumdar
.4trstract:
{rt^t:e br:o& pt.tsfile im*gt prcrtil{t:g antple opSs1r.lunin, ft; lhe
F R us-ct..s tL] .llurtr{iy i} )i,eLtttl ,sel,,:7tre.se*t)"r,u,, ,rlr,r,lrr)- ,lir;'"
st;t'i*,1 nelwrlrA.i*g tirt"!t:. pr$ilt i*tggr:s pi*t,it t,itctl *t/t: irs
n: :; t a. b l i s it :t tt i rn p r r: s t. i {} * L} i1 t it e
".t
! lt e r tt s c r,s, *t i, rl,
;sdrl!.{1.1i{!y/y y,lie* etith a*!ine.fi.ient! rtrt.tj,nrsl i:e krrovtn lrs
tlte othe r. Exi.tf in74 r*tse..art-h t.es,eai,g rsru!i'i;tle *lysetrs o/ frl
user,:r' inlefif itsn. tttlitttrie tt;tri c;illtt.otrch toir,rtrri.r tlte Ssrt;fil
i rua g c s, s u t h,t.t .ii' t: t! tt e n cl, * f
"
rr lt i t r g e hj, t lt e
",-
tsu n g i ;
"ri.
;;,
t"he tri.r,ger.s fi;r t.iia*gt *,f1x r$ile iitage.r, .rri,t,, aifr),,r)
in itporu;r;clr artl,ii{ii1g i1s 5;ertrier" !-}tuiwing on tlte thrl*t"etir:tt!
TSerspettit.e o!-ititp,t.t,:;.;i, ttt llttttaga!!ttnt ,,r,r! ,,rltet.re let,ant
the ttr-ies, ihe L,i.t:-;a:;i :;titt.t, tt,i|!)^qrlrro t!.r, ,r,lu cl.prr:fiie
p1r:tu.r1 in isiili,tt'tiii;t:i iiie isarcep{io* *f other ?.8 :rr*;r;;,
liie lndit$i i:tliii.,:ti. !it .tlt;dy use.c the laals cJ. c{}ttte nt'
ttslttlvsis atltl sui-., c,.t. it; i;1!1!;s55 f.lte re se art"/t. tlttestion"t.
Ke3 rverr*isz !',.; r,,,,i ,1,,;. ijt.r:,{i!e Imitgt:. }6.rysres.tiou
iCs * * E ew e r t. ! i : : i -:,: : i. i; i ; 1 1 u,,, C rr n t n n i'Ana. l1l.r,i.r, Sr:o,l*/
Metlil
Introduction:
Social networking sites (SNSs) like Facebook have found a
place in the lexicon of young people u".o*-th" world. The
popularity of SNSs can be gu.rg"a from the fact that by
2009,75oh of online adults aged l}-_2Cnuauiresence on at
least one network (Lenhar1, 1OOO1. pu""Uoofifrus emerged
has the most popular with 500 million u"iirr" .r.".. *no
spend more than 700 minutes per month on the site
(Facebook, 2OlO). Not surprisingty, lt atso emerged as the
most visited site in 2010 (Experian Hitline, 2010).
Facebook was started in 2004 as a social utility to help
people "communicate more effectively with friends, family
and c-o-workers,, (Faceb_ook Factsheei, 2U 0, lara. l ). The
site allows users to build a profile of themselvJs Uy snaring
picfures, posts, videos with ..friends,,
and in ttre process
construct an identity for the greater online community. The
most significant element of self_disclosure is the profilepic_
ture through which Facebook users choose to identify them_
selves within the network (Watson, Smith & O.i""., 2006).
Indeed, the emergence of social networking si;s has funed
the profile picture into a
..central
"o-po""iioionline rep_
resentation, and one that is critical foi relational success,,
(Hancock &Toma, 20og).Also the
"."
of;iffb;;nt b?es of
images including campaigns, pfu""., i"ori oUj"cts, family,
events conveys the larger socio_political beliefs of the
user.With profile picture change campaigns being used to
*""1protest and supporr_, the profife #;" h;, emerged
19,
orl.y as a primary tool which depicts"individualistic
dimensions. but has also come to mirror the socio_culfural
rasformationr.
. Ph.D. Scholai A-,-
Noida
versity, Noida
**Associate pr*fessc- -,"

2. '7/
IMS Manthan - Volume X, No. 2, July-December 2015
i
I
d
I
I
d
i
d
i
{
'l
{
4
,{
u
r
d
r!
E
I
"E
;
t
:
j
:
a
:
:
:
jl
I
I
The use of profile pictures for impression management is
symptomatic in the frequency of change, the t1pe of image
chosen and importance given to 'looking good'. Impression
management theory states that people try to manage the
perception ofothers in accordance to their goals2. In order
to manage that impression during the interaction, people act
out a 'perforrnance' (Goffinan,1959), the objective ofwhich
is to provide the audience with an impression consistent
with the desired goals of the actor.
The concept ofselfprovides the basic building block to the
theory of impression management as the self-perceptions
not only shape but are also shaped by social interactions
(Schlenker, 1980). On social networking sites like Facebook,
where users juggle multiple relationships, and perceptions
of a diverse audience, impression management becomes a
complex exercise. In spite of the importance of the profile
image in impression management, little research has sur-
faced which analyses the content ofFacebook profrle pic-
tures and establishes the connection with the latter. In the
Indian context, such research is non-existent.
Research Questions
The aim of the study therefore, is to explore:
, What patterrrs can be identifred in the ty)es of images
posted?
ii) What is the fi:equency of changing profile pictures?
iii) What criteria are used in choosing the profile images?
rg Do users employ images to activelymanage their im-
pression?
Review of Literature
A to o I fo r s elf-depictio n
Although the FB prohle section has three components: pro-
file image, profile information and cover photo, the profile
image is the only tool visible to every one while browsing
through Facebook profiles. lJsers post different {,pes of
images such as places, icons, objects, family, events as their
profiles but a large number prefer to use their own picture.
The profile picture is also used to display romantic relation-
ships, although the interpretation of such irnage may vary
by gender (Strano, 2008). But what motivates the users to
consider a romantic image for profi le? Saslow, Muise, Impett,
&Dubin (2013) stated that happiness and relationship sat-
isfaction are the main motivation for the couple to consider
a romantic image for the Facebook profile. It may seem that
self-projection is a main driving force for changing the pro-
file image but scholars have questioned the use of 'Impres-
sion Management' as the only 'lens' to analyze the profile
image (Strano,2008). McAndrew &Jeong (2012) observed
how the pattem of image use changes according to 'age',
'sex', and 'relationship status'. The authors--stated that young
females who are comrnitted in a relationship spend more
time on Facebook. They have a large number of friends and
give maximum priority to their 'look' while selecting their
profile image. People who are not in a relationship are also
concer:ned about their 'look' on FB as they are still on the
lookout for prospective partners. Therefore in the both cases
"impression management" plays a vital role in the selection
ofprofile image.
Significantly, 'Narcissism' is a predictable characteristic of
FB users while selecting theirprofile image (Kapidzic,2Ol3),
with both men and women attempting to accentuate the
physical attractiveness of their images. Women preferred
'smiling face' for their profile image since these types of
images describe themselves as a happy and fun-loving per-
son (Strano, 2008).
Mehdizadeh (2010) examined the relationship between 'nar-
cissism' and 'self- esteem' of an individual on FB and how it
affected their profile section. Self-presentation is built based
on the person's actual presentation of identity. Contrary to
this, the online platform offers a controlled environment to
the users, where they carr actlually manipulate the identify
information. The feedback fiom the target group acts as a
positive regulator for the individual narcissistic activity.
The central feature of FB is to connect and establish a link
among the peer group. Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, &
Walther (2008) stated that 'sociometric data'like number of
fiiends, status etc. on FB page of an individual is an signifi-
cant cue for others to judge that person.
The role of gender, generation and culture
McAndrew &Jeong (2012) pointed out that different brows-
ing practice of males and females on FB pages. While female
users preferred to 'look' attheir own image as well as images
of 'same sex' users, male users are more concerned about
other male users' personal and professional achievements
like education, and work related information. Tifferet&Vilnai-
Yavetz (2014), observed that there were gender differences
in FB profile images but not in the coverphotos. According
to the authors, the male users emphasized their stafus and
risk taking attitude, while female users emphasized their
social relationships and emotional manifestation through
'smile' and 'eye contact'.
Hum, Chamberlin, Hambright, Portwood, Schat, & Bevan
(2011), analyzed how the numbers and the content of the
profile image changed according to the gender of the users.
The studyconcluded that more number of images present in
the profile albums and higher frequency of change of profile
image was directly related to the 'multiple identity' cues of
the users. Older FB users are less motivated to change their
profile image (Strano, 2008). Also women are more con-
cerned about building their "group identity" through the
profile image as compared to men.
The 'self-presentation' ofprofile images also varied depend-
ing on the user's cultural context (Zhao & Jiang, 20 1 I . The
study showed that the Chines users are more concerned
about the customization of profile images. However the
profile ofAmerican users encompassed more people, con-

3. A study of the role ofprofite pictures in impression management on Face book 75
tradicting the perception of 'rtestern indir"idualism & east-
em collectivism'.
Measuring anxietl'
The profile information also r,eflects one's level of anxiety
(Fernandez, Levinson- &Rodebaugh- 2012). The authors
observed that the indiriduals xift higher level of social anxi-
ety post more information in tfue prof,le section, but limited
information about real life actirities like events attended.
The authors concluded that the increased frequency ofpro-
file information is a tnre sign of lesser social activities.
Constructing a professionel irnage
FB has a huge follor*ing irnmngst 6e 1.outh. As a result,
employers are increasinglf- usfuag FB profile iaformation
including images to knor- ftcir erylo1-ees -informally' (Gos-
ling, Gaddis, &Vazire- '00-: Hura et al-. 201 I ).Referring to
a report by MicrosofL l0l0- the aurhors emphasized the
significant role ofFB p*aee tbr huilr4ing an online identity for
the employers. The repom >nat* that 85o,i, of the employ-
ers were influenced b1- tfoe nrositite online presence of their
employee. Most irug.= did not e-omLtaifl anv negative visual
depiction like 'alcohol'- -drug-- alrd serualll- subjective con-
tent or 'partial nudit-v- ttr-arson a atr.- aOO6)- indicating that
users were aware regnrdiae fte connection between their
images and online idendrr'-
Non-anonymit-r- of idemit-r comtruction
'Anonyrnity' in comp.uer ::mi;::-ri sls,rrrmrmication has been
approached both as a nimim=--c enC as am advantage. SNSs
do not support anonlm$ sint;s rfe usen is required to log-
in using a valid email-id- kb,rte: heue established that FB
profile images refloct fte a;c;a- ies.-nslin' sffte use6, not
the self-manipulated rryoie. rt*sll:"I-des lBack et al, 20 I 0;
Gosling et al., l0l l: 7F'*-- Glasgr,cL & Iartitr- 2008).
The authors concluded. -:.- :c,--=:; L. not an 'individual
characteristic': it is ro.-r-:
-.}r:llc-l pror.tuct construct and
performed differendl rn-:*:eae;::o
"trrine social envi-
ronment. The authors cz;-t={Et:
=e
.jl<rinction among the
'real selves' and -r-ire;i se--.ff- ,f! -:-ue selr-es' or 'false
selves' and conch.ldd3E JE FB
=:
'l-.al selr-es' and'vir-
fual selves' are neaF,, ** s*-e
According to Pear:oc r -,-' - ,- - r-"-r--" :.. lqnrdon depends
on the nature of the ;eacr=i:m:c
-:al:m-
Also. visual
elements are insrea-.L€;"
=;r_.=;
r. s-.-=.-irrrt role in iden-
tity construcfion oq S-5" L:se lr :;:-- -,+96
rm*nipulation
with the help of soin-aes --a--
*,:ils,3io ro enhance or
edit the image. hom-=r'er-
--*trF
=e .r, ei ".i or-iginal risual
information. In addil.rc- s,:ru :=-:rr-=<=i=.rn ofrisuals in
Web2.0 environrmen:,reml=s a:r:er,erq
-sge tirr iryres-
sionmanagement
Impression marlrgec* I1G'hE frrr ofiEiine to online
FB profile image
Impression management can be detrned as a ooal-dirccted
conscious or subconscious process in stich pcople afiempt
to influence the perceptions of other preoprle about a persolt
by regulating and controlling infon'r'ration rr-i social intcrac-
tion (Piwinger& Eber1, 2001). The ten.n is r-r.-<,-ra1ir used
s1,non1'motisly with self-presentation. in ul-rich a person
tries to intluence the perception of his her image.
Self-presentation ref-ers to transmittin_q inli.n atr.rn abour
onc's sclf or an image of onc's self to othcrs. People are
n-rotivated to represent thernselves in tuo uars: Presenta-
tion meant to match one's own selt--imaee. and pr'.-sentatron
meant to match audience expectations and prettrences.
Though SNSs do not give Llsers total control or er therr pre-
sentation as other people can also post pictures or infonna-
tion about them, however, profile infonrration generalll'al-
lows users to optimize their self-presentation.
The theory of impression management relates to strategic
interpersonal behavior. Goffinan ( 1 959) explained the moti-
vations behind complex human performances within a so-
cial setting based on a play n.retaphor. In this perspective,
the actor, shaped by tl-re environment and target ar-rdience,
sees interaction as a perfomance. Individuals differ in their
responses to their environment: some are rnore responsive
to audience's reactions, responding actively, while are not.
This response is called self-monitoring. Another aspect of
impression management is self--veriflcation where the user
u,'ants the audience to confom to his notion of the self.
According to Leary and Kowalski (1990), impression man-
agement consists of two distinct processes: I[rpression
motivation and Impression Constlxction. FB users are con-
cerned not only about tl-reir own impression managernent.
but also keep a tab on the tactics used by others (Rosenberg
and Egbert, 201 1). Scholars have also drawn a correlation
between identity management and multiple self-presenta-
tion on FB platfbm. Sincc FB users connect their past ar-rd
present social and professional circles on the same plat-
forrn, it offcrs a multi-laycred communication vu.itl-r a hetero-
geneous group (DiMicco and Millen ,2007 ; Zhao. Grasn'ruck,
& Martin, 2008).
Research Method
The present study used both quantitatir.e and qualitative
rnethods to examine the research qu,estiot-ts. The empirical
data lor the present study was collected throu-eh contcnt
analysis of Facebook profile pictures and a sulr e1, of
Facebook users. The Content Analysis rvas carried out
tlrrough codification of profile image s based on 1 5 param-
eters. Additionally, online survey quesrionnaires u-ere de-
r-cloped bascd on parameters used fbr content analr sis and
t'err rlore questions were added to get more rn-depth infor'-
mation. This technique was used as it helps in making rcp-
lrcable and valid inferences from data to their conrc-r
r Krrppendorff, K. 2012).
Tl-Ll r-nain unit used for this research is thc FB profile image.
-11 thc potential parlicipants lbr thc content analrsrs sere
..--::tec1 tl'om the researcher's Facebook friend list usine

4. -6 IMS Manthan - Volume X, No. 2, July-December 2015
systematic random selection (every 4n fi:iend). The selec-
tion criteria of profrle image were not restricted by any
demographic information like age or gender. The sample was
strictly collected from the researcher's friend list due to the
Facebook policy which allows only the active fi:iends to
access the profrle picture album.
In order to address the research questions, the profile pic-
tures were further categorized using 15 parameters. The
parameters used for the content analysis were age, gender,
nurnber of profile pictures in participant's profile album
and types of images3. Tlpes of images were further classi-
fied as self, with the spouse, with kid/s, with family/ fiiend/
relatives, not self, self-placed in an event, Extreme close-up,
Medium Close-up, Mid long, srnile, no smile, iconic re-
presentation.
The content analysis was done in two phases. In the first
phase, information extracted fromprofile images of the se-
lected participants was arranged according to the codes.
The second phase considered participants who had more
than 50 images in their profile picture folder and further
calculated the nurnber of self-images to get a clear idea about
the identity projection on FB platform. The researchers
closed the profile picture codification process within one
day to avoid the possibility of individual participants chang-
ing their current profile picture.
The surwey link was developed using Google survey, and
the link was sent randomly to researcher's FB friends with
requests of further forwarding the link to their friends. So
the online survey used the two sample types: systematic
random sample and snow-ball sample. Snow-ball sampling
mainly depends on the interpersonal relations and the
researcher's personal involvement plays a significant role in
its success (Browne, K. 2005). This sampling process is the
right choice for social networking site since it is a network of
networks.
The survey questions were designed based on the nominal
scale (yes/no), ordinal scale (ranking from lowest to highest)
and a combination ofboth (which allowed the respondent to
provide detailed information based on their primary selec-
tion). Open ended questions were also used to provide richer
data.
Findings
Types of images posted
Six parameters were used on a seven point Likert scale in
survey questions to understand the types ofprofile picture
used by an individual. Content analysis used only hve pa-
rameters to extract the information about the types of pic-
tures. In the survey data, 4l .1oh participants assigned maxi-
mum priority to the 'self image tlpe; 23 .5yo assigned maxi-
mum priority to 'with spouse'; 20.80 assigned maximum
priority 'with family members'; l4Yo participartts assigned
first priority to 'with friends' and 27 .9Yo assigned second
priority to the same type. 2L.6Y,, 27%o and 24.3yo people
have given I st, 2nd and 3rd priority respectively to the 'with
colleague' type ofprofile picture.
According to the content analysis, 580% ofparticipants used
'self-image' as a profile image; lO%oused 'with spouse' ;8%o
used 'with kids'; l4oh used 'with friend/ famlly/relative';
4Yo used pictures, of people other than self and rest of the
4Yo :used their pictures while conveying the context of the
event that they attended.
(Endnotes)
The most recent instance of this is the 'viral' change in
profile i mages supporting the 'Digital India' initiative of
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Facebook founder
Mark Zuckerberg changed his profile image to support the
campaign, turning the profile into the single greatest denoter
ofpublic and corporate support for the campaign. In an-
other instance , abott26 million people changed their image
to a rainbow flag to support the June 2015 Supreme Court
decision of "same sex marriage" See bttps;//
www.washingtonpo st. com/news/the-inter sectl wp / 20 I 5 / O6 /
29/rnore-than-26-
million-people-have-changed-their-facebook-picture-to-a-
rainbow-fl ag-heres-why-that-matters/
3The sample size us
ed for the present study is 50 (n: 15) for both content
analysis and survey. The sample was not restricted by the
age and gender. The male & female participants for this
study ar e 3 60/" and 6 4Yo r e spectively for the b oth data source.
Criteria used in identifying the profile image
Six parameters were used in content analysis to identiff
the criteria used for selecting the profile image. Camera
angle plays a significant role in image communication, so
three parameters were defined (Extreme close-up, i.e. head
Shot, Medium Close-up i.e. background visible and Mid
long i.e. Full view). Another two units were based on 'smile'
and 'no smile'; one component was devoted to symbolic
presentation.
According to the content analysis, only l4%, participants
used Extreme close-up image for their profile picture; 56Yo
used Medium Close-up images and rest of the 24Yo users
used full view images.The survey used exactly the same
parameters and found similar results: l4Yo wsed Extreme
close-up type, 68oh used Medium Close-up image and
l2%orsed fuI1 view image.
The content analysis found that out of 50 profile images,
smile is present tn 620/o profile images and no smile observed
in 78oh profile images.According to the survey, 82oZ
participants prefer 'smile' in their profile image. ParticipanB
were also asked their preference about other expressions,
like funny, cute & sexy. 12Y, participants accepted that
they use these types offacial expression for their profrle
image. According to the survey datano participants selected
a picture with 'no smile'.
The use of syrnbols, icons and objects for profrle image is
very less (11.8 %). Content analysis also revealed that
(
I
l
I
I
I
.
a
t

5. A study oJ-tlte r,,.'. - r ':
-t :.i.rrl/ tttLtttLtgL-tttettt on. Fac'e book 77
only 6 %u peopl: --..- : - t:l;ir
profi1e image.
Impressitln trltrl r;t -'. -
ntore than -<{r ": - - - . .. :'
39.2uopal1l.- - -'
'struggle'1'' --.- --.: .1
7.8%oreplied . '' : --:- ::
statcd tlre :,- - .'"
lhrs problen - .
and 35.q'', --
Inthesune,..:-.- - --::-a-
to look so,,.'
participar-it::;:- r : :3
good throu::
Forinstancc. - ,- - .:'-
like putting -- : :
personalh S:., :: -
feels great. Isn't that the entire deal about putting up
pictures on Social Media ar,ryay?"
Frequency of change of profile images
During the content analysis, the average frequency
of change of profrle pictures was calculated. Of the 50
participants, 15 particip'arits (30%) changed their profile
picture more than once in a month. 11 participants (22%o)
changed their image approximately once in two months.
Only a handful of participants (6) changed their profiie
pictures six months or later. The survey revealed that all
persons changed their profile image, and maximum (37.3
7o) executed the change once every month.
The participants expressed their opinion in the
survey and these direct communications can help the
researchers and readers of this study understand the key
aspects and nuances regarding this.
"My current profile picture is one with my uncle, which I
put up on his birthday last month. Before that, it was one
with my elder sister. That one had been up for a really long
time. Before that it was a picture of me at my sister's
Fac*lrook Profi le irrra,ge -l-lf
Fle
- a: i.r,rrt Ar];lllVSiS
7 -[ -{-r(lu-a
',1 . FB Profile irr:rag*
tr"fl/ i }rlln
c #:ll **gi:. Ll a
ffi {,r r r"rlr=.rr
ffi C{r rT t4:r1 t A rr.r I r,r: i s
a 11 "irL
/ ith tri{:r'}di;
Sfi6/6
7{J$/o
6tr?6,
5*Y.
4tJg/a
3*96
E-{}e/a
i-*e/d
fiVu
.-. ' r ilirrlr.
-.i;rr =
'" : : r={r'

6. 78 IMS Manthan - Volume X, No. 2, July-December 2015
wedding, but I can't be sure. During the struggle for justice
for the Delhi gangrape victim, my profile picture was a big
black dot - again for a very long time. It is really about what
I'm feeling at the moment, and I don't feel the need to only
put up selfies that portray my " best, most perfect" self as
a profile picture. Also, I detest selfies, but that is a whole
different argument," a par1ricip ant revealed.
What prompts users to change the profile image?
3 4 . 1 Yo p articipants (n:5 0) stated that' self-proj ection' was
the primary reason for changing the profrle image. 35.1y,
stated that 'relationship' was a vital motivation factor for
the FB users to change the profile image. Contradictory
data was found in visit to a new place, since 27.9y'
participants assigned maximum priority to change their
profrle image when they visit to a new place. However
34.9yo parlicipants assigned minimum priority to visit to a
new place for changing profile image. 19.5o/o patticipants
assigned maximum priority to changing profile image based
on the event attended but 34.10 participants assigned
minimum priorities to it.
In the survey, an open ended question was included to get
participants' opinion regarding what prompts them to
change their profile image. Total 34 (n-50, 68%)
participants expressed their views.
"A visit to a new place, some event or even a randomly
clicked pic could be my profile pic..don't really know if
it's about self-projection but I would never make a pic my
profrle picture unless I feel I look presentable, if not
good. . .," a participant stated.
Another participant said, "Just to kill boredom...Also, it's
pleasing to look at a person you are communicating with
rather than a symbol or an emoticon."
In these communications, it is clearly expressed that the
individualmay not be consciously aware of the self-
projection function of the profile picture, but
subconsciously uses it for the same.
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to study the relationship
exist between FB profile picture and impression
management. The study examined the profrle pictures of
FB users and established the link between the two by
finding the types of images posted (RQl), frequency of
change (RQ2), the criteria used in selecting the images (RQ3)
and their use in impression management (RQ ). The
frndings ofthe content analysis and the survey produced
similar results, indicating the reliability and validity of the
results.
Facebook users use a variety ofprofile pictures, but the
use of self-pictures is dominant. Amajority ofparticipants
of the content analysis (58%) used a self-image as the
cuffent profile picture. Similarly, over 40 oh of the survey
participants did the same. Interestingly, a majority of
people (65 %) had total number ofprofile pictures between
75- I 00.
The concept of self is core to the theory of impression
management. According to this, self-perceptions not only
shape but are also shaped by social interactions (Schlenker,
1980). The study reveals that FB users actively employ
several criteria to select profile pictures which would
project a certain 'image'about themselves. Broadly, users
employed the criteria of 'good picture', 'visit to a new
ffim nu str$Sgle ttr decide tryhi*[t :prm,filfl i,rmmge tu
prlst?
T"$fiyr]
Yeg fl rr li'J*t 5nr"e

7. A study of rii. mpresston management on Face book 79
lsit imFrE*tobr*ic "mr
ilE€ttimdt*rer
choosing th:;^-:;*
-^'-'"_-'D
which thev s-ere -ir
were botlt ". --
the image. :, - - .:: .,.r i
Strano's(1t-t, ' ..',-..e1
for their p:. , L,,.-.
describe:.-. - .L.'*
person.Tlr. , - _::trLrlt
managelner.:-. - : tt_-rges
were'poseu.. _ _-.,J
which inta:= -
The profil. - ,r
other peof .
-J
Whatpromptsthe fB userto dhange prstil*
image?
i 0.0s,[ 30-00in ?0.009( 10.0$",i 40.00ed 50.0ii% 6c.00% 7s.00s;i
i'
i
j
: ff$elf-pr*iectirrl:
i
research is not universally representative across the FB
-.._ in population. The number ol-prolile images were calculated
- - _ : r .,n1r rnanually by the researcher, so minor data error may have
':-. :1so crept in.
Refererrces:
1 Bachrach, Y, Kosinski, M., Graepel, T., Kohli, p., &
Stillwell, D. (2012, June).personality and partelxs of
Facebook usage.In proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM
Web Science Conference (pp. 24_32).ACM.
I E;.rck^ L4. D.. Str:p1er, .1. &4.. Vazir*, S.. C;ic1dis, .{.,
Schn:r-rkle. S. {1., I..rloii. }} . & riersli*g. S I}. (l0l il).
Fai:eho*k profil,;s relfcct ,iclual ;,rers+nalitv. reoi sell.,
i d e rr ! i :rat i et n. l:, :;.t, c i t o ! o g i r: r.:l .rr,. icr I li,:.
I Barash. 1,'.. Iluchen.;.aut, i-.. isaacs. E,.. & Eellcitii.,ri
(:{} i t}. &,{ay).Faceplalt: Imprcstioli (&4is; nla;.ri-.gement
ir faccboolq Stal.us Upcl;lt,;rs. ht lCltrSll.
j llr,lrlro. &4. {-.., h.trcn-rar. il. i,t.,.l.r:r,niey, ,. il..
I rpr*ss i i-. n m.rtr!1g-ireili rnot ir,..-s an d h ehiili rr.c.
-i t; ti t.ri ti I tt.l- &! a n a g e *.t t tt t. _1 4 ({}), 1 0 E 0- I I Cil
5 Carpenrer, C. J. (.2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self_
promotional and anti-social behavior. personalitv and
individual differences, 52(4), 482-486.
li
li
jj
constructlLrt ., ' --- -,l
putintose.;--- : .r-- ri
that most u.- - , -. .-..
to achierc -.
'happy','a: . _ ,t _
profile pici -- . -:- i
relationship , ,'
frequency of c
profile pictures
need to juggle
the participanls
at least ooce a:
Ilowever ferr- r
and professiL-
contributed tc
observed thar .
gradually redrr;
picture of the:
their marital >;ra
for male parric;
Cert4in limitari
FB securityanj
participants rir
I;il"licco" .1. ll{., & h1ill,;n. D. R. (20ti7, Noyernb*r).
i
jcnti t,,- ilt.lrlageEl etli : nrulti 1:rlr l.)rf s*ltiat; on s cr sclf
ir iriie'b,;alr. bt Pt'ocesdin.qs ,1f tlrc i1tll iilternatiort(!!.
.'ii'..f t'ari/i:reti:t: *n SriSs1:rtdtinq Froup r,,;,r..t ipp. 3g_l-
:i,.). ilalrly.
Dunne, M., Pryor, J., & yates, p. (2005). Becoming A
Researcher: A Research Companion For The Social
Sciences: A Companion to the Research process.
IcGrall--Hill Education (UK).
Erai::iscn" h4., Smith, F., S*rith" F f-).. &L4ayall" h,f
i2C12). Resecrching the visttal.sage
Experian TTitline {)Il1O} i,'arehn^t- .-
perian lJitline t2$A). F'acebook vias the top search
tera in 2010 for s*cr:nd straightyeas. Retrier.,e<i fi-on:
haip :,',"u a,-rr,rhltrvi se. corn./uslpres s-c enter,/press_releases,/
iac ebook-rv;rs-the-tspl€e&il:_lErffi_ilL j* f O-gqrr_SE"/
Facebook Factsheei (2{}10}. ILetrieved fronr fuilp;l
*-,ir.'. facehoilk. r urn. p ressi in l-.r. ph i,r .,la ct shc* r
Cilfite*i Ailaiysjj
5uruey

8. 80 IMS Manthan - Volume X, No. 2, July-December 2015
11 F*mandez, K" C., Levinscri, C. A.. &F"*debauglt, T. L,
{2011i. Profiiins Pr*clicting Si;cial Ar:rictv Ftr:nr
Facebook Profi1es.,5*rt'cJ P.c,:{hoit-,git-'-' r:stti
F+:t's * x* I ity St: it' ilt:s. .lt6). 7{}(r-7 13.
(-ioii'man, Elvjr-lg {1959}. T1'rc Pr*setit;rlion 'ri'
Self irt
E v*i 5'da.v Li ie. li*',r, 1',;rh : I)* ubl eiiiiy
Ciosli*g. S. D., Augustine, A. A.. ,azire" S." Ht:lirman^
$1., & {laeidjs, S. (l{11 l). 4*lifestaiirrns ot ;:rors*nattv
in onl ir-le soe ial rrl.w*t'ks: S+lt- re portr:il ltacebo*k-
rolittcd i-.eh:iviors a*d o1:s*rvai:1e pioi'i1*
in {1r"t-na tion. f i, it': rit :t-y' t lt tt i ri f!,, B eh a'; i t; t', ti si J S t t i i: I
Nctwrtykirl g, 14i9). 483-438.
{-icsling^ S. l}", diadcjis, S.. &iarir"e" 5. {l{r{i?).
[-e::scnalil;; lffl]i-rssi{}11s Ilirsed ci1 Ir;ieebor,rk
Prr,iilcs. /{ t! 1/. -" ! _J.
Cov;rti. 1'., & Pasirli;;'," E{. t2*L}5 i.SluLl*fii iltvill{:nt:-{a
rf t!1e pt'ivary' iruplicatiotrt u.'h*tl ltts;n{
flace booh.tr*1:-tr,blirliciX pilpor ]lre seated at tl'i* "llrir ;ri r
l)*Eter J'air" ai tit. (lalirfg;ie h{*11r:rr i.lrli';rrsi1}, .Q*hoc1
*i' i.ibrair, ;rud Inlixtn;tlii:tr 5i:ience,
H.rncock, J. T., &Torna, C. t-. {f0i-i9l..i}Lriting }*{ru1
besf l'rrce 1'orwarrl: l'he itc,*uracy uli:riiine d.t{itlg
p l.: r-rt*trrrap !: s. .loul'r iiL +l il cnr n:rin i c all ein, -< 9
" il 6 7
3 86.
H*ni. ld" J.. Char'*br:rlil. F. Ll., Hairitrr.ight" B. L..
PoLt.,'.'*oii, A.4... Schat, A. a-'.. & Belan,.l. L. (:lJLi).
A pici.ure ir r'r.orih a thorLsetrd tr'*rtls: A .tilf.*rf ,iniri:"-{ii
r.ii ltracebntk irroii L- Fhotosillll!rs. l'ortti.,ttl!:!, :ii
llur;in ; Rcltoyi*t":.7(5), I52,! i.!-1-1 .
liapirizir,:. S. (:t)li j. H.:r'" L:sisct dr .l ftt-LJi.lil!' !ll
in*l.i'r rti rri s ir eh i n ii Fei +bt,'oii pr* t ii'l p ic Lri r*
sel*cliot-t, {-'-'.t,t:e rr't-thc,!rtg.t', i:-ie hrt.vitii. u*r! Srtcic:tl
'r1 ;tr"trrlr7;'.Irrr, l. J-I'
Iili ppcncic'iii. lr " {]tl i 2 }. {..' rt tt i c n r u i: t !.,-.t i :; : -'tr i't
i tr !* t rl u t.:ii r t ti t o i i :; tt et h o d l; i ii ei'. Sitgr:.
l.*arrr'. hl. l{.. & Kr:iviilsi{i. R- h'I. (1?9ili. Intptt:,rrttr
i]i afl a ldf r1,lell i : i li t+ratrrlt r*r.i *il' ltrlrl l !ii()-t {} l1l1l {,1n el1t
t:l od e i. Pr lrli r t ! t :
1; i r-.- it i b it i i tt t i tr " j {S 7 { 1 .')'l
l.enh:Lll., A. i2ili)!]). PllW Intcilrr:', flroi.;r:t Llata
4ererr-.FL1j lntcrrl.t & Arncri*an Lifi:Ilrojec:'i. 2" I7.
Marshall, C.. &Rossman, G. B. (2014).Designing
qualitative research. Sage publications.
McAndrew, F. T.. &Jcong, H. S. (2012). Who does
what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as
predictots of Facebook use.Computers in Iluman
Behavior, 28(6), 2359-2365.
ir4c[arr', I]. (20:i]i. On th,: lirc* ol' F:rtr:i:or-,k: i{istorical
irritgi.r anci jjle.sethcrld iir Filipirr* .roci:ri
rretnorking. lfisrcrl ti;id .4tllti:;ltoicgi'" 2 /t.l)" 4?9-
N{chdiraiie}r. S. i:*t01. -qcli' pl'l:5.'i}Iirlii;re 2"0:
Hiircisri,rm ald sell^*si*trur on Fat:ebo*k.
{.'1'hr.''rrr','r,rrtitq;v, l},.:lt,svittt'. tttli ,!}i.id.l l"iti:t oi'kit:s
, i ii4'). l5l'3{r,i.
P*arsi:n, E^ i:0 Ltl,}. h'{aking a go+d (rittualt i:r.
inirrcs.tion: T'1:e i:se o{ visLlais in r;r.r1inc inlpre-u.'
!rani.rgdrnelrt irnil r:reating identitv pcrl'ormallic.
1r LIiii.ist Ki*i r.ti' ln.fbratttion'1ct'i ety ! G{ir;:r*utt,:.
lir*taiitt', Sitrvei!!attc'a" '9t;si*inal"ilit-ti" Res!litsttt i,':''c.:
i 1 .'{-130). Sprir.rgtr EerliIr Heiiieiirerg"
Feluchette, .l-. & Kari. K" {200i1}. Exl:rnining sludf,r,i.-
rrtendecl irnag.e *n Facebook:""Wirat t'er* rr,;.
thin k i ng'i i ". -fti t: r t c ! o j E d u t: it t i ts tt .lir r Bil.l'i,,ir':i.':. r9-'- t
r0,37.
Pir..rirger. trleirdie'd; Eber'1. i:lelmut {l{}01 }. "lrnprcs.rr:
h{i-,n;:BemenI: trlri*aushi ie:la:rd.letrantlrvird". i.,
Fleni*1c, ilui:nlhei eL a1. {Er'1.'t, Kc)t;tflri,irll L.11rLr:l:
rnarlifgeitent: Sirir'.rgien, W i ssen. l-osu n grll
Lrrcht+rhar:eJ, N errrvied
Rlsctb*rg, J.. & F,gh,:rl. l,. (:ii11i. Ol1lirl+ irt'ipres.r.:
managelrrent: irrrscnality' triliis and r.n.rr1l. ir:
soconelary Ei].rls as pledi*tor.r uti seli'p:"eseniaii(in .aiit'.
ofi Iiireebook. .Journol ,;f' {'otttltu!i:r lrlaii,ti' '.
t-'orn*ruuicatiou, I 7{ 1 ), 1 -1,!.
Saslow, L. R., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., &Dubin. NI
(2013). Can you see how happy we are'l Facebook
images and rclationship satisfaction. SociaL
Psychological and Personality Science, 4('t), 41 1-41S.
Schle:-rhel, 13an';; R- (1?8iJ). llnpressitr: h"Lartagcrnr':li:
Th* Seii-Coriropt^ Sotial Iderrtitl,', al).1 lMcrfirirl.n.'
i{ oIati cns. h,l on1.*i'eyi['a] ifr:t'r.i; a : []roc ksi {-'c I c.
Slranr. L4. l,{. (i0*8}, }.,ser iics,:r'iptic1l} f,r'-r
intclrpr.lat;ons Gf seli:-pi:ts*l1lalion thror1sh i ;1g;]1rir-:L
plclii,- inrirges. {--vberpsvchul+gy: Jrlrrnr:l l!
Pr;,rc:hr:oi:i a i Ilcs"-ar*h cir Liy bcrs pacr r,:, 3(2 i. 5.
Strano, M. M. (2008). User descriptions and
interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook
profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2). 5.
I'il&'le:i.. S., &1,''r1rra.i-fiivclz, 1. (:Ci,1 ). C*riili::
rJ iffercirces in Iiacc[:rt+k :eLf'..]ri'cr'^niaticti: .4 1
interu :iti o rr ai ran ij crr-ni z*t.l s iri d.,.. [- oa, ri ! t: ; s i ti it Lt ttt t:i t i
B eh r: v i i; i'. -lJ, i I 8-ltrr.
'1cng, S. T., 1,an l-)er Heiri*. R-. i.angrr,'e 11. T-.. & llalilr*r.
.1. B. (i**11 ).Trio ntucli r:f it gote iirinu?Tlir:
r"e l *ti on:hip betrvegn nrrrb er r-,f i-r'ierr d s art ii
in1erperso*l:i irnt-.r'e.rsitns it-* F:rre [tti;k. ,llttt titti t:l
{' t t lr p t t t t r }l c d i t.t i i: +i C o :it tn Liri i i: itl i ; ; n . } -1 i 3 .1. 5 -1 I 54t.
htsr:rr" S" :." Srnith, 2., & 1)rivrr, .1. (l.0it(;,t. Alcoiroi.
sc.<. and iili:gal aciivii.ie:s: Arialal,vsis *i' s;lr-cli.r
[tacebo*h c*trtiai l]h{r1.}s ln fifi;; st;iies lIll{1i.
l) oc itr:: entRc;r rtiluc t i',' e S r i"r'i ir e N o. ED'?q :1 {l -i 9 ) -
1 our': g. A. L.. &{,ruon- l1;ii.:.sr:" A. i 2i.i*'}i. lui,lriril ii t'i,
tJl'f laiil)n :lftii Inlarre',r ].r'i r;tt , Lttilf,crll 1,11 ${)cia1
trt,.v*rk si1.s; ., ciise stiidl' oi Fatch*ok. k: Pri;i:*e:iiit-lg:;
rf' th e:l rh i n tc;:ti al ! or ;ll co nLr* tt Lr e r--n ci;,-rt lr.:it n iti es
;,rrri reclrnriogirs tpp. 265 :'1"j,). ]'Itlrvl+r'it: Al'X'f .
Zhao. C., & Jiang, G (2011, May). Cultural dillerences
on visual seif-presentation through social netu'orking
sitc profile images. In Proceedings of tile SIGCHI
Conl-erence on Human Factors in Con-rputing Systems
(pp. 1129-1132).ACM.
Z[l:il. S.. tiiasmirck. 5.. & ]].{a.riit. .1. (20'-}ii}. Idi'n1ir-.-
a.-rn stiru-rti on on F:r ceL:or-rk : lli g i rai *rttp or,r'*t-;l etii i n
riri.-lri-rred r*XiiIi*risliip-t. {-.'otnittt/c:'s iti !iitittttsi
i:,1i1.77:i1;v'" :'4{5;, i I I {i-1 iiSa).
16
12
I3
14
28
29
30
38
15
1'7
to
31
32
JJ
13
:14
19
20
21 35
36
22
23
14
3i
25
3:]