CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Tunga Vamshi Raju (10SCMC01) and Mr. Aditya Deshbandhu (10SCMC02); final year M.A. students for the academic year 2011-12 at the Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad have completed this research project under my guidance.

Dr. Kanchan K Malik Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad.

I|Page

ABSTRACT
The study conducted by us looks at the role played by displayed pictures, an important part of the visual element of ones online existence on social networking websites such as Facebook. The study then understands the importance of the display picture, the role it plays in the social networking experience and the kinds of images that users use as their respective display pictures. The data that was collected for our analysis was through a two-step process with both quantitative and qualitative phases employing a mix methods approach to research. Our study through its findings then establishes how the display picture becomes not only a mere extension of ones offline identity online but becomes paramount in order to create and validate the identity in a transparent cultural space such as Facebook. The study then also looks at the various trends that were prevalent in the way display pictures were selected or modified using editing software. The other major area that our study delves into is how the idea of display pictures appeals to the female gender and how safe the female respondents felt in a nonymous space such as Facebook. (Zhao et al. 2008)

II | P a g e

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...II ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......01 INTRODUCTION....02 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.03 RESEARCH RATIONALE.05 AIMS ANDOBJECTIVES..07 METHODOLGY.08 LITERATURE REVIEW10 FACEBOOK IDENTITY CREATION..15 WEBSITE ARCHITECTURE..23 WHY THE NEED FOR THE SOCIAL NETWORKING EXPERIENCE?...............................................................................25 ENCODING AND DECODING..........27 EXECUTION OF METHODLOGY...29 QUANTITATIVE DATA29
III | P a g e

 QUALITATIVE DATA31 GROUP SELECTION..32 THE DISCUSSION33

DATA ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATION.35 WHY THE DISPLAY PICTURE36 ROLE OF DISPLAY PICTURE ON ONLINE IDENTITY..40 TRENDS IN DISPLAY PICTURE........42 WHAT MUST A GOOD DISPLAY PICTURE HAVE? ............47 DISPLAY PICTURES, PHOTO EDITING, PRIVACY AND GENDER47 CONCLUSION53 LIMITATION.57 REFERENCES59 ANNEXURE I.64 QUESTIONNAIRE ANNEXURE 269 TRANSCRIPTIONS OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

IV | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1....36 FIGURE 2....39 FIGURE 3....39 FIGURE 4....42 FIGURE 543 FIGURE 745 FIGURE 6....44 FIGURE 8....48 FIGURE 9...........49

FIGURE 10.....51

V|Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On the conclusion of our research we would like to thank the following people for their help, without which the completion of our research would have been impossible. First and foremost we would like to thank our guide Dr. Kanchan K Malik for her invaluable advice and support through the course of the various stages of the research. We also thank Prof. Vinod Pavarala for helping us start the research by providing us grounding in various research methodologies as part of our Communication Research course. We would also like to thank Dr. Usha Raman for her priceless input in our quantitative research method and helping us refine our questionnaire and providing face validity to it. We then would most importantly thank the 120 respondents who were part of our sample for the research study and the 15 people among them who subsequently took part in the focus group discussions for their valuable time and opinion. Our research wouldnt have been possible without them. Lastly we would also like to thank Mrs. Venkatlaksmi for providing us with the digital audio recording equipment throughout the qualitative phase of our research and the Dept. of Communication for this opportunity to work on academic research as a part of our course.

1|Page

INTRODUCTION
The research is to understand the role of Facebook profile pictures with respect to the online social networking experience. In our research we have attempted to look at how ones profile picture affect the social life one leads in the online world. We have looked at how ones social life and offline existence affects the profile picture. In other words the focus is on the profile picture and its significance and function in the sphere of social networking. The focus of the study we have conducted is on the decision making process of how a certain picture is deemed worthy of being ones profile picture, the various factors that come into play when that choice is being made as well as the entire thought process while making that decision. The study also tries to understand how instrumental these images are in the creation of an online life which is not necessarily consistent with ones offline life. We have also attempted to understand how consistent these images are then with the social image being projected by the users online. Our study also makes an effort to look at how the nature of pictures chosen differs with respect to what one seeks out of his/her social networking process. We endeavour to look at these pictures as messages and from the perspectives of encoding and decoding these messages to make interpretations. This is done in order to get a clearer idea of what effect the pictures have on the viewers, what messages

2|Page

are construed by them, and how do online users arrive at these judgements (Stuart Hall, 1992). The primary questions we have attempted to answer through this study are: 1. How do issues like Gender, Privacy, Identity, and social insecurity influence them? 2. What makes participants (users of social networking sites) to choose display pictures?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

We feel this research is important at this juncture as we are at the crossroads where the bubble of the social networking phenomenon has clearly become large enough for the world to notice and it has become an exciting prospect for online existence. Another issue is that though social networking has become the latest trend to take the internet by storm, there has been no possibility to convert the millions of users online into viable sources of revenue. The problem has been that economically the trend has yet to realise its full potential. Our study however does not look at the economic aspect but has been carried out at time of this uneasy economic climate. In our study we are attempting to analyse the effect of profile picture on the entire social networking experience. Though most of the research that has been conducted on social networking has largely looked at the need for social networking
3|Page

and the way people negotiate with it, not much has been done to look at the profile pictures as a subject of study. We have looked at this in order to understand the role of these images and how their importance varies from person to person. Our study looks at people aged between 17-30 years, which we have loosely define as youth. The study requires this youth to have a Facebook account for at least a year and that he or she logs in to the account at least once a week. A person who fulfils these conditions will be termed a Facebook user. We have studied and analysed these Facebook users in order to understand how they use their profile pictures to further their different motives in online social networking. We look at how these pictures help the users create a nonymous (nonanonymous) identity online in a network where one is always closely scrutinized and where every step that one takes is monitored by each and every one in his/her social network (Zhao et al. 2011). We have looked at the following questions in our research: 1. What makes participants (users of social networking sites) to choose display pictures? 2. What makes Facebook users not use pictures of their own? 3. How do issues like Gender, Privacy, Identity, and social insecurity influence them? 4. How often do they change their display picture? What makes them change the images?

4|Page

5. How important are the comments on the display pictures to the users? The study also focuses on the issues of self-representation and identity creation online, it helps us understand the idea that people want to present themselves in a positive manner in both the physical and virtual world: being able to self-present in a positive manner has been tied to physical survival. People are very self-conscious about their appearances and want to be prepared to look good for anyone who may be viewing their profile. There are people who want to keep their age hidden from the public, as they think, showing or revealing their actual age is not necessary as long as your display picture is attractive. People who are self-conscious may want to put a great looking picture of them, in order to get a positive comment, or post to it make their self-esteem higher: individuals with low self-esteem orient toward self-enhancement while those with high self-esteem try to protect themselves. Having high self-esteem seems to be a social compensation for an individual in the virtual world. People like compliments, looking attractive, and sharing their interests with others.

RESEARCH RATIONALE
The reason for our study is to understand how similar is the online world of social networking to a traditional social space where people tend to portray themselves, in the words of Goffman, in the best possible light and thus attempt to hide their flaws and weaknesses. With social networking, the amount of contact has

5|Page

only gone up and visibility has only become higher forcing people to work all the more hard to portray cleaner and desirable sides of them. This study attempts to understand how these goals are achieved through online profile pictures.

6|Page

Aims and Objectives of the Study

We have attempted to answer the following questions through our research in order to get a clear understanding of how Facebook profile pictures affect the social life of an individual on the website or vice versa i.e. a persons life affecting the choice of Facebook profile picture? The earlier questions have been refined after the review. After the literature review we have arrived at the following questions that we feel are the most important to be answered: 1. What are the various factors that one takes into consideration before making a certain picture his or her profile picture? 2. Does the fact that the picture is well received by ones social network have an effect on the time period of the picture remaining as the profile picture? 3. How does the number of friends on ones social network affect the frequency of changing profile pictures? 4. How consistent are the pictures selected as profile pictures with the virtual identity one has created on his or her profile? 5. Is there a relationship of some sort between the number of likes and positive comments received for a profile picture and the number of hours then consequently spent Facebook? What message is the user trying to convey through the profile picture?

7|Page

METHODOLOGY
METHOD: This study uses explanatory research design from the mix methods approach to research. The methodology is essentially divided into two stages and as the design suggests, the quantitative stage will be followed by the qualitative phase. STAGE 1: Survey method with cross-sectional design will be using a questionnaire as research instrument. STAGE 2: Focus group discussions will be used to get us further insights into the open-ended questions of the research instrument i.e. the questionnaire The method will be using the follow up model to get more qualitative data to explain a few questions from the questionnaire via focus group discussions. The subjects selected for the focus group discussions would be taken from the sample that was used for the quantitative data. Our study will be looking at young college going youth between the age groups of 17-30 years. The sample will be chosen from the city of Hyderabad and the sample size will be of 120.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS:
1. FACEBOOK USERS: People who have been using the social networking site Facebook for more than a period of one year who log-in into their accounts at least once a week. This will be termed in the study as a regular user.

8|Page

2. PROFILE PICTURE: Images used by Facebook users to identify with their profiles on the website.

STAGE I SAMPLING METHOD: Purposive-convenient sampling SAMPLE SIZE: 120

SAMPLING FRAME (PROCEDURE):

I. The sample selected was purposive in the sense that only people who have been using the website for a period of one year or more were selected. II. The sample comprised students from within the various centres of higher learning in and around the city. Some students from the Hyderabad Central University were also chosen due to their proximity, as they could be part of the repeat-measures validity.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT: The researchers used a questionnaire as the

research instrument. The instrument of data collection, i.e. the questionnaire was administered to the selected respondents. The questionnaire was a mixture of open ended and closed ended questions. A face validity test was also done for the questionnaire. The questionnaires were researcher administered to aid the Stage II of the methodology. A copy of the instrument has also been included in the thesis as Appendix - I.

PRE-TEST: A pre-test of the questionnaire was carried out with about 20 people.
This exercise enabled us to refine and improve the research instrument.

DESIGN: In our study, we used the cross-sectional design for data collection as it
enabled us to get information specific to the time period of our research.
9|Page

The cross-sectional design is used when one needs information specific to a given time; we are using this for our study because it will help us get information from people about their attitudes, beliefs and habits on Facebook profile pictures at the time of the survey.

VALIDITY: After the data collection and analysis, we performed a post-test

validity by re-administering the same questionnaires to 15 people of the original sample to check the consistency of responses by them after a small gap in time.

STAGE II: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Since we are using the explanatory design method we conducted Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to glean more information into the various open ended questions of the survey. Since the questionnaires were researcher administered, we were able to pick people from within the sample for these discussions. We selected 20 people from the sample who were willing to discuss the questions related to our study further. . We held FGDs with three groups of five people each. The discussions lasted for about an hour or so. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed for purpose of obtaining the qualitative data to supplement our quantitative findings. This qualitative data has been used to explain the trends that emerge from the quantitative phase.

10 | P a g e

LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION:
Facebook, as a phenomenon per se, has permeated the cyber world today with its limitless reach, appealing design, and the host of facilities the website has to offer. It has become a clear favourite and trendsetter in the realm of social networking. Our research focuses on the aspects of virtual representation in this realm. In our study, we look at the process of profile picture selection and the decision process that precedes this selection. We also look at the various factors that are taken into consideration before a user deems a picture is fit to be his profile picture. Our literature review provides clear insights into the whole social networking process and the way the users negotiate with these websites. The initial part of the review gives us a clear idea about how the people create identities on Facebook and how their profile pictures are a part of maintaining that created identity. This enables us to understand virtual representation and how the use of profile pictures enables the Facebook experience? Our later part of the review looks at what makes the people seek the social networking experience from the perspective of the Uses & Gratification theory (Katz, et. al M. 1974). Most of the research done in this area has been centred on understanding the need for social networking and sites such as Facebook, how users negotiate with
11 | P a g e

such websites, interact with them, use them and most of all how the phenomenon has taken the world of internet and cyber-space by storm. Facebook as a site is unlimited in its potential for connecting people and the variety of features it offers to various users. This this is evident from the success of the website in the sphere of social networking in recent years, considering it merely started off as a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers (Facebook Factsheet, 2010). By the end of 2009, 75 per cent of internet users between the ages of 18-24 had an account on a social networking site (Lenhart, 2009). Facebook, the market leader and trendsetter in social networking, has 500 million active users who spend seven billion minutes a month using it. This gives us a good idea of how social networking sites have permeated our internet experience. (Facebook Factsheet, 2010). In todays world of digital convergence where there is access to the various media of interpersonal communication on a continuous basis, young adults are heavy consumers of digital products and consequently are influenced by computer technology that probably makes them impatient and more demanding for fast results. These young adults constantly send text-messages and call others in order to find out current information or to know whats going on. Social networking sites (SNS) are a useful and convenient tool for staying connected to the events of a friends life with ease.

12 | P a g e

Compared to calling a person and having a conversation in the conventional way, on Facebook, members can visit a members profile or send them a quick message to find out what they want to know. Users of social networking sites (SNS) employ them to have selective, efficient, and immediate reach for their (mediated) interpersonal communication with others and as an on-going way to seek the approval and support of other people. Such uses are possible only now through new technology offered by the Internet. Moreover, SNS users can update their profile to convey impressions of themselves and occurrences in their lives to a large audience without contacting each member of that audience on an individual basis. Research also suggests that the openness and transparency of SNS is highly popular among users. Many people feel that this transparency allows them to gain information on others quickly (Urista, et.al, 2010).

This brings us to one of the more interesting aspects of the online audiences. According to Dicken-Garcia (1998) when users communicate electronically, they end up saying what they might never say in person or on the phone. Internet users sometimes take on new personalities, ages, and genders, all of these exemplified by less inhibited behaviour (Ruggiero, 2000). She also noted that Internet talk resembles word of mouth more than newspapers and television, and that, often, users unquestionably accept information via the Internet that they would not accept so readily from another medium (p.22).
13 | P a g e

This shift to social networking sites for communication related purposes is a familiar trend today. A social networking site like Facebook has become a virtual contact portal where one can communicate with friends, acquaintances, colleagues, with a level of trust and transparency which seems absent in other media of interpersonal communication. However, it will not be safe to assume that the access of a social networking site is easy. The level of familiarity with the internet and the issues of access to the medium are barriers to the social networking experience. Also, the most important factor would be to consider the aspect of connectivity. The amount of social interaction on a website like Facebook will clearly be determined by the availability of the resource, internet access in this case, and the frequency of internet access. As expected, internet experience determines the time spent on social networking sites. People with more diverse internet experience spend more time on social networking websites than those with less internet experience (Jiyoung Cha, 2008). The number of hours respondents spend on Facebook is directly proportional to maintaining relationships and passing time motives. Users who most often log into their Facebook accounts are the ones who go there to maintain existing relationships, pass time when bored, be entertained or appear cool. Younger users, females and those interested in maintaining existing relationships through Facebook have more Facebook friends than users with other interests. As Parks and Floyd (1996) noted, those who posted more often had developed a greater number of personal relationships. Studies show that not many people go to Facebook to escape
14 | P a g e

from problems in real life or to lessen loneliness by finding companionship. (Pavica Sheldon, 2007). This brings us to the following questions: 1. What is the utility of accessing a social networking website such as Facebook? 2. How do the users negotiate with such a website? What do they gain from the experience?

FACEBOOK IDENTITY CREATION

Building a profile on Facebook allows each user to be able to post notes, photos, links, and videos which he/she can share with friends that is, the users who are connected to an individuals online social network, and thus granted access to view the individuals profile. The Home Page allows each Facebook user to be constantly updated on the most recent postings and interactions with and among friends. Facebook users can also enable Facebook Chat to instant message online friends in real time. All this mixture gives the user a completely networked experience. All the above mentioned elements of Facebook combine to allow its users to construct an image or identity to communicate to the greater online community. This identity is the one that the user extends to other fellow users online and also the identity that he/she wants other users to accept. In other words, the identity he/she creates on social networking websites is often the way the user wants to be perceived. (Watson, et. al 2006)
15 | P a g e

Perhaps one of the most telling pieces of self-disclosure or image construction is the profile photo, the single default photo by which Facebook users choose to identify themselves within the entire network. It is instrumental in the creation and perpetuation of that identity which has been so painstakingly created by the user. (Hum et.al 2011). However, despite this, not much research has been done on the aspect of Facebook profile pictures and the very relevance of what messages they can convey, how instrumental they are in the process of identity creation online on social networking websites. Regarding profile pictures, Hancock and Toma (2009) noted that, with the emergence of profile-based social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, online self-presentations are no longer limited to text-based descriptions. The profile photograph is now a central component of online self-presentation, and one that is critical for relational success (p. 368). Recent studies have examined the various factors that can be attributed and examined citing various reasons such as to how users gain social capital by creating new friendships and maintaining existing ones in the virtual sphere of social networking (Lenhart, 2009; Valenzuela, et. Al 2009). This in turn leads to the creation and then the consequent rise of the self-image of the user (Utz, 2010; Zhang, 2010). All these recent studies are part of a new stream of research on social networking that wants to point out that the constant use of social networking sites like Facebook by the young generation of today and the over reliance on computermediated-communication actually not only reinforces ones skills of interpersonal
16 | P a g e

communication, but also helps in growth of interpersonal relationships and skills of socializing with the community at large. One could also at this stage fairly assume that when friends from the virtual world meet in person in the offline world the familiarity and rapport they share online will also remain in the personal experience. As mentioned above, a lot of research studies are now being conducted by various scholars studying the phenomena of social networking to look at the platform as to how a user connects with himself/herself and how they represent themselves in this realm, this is then further taken ahead by researchers who are now attempting to understand how this representation helps connecting with other users online. This brings us back to the concept of Social capital. Social capital as envisioned by Scheufele & Shah (2000) is a concept that can be broadly segregated into three domains: I. II. III. Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Behavioral The interpersonal domain looks at the various interactions one has with his or her social network. In the case of Facebook this includes a host of activities that are available to the user, such as, putting up a status, commenting on a status, picture or video that is shared by someone in ones social network, chatting real-time with a member from the network, poking a friend, liking ones status or other posts. In

17 | P a g e

short, the website is a paradise for people involved in interpersonal relations on the virtual platform. The intrapersonal domain describes the inner emotions and levels of selfsatisfaction within the individual; in this case it would be the user who logs in. Facebook also has a host of ways for users to even express their innermost emotions. Creating ones profile on the website enables one to not only share basic information but also his/her innermost emotions, his/her likes about things such as movies, books, ideologies, music and his/her interests. The user can network in fan groups which are classified sub-networks and share his innermost thoughts with likeminded people. Interestingly, on the homepage of Facebook, the place where one puts in ones status is called: Whats on your mind? The behavioral domain involves the individuals participation in civic and political activities. Facebook and social networking websites may not directly have content to offer on this aspect but they surely are virtual public spheres for people who coagulate and consider such issues. Recently, the Anna Hazare movement in India was popularized and taken forward via Facebook and so were the movements of liberation in countries of the Middle East, Egypt - in particular where a certain girl child was christened Facebook by her parents. However, other studies have revealed that the use of Facebook was found to be positively associated with higher levels of self-satisfaction and social trust (Valenzuela et al., 2009). In other words, individuals who regularly and consciously maintained an online identity felt more connected with their various online friends
18 | P a g e

and possessed an overall higher level of happiness and social contentment. This finding was also supported by Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007), who concluded that the perception of being connected to others is partly due to the convenience and free-of-cost services that Facebook provides, such as daily reminders of friends birthdays. Additionally, establishing social connections is positively linked with establishing a social identity, and Facebook users successfully do this by indicating membership of certain subgroups (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) and subcultures (music, movies, etc.) (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009). Respondents to the above mentioned study indicated that one of the most important uses of Facebook was to not only learn information about others, but to reconnect with real-life friends and older friends that one gradually loses contact with over the years. The architecture of the website design is such that it enables re-connection of older friendships and relations that one would have lost in the reclusive lifestyle we lead today. One of the largest appeals of Facebook therein lies in the ability to expand and strengthen ones social network. To highlight another dimension of social capital, Facebook groups (an application feature that allows a user to join a sub-network of people with a common interest) have the power to increase civic and political participation through a reciprocal relationship (Valenzuela et al., 2009). The fact that young voters use Facebook to communicate their political opinions and that these (Facebook) groups use the community of registered voters to disseminate political
19 | P a g e

information illustrates the effectiveness of Facebook to unite and empower communities with similar interests and views. If one of the benefits of Facebook is to bring individuals in a community together, then it also makes sense that Facebook provides a means for selfexpression in order to form these social, geographical, and political connections. The idea of self-construction in the public gaze and a setting such as Facebook where today, ones self representation and portrayal is constantly scrutinized and analyzed by ones various contacts and the entire social network is critical to our understanding of how and why individuals communicate on and through social networking sites. This makes us arrive at another question and quite an important one which is, how accurate are these descriptions and images which are created by the various people on their social networking accounts? Here accuracy doesnt necessarily mean factual accuracy but a broader aspect as to how accurate is a virtual identity in its description of the owner of the identity in the true off-line sense. Zhao, Grasmuch, and Martin (2008, p. 211) identified hoped-for, possible identities as social networking identities that were not necessarily consistent with real-life personalities. These online identities were often shaped through positive word affirmations that described an individual as socially desirable and outgoing (Zhao et al.). Furthermore, these identities were carefully constructed to reflect social and cultural norms; researchers noted that the creation of seemingly separate online
20 | P a g e

identities is not an innate behavior, but rather a response to the social conditions and environment that the individual is placed in. Researchers have also found that Facebook users generally construct their self-identity through indirect, mimetic ways that show viewers glimpses of their personalities instead of explicit, direct cues (Zhao et al., 2008). For example, a participants Facebook status publicly claimed her love and devotion to her husband. This behavior not only reinforces what Zhao et al. describes as affirmations of accepted societal norms (in this case, heterosexuality), but also illustrates how users create identities through implicit communication, leaving clues for viewers to pick up and interpret. Utz (2010) expanded on this theory when she studied online impression formation through inferences made when looking at an individuals Facebook friends. When looking at communal traits, which enhance ones social desirability, respondents judged the level of these traits based on the impressions received from the individuals friends; that is, the profiles of the individuals online followers (Utz). This type of online behavior is often equated to nonverbal behavior in traditional face-to-face communication; context cues derived from implicit sources are perceived as more indicative of ones identity, thus working to assist greatly with impression formation (Tidwell & Walther, 2006). Perceptions of social desirability are not the only inference Facebook users attempt to determine from others profiles. Walther, et al. (2008) found that the level of attractiveness of ones friends had a significant impact on the perception of
21 | P a g e

attractiveness of the user whose profile was being examined. Additionally, Walther et al.s results were consistent with Utzs (2010) finding that friends who were perceived as outgoing and social helped to increase the perception of social attractiveness of the Facebook user. These perceptions of sociable friends were formed after analyzing photos and wall posts (Walther et al.). A Facebook profile then, is the product of not only self-generated information, but of a combination of that and the inferences made from indirect sources of online communication. This idea of self-construction in an online environment warrants further investigation into how subgroups of young adults college students utilize SNSs to create an image of them. Seventy-four percent of students reported that their Facebook profiles were accurate representations of themselves (Stern & Taylor, 2007), suggesting that identity construction is a key consideration when determining which information to post or not. According to Bugeja (2006), Christine Rosen, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC, he commented that Facebook and similar sites are not really about the fostered connections in the online community, but rather serve as vehicles by which individuals can participate in ego casting, [which is] the thoroughly personalized and extremely narrow pursuit of ones personal taste. Rosen further argues that Facebook users have a tendency to describe themselves like products (Bugeja, 2006, p. 2). Indeed, a study conducted by Pempek et al. (2009) found that self-presentation was one of the most popular reasons college students were attracted to and continued to use, Facebook. Pempek et al.
22 | P a g e

argued that perhaps one of the biggest reasons for being attracted to carefully selected self-presentation is to resolve key developmental issues such as identity and intimacy development (p. 236). The findings by Zhao et al. (2008) that established the idea of showing, not telling, when constructing online identities support our argument that the study of content of implicit communication cues of Facebook profiles, i.e., profile photos, would add to the growing knowledge of identity construction in social media contexts. Mesch and Beker (2010) concluded that the norms of offline self-disclosure did not necessarily coincide with the separately developed norms of online selfdisclosure. Online self-disclosure was more open and expressive, perhaps due to the perception of anonymity in online communities (as opposed to face-to-face interactions) or the more intense need for uncertainty reduction Foon Hews (2011) review of students uses of Facebook similarly indicated that greater self-disclosure occurred on Facebook than offline. Whatever the real reason may be, researchers understand that there are separate rules that establish and govern the norms of self-disclosure in online identities versus face-to-face communication settings (Mesch & Beker).

THE WEBSITE ARCHITECTURE

The virtual representation of the individual profile on social networking as studies dictate is determined by the user interface and the environment friendliness

23 | P a g e

of the website. (Papacharissi, 2009) in his work suggests that the website architecture of Facebook is much more flexible and friendly enabling users to make more regular and conscious changes to their online profiles where as in the case of a LinkedIn a similar website with a much more formal setup and architecture this is not the case. The primary focus here is that technology not only in social networking sites but also in other online social spaces functions architecturally, suggesting particular uses or highlighting technological affordances. Hutchby (2001) explains how technologies present a collection of technical, social, human and historical circumstances that are typical of the era within which they come to be. From this interactions perspective, the communicative affordances of technology are seamlessly negotiated among individuals, society and the technology itself, producing technology that is both socially shaped and socially shaping (Buckingham, 2008: 12; Williams, 1974). A flexible architecture is cognizant of these affordances, yet permissive of the dialectic process between humans and technology. While not entirely neutral, fluid architecture highlights technological affordances without definitively determining behaviour. The more flexible, although not utterly flexible, architecture of Facebook highlighted the social affordances of the technologies, whereas the more defined LinkedIn produces a more definitive effect on human behaviour.

24 | P a g e

Why the need for the Social networking experience?

Research existing on this issue suggests the use of the Uses & Gratification (U&G) framework for understanding this phenomenon. As new technologies present people with more and more media choices, motivation and satisfaction become even more crucial components of audience analysis. Not surprisingly, industrial researchers have been applying U&G theory to a wide range of newly popularized video media technologies. Even in the sphere of internet and computer mediated communication Ruggeiro (2000) suggests the use of this very framework. He feels, the telecommunication revolution has brought a revival to Uses & Gratification framework. Further literature and the various studies conducted in understanding the social networking phenomenon indicate that the Uses & Gratification framework has been widely used for various reasons and has been quite successful, the application of the framework to answer research questions has varied from research on privacy related concerns on social networking to the mere explanation of the working of social networking sites. According to the Uses and Gratifications model, a persons social and psychological factors influence motives for communicating - their gratifications sought and gratifications obtained. Studies conclude that gender, and to lesser extent age and education of college students, were important predictors of using

25 | P a g e

Facebook to maintain existing relationships and pass time, with women more likely to do it than men (Pavica Sheldon, 2007). Facebook could potentially gratify a variety of motivations. People could use Facebook because they just transferred to a new school and want to find and meet new people, or to see who is in their art history class so they can call them and find information about the next test. Some could use Facebook to discover a potential love interests favourite music, to keep in touch with old friends from high school, to put off doing work, or just because everyone else is using Facebook. Though all of these, to varying degrees, seem to be reasons why people use Facebook, the most prevalent way in which people use Facebook is as a social utility. Counter to what may be intuitive, the primary way in which Facebook contributes to socializing isnt by offering a medium through which people can meet and communicate with others. Instead, its by acting as a virtual watering hole that dispenses information about peers. (Brett A. Bumgarner, 2007). The use of this framework at this moment for our research seems an enticing proposition as we feel it will give us a lot of insight into the various research questions that we will be looking at in our study. The closest we have come to our research topic in study of Profile Pictures has been the research work by Hum et.al. 2011 and they suggest that the research uses content analysis as the method with the unit of analysis being each persons current Facebook photograph. The research was quantitative in nature and merely analyses
26 | P a g e

the pictures as it gives no insight into the decision making process of the profile picture selection which is a crucial area of our study.

ENCODING & DECODING

The Facebook profile pictures are essentially in the words of cultural scientist Stuart Hall messages that are encoded by the users in a certain way. If we extend the theory of encoding and decoding to our study we can understand that the user has a certain idea which he would like to convey through his profile picture and the message/idea is coded in the form of the picture. The viewers who view the image decode it in a certain way and using the interactivity that is so primary to the new medium comment on the message. This comment essentially becomes feedback and thus this ritual of posting profile pictures online becomes a communication process. Now if we are to only look at the way the message is decoded by the various viewers then according to David Morley there are three ways the message can be decoded: 1. INTENDED DECODING: The decoding is done just as was expected by the encoder; in this case the profile picture is understood just in the right context as envisaged by the Facebook user who uploaded that photograph. 2. OPPOSITIONAL DECODING: This decoding is done in entirely the opposite way to what the encoder expected. 3. NEGOTIATED DECODING: A form of decoding where the viewer negotiates with the message and decodes it with respect to his/her experiences and circumstances.
27 | P a g e

Thus we can expect intended decoding only from the closest of friends and family and that too only a few times. Opposed decoding seems a little farfetched in this scenario whereas negotiated seems the most plausible way of decoding the profile pictures that have been posted.

28 | P a g e

Execution of Methodology
INTRODUCTION:
This chapter deals with our description of how the methodology was implemented and gives the reader an insight into our experiences of obtaining the primary data. It will hopefully give the reader a much more enhanced understanding of the analysis that follows as well as give a well-rounded understanding of the entire process and its implementation. The data collection and analysis stages of the research project have been immensely enriching both in terms of information that we have collected and what we have gleaned through the analysis. The process as dictated in the methodology was a two pronged effort spread over a period of eight weeks in order to obtain the right kind of information and get a research sample as representative as possible to do justice to the study.

STAGE I - QUANTITATIVE DATA:

The first stage of the process was about us obtaining data through researcher administered questionnaires. We started the process by refining the research instrument by administering the first 20 of the questionnaires after they were approved in terms of facial validity by our guide Dr. Kanchan K. Malik and the head of department Dr. Usha Raman. The few complexities that our respondents faced were
29 | P a g e

smoothened out and the research instrument was then administered to a sample of 120 people over a period of 20 days. Our methodology set prior to the data collection stage stated a sample of 100 people implying that we needed hundred, complete and error-free filled-in questionnaires. Thus to avoid any hassles and hindrances we collected data from a 120 sample group. This exercise was done hoping to eliminate the incomplete, unfilled and incoherent data samples. However, post collection, on examining the data collected and the research instruments on a closer level, we arrived at the conclusion that all the 120 questionnaires were fit to use. Thus we used the additional responses to increase the sample size and

consequently improve the representativeness of the sample with respect to the vast population our study hopes to analyse and generalise upon. This seemed fit as the same sampling techniques were used to obtain the additional sample of respondents.

ADVANTAGE OF RESEARCHER ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRES:

The data collection process was decided to be researcher administered thus ensuring that the process was time consuming and repetitive to the administrator but it ensured that none of the questionnaires were found wanting in terms of information of any sort. This also enabled us to identify people from within the samples who were willing to be part of the focus group discussions and thereby aiding the qualitative stage. The people were identified and selected by the way they
30 | P a g e

used and engaged with their display pictures and others display pictures on Facebook and also by the way they answered the open ended questions in the questionnaire.

STAGE II - QUALITATIVE DATA:

The second stage of the process as said before was the qualitative phase. In this stage we were hoping that this exercise would also give us a much better and in depth understanding of the entire decision making process that goes on when a regular user chooses a particular picture to be the display picture for ones profile and the various factors that come into play while making that conscious decision. The combined use of both quantitative and qualitative methods in research is generally called triangulation or mixed methods. The qualitative research tool we chose was focus group discussions as it allows collection of large amount of information from respondents with different and varying perspectives. Also we feel, the free flow of ideas and information in the exercise negate the moderators viewpoints and bias to a considerable extent and the role of the moderator is to just streamline the chain of thoughts and ideas. Well, one could also say that we as a team are biased towards focus group discussions as a tool for qualitative research. As our earlier methodology mentions we had three focus groups of five people each with a time duration varying from half an hour to three quarters of an hour and their opinions were taken on the following questions:

31 | P a g e

1. What picture do you have currently on your profile? Why is that your current profile picture? 2. What qualities do you think pictures should have for being successful profile pictures? 3. What do you think are the important things to consider when you are selecting a certain picture as your Profile picture? 4. What qualities do you think pictures should have for being successful profile pictures? 5. Among all your friends on Facebook, select one picture that you really liked and one that you disliked and reasons for the liking and disliking. 6. If you use editing software what kind of editing is it? And how do you think it improves the picture? 7. On others profile pictures which are edited, that do you like and what dont you like? 8. What kind of privacy settings do you use on Facebook? How safe do you think your pictures are on the website?

GROUP SELECTIONS:
The groups were selected with the following criteria into account: 1. Each group had at least 2 high frequency users (people who log in more than 3 times a day on a regular basis) and 2 low frequency users.

32 | P a g e

2. Each group had at least two female Facebook users to understand how they engaged with the visual aspects of Facebook. This was done with the hope to either confirm or challenge the well set stereotype that women generally are very cautious about their identities on Facebook.

THE DISCUSSIONS:
After the selection of the groups, they were allotted special days and the venues for the discussion was worked out. It was informed to all participants that the FGDs would be digitally recorded and later transcribed but their identities will remain confidential. The FGDs were kick started with the question: The most important reasons for which you use Facebook are? This question helped to open them up and talk a bit about their profiles, and most importantly the way they engaged with the social networking website and their experiences with it. The question then used to steer the discussion towards our area of interest display pictures was: What role does your profile picture play on your FB page? This question stimulated a variety of answers but it directed the conversation in directions beyond the scope of the study. Therefore, we interjected them with other questions which have been listed before (not necessarily in the same order). The purpose of the exercise was to make the questions more personal and subjective when compared to the questionnaire and have a more nuanced

33 | P a g e

understanding of the Why? aspect of the research questions rather than the What? aspect which was answered in the questionnaires. This exercise gave us a lot of information as to how individuals feel about these issues. The inputs from these exercises were then understood in conjunction with the quantitative data at the time of analysis in order to lend some richness to the data. As Srinivas Melkote puts it, to give the numbers their stories.

34 | P a g e

DATA ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS

The research as the title suggests was centred on the focal point of display pictures and the various roles played by them in the entire social networking experience. According to the pre-existing literature that we came across during our literature review, we found the work of Zhao et.al (2008) on Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships very similar to the concepts we were working on and we borrowed the overlying framework of the study for streamlining and focussing our research. The findings of Zhao et.al indicated that there were three ways in which the users created their online identities and persona, namely, the visual, the enumerative and the narrative. Any of the users at a time used all the three ways to forge their respective identities but in varying proportions. The study then proved that 91 per cent of the users relied on the visual narrative i.e. the use of pictures, and our study focuses on this visual narrative alone. Here we must also make it very clear to tell the reader that all the primary data that has been used for analysis has been taken from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the data collection process. The Facebook profiles of the individual respondents have not been visited as part of the methodology. Thus the word of the respondent is accepted as true and factual. The data analysis also is presented in a fashion where we have grouped similar questions pertaining to a

35 | P a g e

certain theme in a single subsection of the chapter and as a consequence all questions in the questionnaire havent been answered individually.

WHY THE DISPLAY PICTURE?

Our data of the 120 respondents indicated that an overwhelming 119 of them used display pictures on their profiles, which was a whopping 99.2 per cent of our sample (see figure1). We attribute the jump in the figures to the constant changes in the web architecture of the website and the friendlier it gets with every new update in design (Papacharissi 2009) and to the fact that the website has gained immense popularity among internet users worldwide post 2008.
Figure 1

People without display pictures 1%

People using display pictures

People with display pictures 99%

The question which then comes to mind is a more obvious one which is if Facebooks display pictures are so immensely popular then, what role they play on an individuals profile and what benefits does the user get from the whole exercise?
36 | P a g e

Our study answers the question to a large extent both quantitatively and qualitatively and at the same time challenges the existing view in similar studies that the display picture is an extension of the online identity. Our study indicates that at least 85 per cent of our sample (101 people out of 120) felt that the display picture lent a certain amount of credibility and validity to their profile. In other words what could be said is that the display picture now is part of the identity creation process and probably plays the biggest role in the establishing of the identity. The availability of the display picture now not only acts as a tool of identification but also as a filter in terms of search as the glimpse of the image helps the user identify the person he or she wants to get in touch with. As one of our respondents in the focus group discussions said, My profile picture distinguishes me from all the other people who have the same names as mine; it helps me be identified by people searching for me online. One needs to accept the fact that when one searches for a particular name online on Facebook today to add to ones friend list, consequently one drowns in a sea of names and is then hit by a shroud of uncertainty on the fact who is one searching for. In such a situation, the display picture plays the role of a distant beacon as one can clearly distinguish between the wanted and the unwanted with its help. These analyses, as a consequence, take us to two very important questions which are, if the display picture is actually as important as the primary data collected suggests then, how many people use pictures of themselves as their display pictures?

37 | P a g e

Is it not a common trend to see images of sceneries, flowers and random images as display pictures? The results to this question indicate a trend which has not been pinpointed as of yet by other studies, the necessity to be searchable and identifiable on the internet easily has caused a huge spurt in the number of people who use images of themselves as their display pictures as opposed to 2008 when the Zhao et.al study was done where, out of a sample of 63 people a mere 27 of them (about 43%) used pictures of themselves as display pictures. The new trend we are pointing out has seen a consequent decline in the use of non-personal images (images where the user is not in display) as display pictures as these images have an adverse effect in the process of searching and identity confirmation. This trend of confirmations in turn sees its origins in the fact that the website as such has tried to project an image of transparency which seemed hitherto impossible with the decentralised nature of the internet as a medium. Our primary data indicated that only a mere 10 people did not use photographs of themselves as display pictures at the time at which the study was conducted. Implying 110 people used photographs of themselves as display pictures to facilitate easy identification and search online in the social networking sphere of Facebook. These statistics translate to 92 per cent of the sample clearly indicating that a lot more people use display pictures as a tool to establish their online identities rather than merely as an extension of their online identity (see figure 2).
38 | P a g e

The growth itself in the trend of using pictures of the self as display pictures in the two studies is over 100 per cent in a time span of about 4 years (Figure 3).
Figure 2 People using other pictures as display pictures 8%

What kinds of pictures are being chosen?

People using display pictures of themselves 92%

Figure 3: Zhao et. al v/s Deshbandhu, Tunga

In one of the focus group studies we conducted, all the members were unanimous in acceptance to the fact that the display picture was ones window to
39 | P a g e

the rest of the world of social networking and if one had a clear identifiable image of themselves as a display picture then one was tapping into the vast potential that the concept of display picture had to offer to a user on Facebook in terms of cybersocial capital and acceptance.

ROLE OF DISPLAY PICTURES ON THE ONLINE IDENTITY:

The question that we will now look at is the role that display pictures play in the process of online identity creation. This aspect is one where our study found similar results to that of Zhao et.als 2008 study as more or less a lot of people did feel that the Facebook display picture needed to be consistent on 2 very distinct levels: 1. The first level being that the images needed to be in tandem with the online profile that was created. The display picture must be consistent with other content that was posted earlier to this account. 2. The second being that if the users are known by a part of their online social circle in the offline space too, then, their profile must be consistent partly if not entirely with their offline representation of themselves. There seemed to be a very consistent understanding and engagement with the first level by the respondents of the quantitative portion of our study as they were all mostly aware of the fact what Zhao et.al call the nonymous creation of identity which means the process where the user creates his or her own identity in the presence of their social groups. Most of our users claimed to carefully scrutinise
40 | P a g e

their friends new pictures on display. In fact, almost 70 per cent of the people felt that the display picture selected by the user must be real in the sense that they should be able to associate and identify with the user through it. The second level, on the other hand, seemed to be more practical in nature as several respondents in the focus group discussions felt users were inconsistent with their offline identities in the online spaces. Some even felt that once the display picture and identity were set in these online spaces of social networking, the set identity limited the ability of the users to be whoever they wished in such spaces, from then on, the users limited themselves to the created identity. One must make here a clear distinction that the way friends react to display pictures is very dependent on the nature of relationship one shares with the friend in terms of physical proximity and the offline touch. The friends online were found to be more accepting of small deviations from the pre-existing identity whereas friends who were present in both the offline and online spaces at the same time were more rigid and objected more to such changes. Another trend that came to light when the study was being conducted was the role that ideologies, interests and hobbies played in the process of display picture selection. We were surprised to find that not many people posted display pictures which were consistent with their ideologies and interests. However, hobbies and new habits seemed to be well displayed. A participant in the focus group
41 | P a g e

discussion felt it was his duty to let his friends online know what his current interests were and since he had picked up playing the guitar as an interest his current display picture showed him doing so. Whereas when we asked a rock band lover why her favourite rock band was not on display as her profile picture she pointed out that it would be difficult for people not close to her and unaware of her interests to identify her profile with such a picture online. In fact, most of the respondents to questions about what pictures were chosen for profile pictures felt that they hated it when their friends chose pictures of popular celebrities, actors and stars as their display pictures rather than post pictures of themselves.

TRENDS IN DISPLAY PICTURES:

We attempted to understand the way people negotiate and set their preferences for display pictures as a trend and we could come to the conclusion that most of our respondents tended to change their profile pictures only once in about a time period of 1 -3 months (30-90 days) on an average as 78 people out of our sample of 120 people preferred to change their profile pictures in between the above mentioned time period, this implies that at least 65 per cent of the people tend to keep their pictures for a longer time (see figure 4).

42 | P a g e

Figure 4 People keeping pictures unchanged for more than a month

35%
Yes NO

65%

Our data from the focus group discussion suggests that unless an important occasion comes by for which the user has pictures they are comfortable to persist with the existing picture. A few respondents even felt that the picture must stay on the profile for at least a month if people were to notice its presence. What could also explain this trend and give us a possible answer is that most of the people in the sample view the display picture as indispensable for identity creation and validation but nothing beyond that. What seemed surprising was the same from among the same respondents (99.2 per cent of whom use display pictures on their profiles and 92 per cent use their own pictures), about 33 per cent of the group felt apart from the above mentioned roles the display picture has no other

43 | P a g e

role what so ever. This clearly indicates that once you have got a display picture in place, it need not change regularly for you to be a social success online. In response to the question regarding ones social network liking the display picture, a huge number of users suggested that they didnt care one way or the other if their friends did not like their pictures as long as they themselves liked it. The response got stronger when they were asked what they would do if their social circles hated their display picture. The most common answer seemed to be, I dont care, and its my picture, my wish. As many as 69 respondents were inclined to this opinion which makes that about 57 per cent of the sample (figure 5).
Figure 5

People 'unbothered' by other people's response to their display pictures Yes No

43% 57%

However, conversely, in an act which reinforces the concept of selective perception, most people i.e. 71 people out of a sample of 120 were willing to let

44 | P a g e

their display picture remain on display for a longer period of time if it garnered a large number of likes and positive comments from the group.
Figure 6

The 'unbothered' people willing to keep the same picture for a longer time if liked by friends online

No 41% Yes 59%

In search of a correlation between positive feedback for a display picture and the amount of time a user spends online, the data indicated that the number of likes and positive comments had no form of positive correlation with the amount of time consequently spent online. The other trend we were exploring as a part of our study was the use of editing software such as Photoshop, Light room, etc. which allows you to edit the pictures that are chosen as display pictures. Our study indicated that a mere 27 people indulged in this trend out of a sample of 120 which is about 22.5 per cent (figure 7). The photo editing was also basic in nature if and when images were

45 | P a g e

edited, the changes involved carrying out image contrast and brightness, setting the colour scheme, cropping and resizing.
Figure 7

People using photo editing software for display pictures

Yes 22%

No 78%

In the focus group discussions, it was revealed that a lot of people felt basic editing, as long as it was in an aesthetic manner to enhance the chosen image, was acceptable and highly appreciated. They were also in favour of the practice to present photographs in various colour tones such as grayscale, sepia and similar such pre-sets available in such software. The respondents also seemed to appreciate if the editing was done by adhering to a certain theme or taking an idea into account. One respondent very strongly said, she was okay with editing software being used by her friends as long as the picture seemed real and one could connect to the image. If the association didnt happen, then there was no point of editing in the first place.

46 | P a g e

WHAT MUST A GOOD DISPLAY PICTURE HAVE?

The question about what criteria would make a picture a successful profile picture on the social networking environment of Facebook got us a huge variety of answers in our quantitative phase (explained later) but the two most common answers in both the phases were: 1. The picture must be clear and the user must be in focus of the picture. 2. The picture must be real and one must be able to accept the image. A host of other answers brought out features that social networking dictum expects from display picture such as ; the image be creatively framed, be different, have a good background, be attractive and eye-catching. This seems like a tough set of criteria for an image to match, but to say the least, the image must be clearly identifiable with the user, and his or her social circle of friends must be able to identify the image with themselves, and their perceptions of the user.

DISPLAY PICTURES, PHOTO EDITING, PRIVACY AND GENDER

Another stereotype that our study challenged was about female users declining to use display pictures. Our quantitative data suggested that everybody in our sample had a display picture except for one person who happened to be a male named, Suresh. The stereotype was further destroyed to smithereens when even we had gone into the study with the psychological framework that women did not use

47 | P a g e

images of themselves as display pictures. But, once the data collection process started, we realised we could not have been more wrong. Of the 10 people who did not use images of themselves eight of them were males and only 2 of them were females further indicating that we were erroneous in our judgement when we started of our research. What surprised us further was that not a single female respondent in the focus group was hesitant to talk about the choices they made for display pictures and none of them seemed to be bothered by fact of the predominant male gaze in the social network. They were all very cautious about what images they uploaded on the website, and how much access was given to people on their profile pages. We specially had a section in our questionnaire which explored the types of privacy settings that users deployed. We came to know that out of a sample of 120, 64 of them customised their privacy settings to ensure that the amount of information they shared online was limited and restricted from everybody accessing that data (figure 7).

48 | P a g e

Figure 8

People with cutomised privacy settings on Facebook

47% 53%

Yes No

Out of the 48 female respondents who were part of our quantitative study we were able to find out that 35 of them were using customised privacy settings to ensure that only the people they selected could view their entire profile (figure 8) . This amounts to about 73 per cent of the women in the sample and this is an issue that needs to be highlighted and understood.
Figure 9

Female Users with cutomised privacy settings on Facebook

27%
Yes No

73%

49 | P a g e

When the same question was posed qualitatively in our focus group discussions to our female participants, we were able to get a slew of responses, out of which the most important being that they were all aware of the permanence of the medium. One of the respondents even went on to tell that she thought twice before posting a picture online as she knew that once something regrettable was posted online it could never be brought down and remnants of the digital footprint remain online forever. Another respondent spoke about how she used the privacy options on Facebook to remain unsearchable to anybody but her friends and within friends too, the website allowed her to create hierarchies and restrict acquaintances and colleagues to some sections of her profile whereas closer friends could see a lot more of her profile and so on. This concept seems to be a huge success among Facebook users as people from work or whom they knew professionally were restricted and given limited access. However we feel, a different study must be conducted to analyse what a Facebook user feels when he or she cant access parts of their friends profiles and how do the dynamics of their offline relationships get affected by such online strains on their relationships. With respect to display pictures, the users informed us that the current Facebook settings (as of 10th April 2012) allowed users to lock their display pictures and not let people with not enough access settings to either zoom into the image or
50 | P a g e

look at it up close. The options of the right click of the mouse were limited as images could not be saved or modified in any way. Despite, all this settings, one of the respondents felt she was still not safe as with options of software for editing such as Photoshop did not limit people who could cause damage as they could still take screenshots of web pages and find numerous ways to access information they had no access to. She concluded that in todays digital age, having access to software such as Photoshop and then users voluntarily putting up photos of themselves on websites like Facebook, was a perennially scary thought. This opinion was not shared by another male respondent in the same focus group discussion who wasnt afraid of such trends and persisted with basic privacy settings. He felt that his pictures online were safe and secure from any form of digital manipulation. This trend is further reinforced by the fact that out of the 72 male respondents who were part of the study only 29 of them used customised settings (figure 9).

51 | P a g e

Figure 10

Male Users with cutomised privacy settings on Facebook

Yes 40% No 60%

52 | P a g e

CONCLUSION
To put all our findings in a nutshell, we would like to point out that every medium has its inherent core competencies that distinguishes it from the rest. The internet is the first ever completely convergent medium and the decentralised nature of the medium offers an infinite set of radical possibilities in this social, cultural and spatial construct. Our data collection initially borrowed parts from Zhao et.al but then later on went on to answer questions that were more specific to display pictures and the visual element of the social networking experience in India among the youth. One thing that we must all agree upon is the power the visual style of identity creation holds over the narrative and the enumerative. It has been rightly said that a picture is worth a 1000 words and the meaning of this is further amplified in a space such as Facebook, where it is much easier to convey the amount of fun you had at a party via a picture or a series of pictures rather than writing 250 words about it. Similarly, a picture on the profile displays and describes a lot more about the users personality than all the words that the user chooses to describe him or herself. Our study indicated that 99.2 per cent of our sample used display pictures on their profiles on Facebook and 92 per cent of the sample used images of themselves as their profile pictures. About 70 per cent of the sample agreed that a display picture of themselves was necessary to create an identity online which was such that people

53 | P a g e

could relate to it and associate with it. On further looking at the answer to the question how many people within the sample used photographs of themselves as display pictures, the primary data reveals that a 110 people out of a sample of 120 were in the habit of doing so. The respondents felt that using photographs of themselves aided the processes of identity creation and validation. The other aspect of the study looked at the importance of friends and people who were part of ones social network felt that there was a need for them to make the connection between the display picture and the user who puts it up. This connection was necessary for members of the social network to be able to associate with the users online existence. Friends who were not present in the offline lives of their friends were more likely to accept deviation from the true identity of the user whereas friends who knew the user both offline and online were more rigid in this sense according to collected data. We also were not able to find much of a connect between the images selected to be display pictures and the ideologies and interests of respective users as many felt that the major role played by the display picture was to help identify them online and that role is of paramount importance and thus they preferred such pictures rather than ones which made them socially limited as not everyone could connect ones colleagues to their ideologies. We then attempted to understand the frequency of change in display pictures and this where we were able to find out that most of our respondents kept their
54 | P a g e

display pictures for a lot of time especially between the time period of 1-3 months as they felt it usually took time for the people in their online social circle to take notice of these changes. Out of our respondents nearly 57 per cent of them felt that they didnt care if their pictures were liked by their social circle as after all it was their picture and it didnt matter to them. Conversely however, out of the same sample 59 per cent people were willing to retain their display picture for a longer time if it was liked and appreciated by their social circle. However, we were not able to find any form of positive correlation between the number of times a user changes his/her display picture and the amount of time he/she spent on Facebook as a consequence of that or the fact that if a display picture was widely liked by his/her social circle then as a consequence if the amount of time spent on Facebook increases. The study further tried to explore trends within display pictures and the way they were perceived by users, where we were able to identify from our sample what they felt were important traits that pictures must have in order to become socially successful in the realm of social networking. The important things that were mandatory in display pictures were clarity, presence of the user, a good background and some creativity on the part of the user when he/she uploaded it in order to make it stand out from others display pictures. We also explored the trend of editing of images and we were able to find that only a mere 27 per cent of the sample was into editing their display pictures. The
55 | P a g e

kind of editing that was done was also very basic such as changing the colour tones of the image, resizing the image and so on. The respondents of our focus group discussions felt that editing pictures made sense as long as the image edited was aesthetic and the final product could be clearly associated to the user. The final section of our study looks at gender, display pictures, Photo editing and Privacy and here our lead stereotype was broken when we came to know that women werent reluctant to use images of themselves as display pictures, out of the 10 respondents who didnt use images of themselves only 2 were women, clearly indicating that our stereotype prior to the study was wrong. The section also looks at the kinds of settings that Facebook allows for people and how women engaged with these settings seemed important as almost 75 per cent of our female respondents used customised privacy settings whereas only 40 per cent of the male respondents in the sample were using customised settings. We also qualitatively then looked at the notion of the availability of display pictures of the self, online and then the manipulation ability given to people who wish to cause harm to the user with software like Photoshop. So, all in all we attempted to find out all possible ways to understand how a Facebook users online and offline experiences about social networking sites were shaped through the role of the display picture and how big a role the image played in the entire process. Thereby, we conclude that the display picture is the looking glass

56 | P a g e

through which our social network looks into our thoughts, ideas, hobbies, habits and our identity online.

57 | P a g e

LIMITATIONS
The limitations of our study were as follows: 1. All our findings and results hold value till the current existing settings of the Facebook website exist. The settings that we have used are those which existed on 10th April 2012. 2. Our study doesnt take into account the fact that Facebook profiles have moved from the conventional layout scheme to the newly available Timeline scheme which seems to have different settings than the conventional profile. In the timeline profile. Here the display picture is replaced by a large cover image and this image is not locked in any setting of privacy. However, our study holds relevance in the fact that, the cover image cant be locked but the conventional display picture even in the timeline profile has the same settings (it can be locked). Finally, at the time of research the timeline setting was in its infancy and constantly being improved upon by the website. 3. How representative is the sample seems questionable and vastly doubted for the fact that a study of 120 people is not quantitatively representative of the more than 600 million users on Facebook (Facebook factsheet 2012) or the 46 million people from India who are on Facebook (Socialbakers.com April 9,2012)
58 | P a g e

4. There is always a scope of bias in a study such as this in the way the questions were selected. However, we have tried our best to remain objective and unbiased in both the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study. 5. Facebook as a website as such is a global phenomenon but our study seems to be largely India centric as most of our respondents are Indian, we did attempt to include people from the Students India programme which is a student transfer programme and have managed to use a few international components in the sample. But I seriously doubt it will be enough.

59 | P a g e

REFERENCES
1. A. Bumgarner, 2007: You have been poked: exploring uses and gratifications of Face book among emerging adults, published New Media & Society Journal, October 2007. 2. Bugeja, M. J. (2006). Facing the Facebook: Unless we reassess our high-tech priorities, issues of student insensitivity, indiscretion, and fabrication will consume us. Chronicle Careers, 52(21), C1 3. Buckingham, D. (2008) Introducing Identity, in D. Buckingham (ed.) Youth, Identity and Digital Media, pp. 124. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 4. December, J. (1996): Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 1437. 5. Dicken - Garcia, H. (1998). The Internet and continuing historical discourse. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 1927. 6. Eighmey J. (1997). Profiling user responses to commercial Web sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(3), 5966.Brett. 7. Facebook Factsheet (2010). Can be accessed online on

<http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet>. 8. Foon Hew, K. (2011). Students and teachers use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662676. 9. Hallet . al. (2001). Encoding/Decoding, in Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. pp. 171

60 | P a g e

10. Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367 386. 11. Hum et.al. 2011. A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs Noelle J. Hum, Perrin E. Chamberlin, Brittany L. Hambright , Anne C. Portwood, Amanda C. Schat , Jennifer L. Bevan, Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (2011), 18281833. 12. Hutchby, I. (2001) Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press. 13. Jiyoung Cha 2008: Factors affecting the frequency & amount of social networking use: motivations, perceptions & privacy concerns- Jiyoung Cha 2008, New Media & Society Journal 2008. 14. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974): Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), the uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19 32). Beverly Hills: Sage. 15. Kuehn, S. A. (1994): Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda. Communication Education, 43, 171182. 16. Lenhart, A. (2009). PEW Internet Project Data Memo. PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2, 17. 17. Mesch, G. S., &Beker, G. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online? Human Communication Research, 36, 570592.

61 | P a g e

18. Morley, David (1992). Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. 19. Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996): The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communications, 46(1), 3950. 20. Parks, M. R.; & Floyd, K. (1996): Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of communication, 46, 80-97 also available at Journal of Computer Mediated Communication,46, http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue4/vol1no4.html 21. Papacharissi 2009: The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorldZiziPapacharissiNew Media Society 2009 11: 199 22. Pavica Sheldon, 2007: Student Favorite: Facebook and Motives for its Use Pavica Sheldon, doctoral thesis Louisiana State University 23. Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students social networking experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30,227238. 24. Ruggiero,2000: Thomas E. Ruggiero,2000, Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century, Journal of MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2000, 3(1), 337 25. Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication Research, 27, 107131.

62 | P a g e

26. Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the Communication, Speech, and Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9 20. 27. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2006). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317 348. 28. Urista, Dong, and Day, 2010: Explaining Why Young Adults Use MySpace and Face book Through Uses and Gratifications, Mark A. Urista, Qingwen Dong &Kenneth D. Day Theory Paper prepared for presentation at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, San Diego. 29. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., &Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875901. 30. Watson, S. W., Smith, Z., & Driver, J. (2006). Alcohol, sex, and illegal activities: Analysis of selected Facebook central photos in fifty states. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED493049. 31. Williams, R. (1974) Television:Technology and Cultural form. Glasgow: Fontana. 32. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D.,&Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends appearance and behaviour on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 2849.

63 | P a g e

33. Zhang, J. (2010). Self-enhancement on a self-categorization leash: Evidence for a dual-process model of first- and third-persona perceptions. Human Communication Research, 36, 190215. 34. Zhao, S., Grasmuch, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 18161836.

64 | P a g e

ANNEXURE-I
1. Name: ____________ 3. Gender: ___ (m/f)

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

2. Date of birth: __/__/__ (dd/mm/yyyy)

5. How many friends do you have on your Facebook account? 6. How many times in a day do you log into Facebook? a. Once b. Twice c. 3 times a. Less than 50 b. 50 100

4. Number of years of Facebook usage: <1, 1-2, 2-3, >3

c. 100-150 d. more than 200

7. On an average how much time in a day do you spend on Facebook? 8. The four most important reasons for which you use Facebook are? a. _______________________________ b. _______________________________ c. _______________________________ 9. Do you have a profile picture on your account? a. Yes b. No d. _______________________________

d. more than 4 times e. always on

a. Less than 15mins b. 15-30 mins c. more than 1 hour d. 2-3 hours

10. How important do you think is a profile picture for your account? a. Not at all important important (b.) not important

(c) important

(d) very

65 | P a g e

11. What do you think are the 4 important things to consider when you are selecting a certain picture as your Profile picture? a.______________________________________________________________ b.______________________________________________________________ c.______________________________________________________________ 12. How often do you change your profile picture? a. More than once a week b. Once a week c. Once a fortnight d. Once a month 13. How important do you think it is for your friends to like your profile pictures? a. Totally unnecessary b. Not necessary c. Necessary to an extent 14. If a certain profile picture of yours is highly appreciated by friends on Facebook do you keep it as a profile picture for a longer time? a. Yes b. No c. sometimes 15. If you receive lots of positive comments and likes on your profile picture do you then spend more time on Facebook?
66 | P a g e

d.______________________________________________________________

e. Once in 3 months.

d. Very necessary.

16. What will you do if a certain profile picture of yours is not liked by any of your friends? a. Immediately change it b. Keep it for a few more days and see and if still no good comment then change it c. It doesnt matter much hope for the next image to be liked more d. As long as you have thought till a better one is available 17. How often do you comment on or like new profile pictures of your friends? a. Very often b. Often c. once in a while d. rarely e. never e. I dont care its my picture my wish.

a. Yes b. Maybe c. Not necessarily

18. Whats the role of your profile picture on your FB page?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

19. How big a role do you think an attractive profile picture plays to attract new friends a. No role at all b. A small role maybe 20. Do you use profile pictures of yourself on Facebook? a. Yes b. No
67 | P a g e

________________________________________.

c. A very big role

21. What qualities do you think pictures should have for being successful profile pictures? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 22. If your answer is no what do you look for in an image to make them your profile pictures? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 23. Do you use any kind of editing software to edit your photographs? a. Yes b. No ________________________________________________________. ___________________________________________.

24. If yes, how do you think it improves them?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________.

68 | P a g e

25. How relevant do you think recent events (like birthdays, anniversaries, national events and personal) are when it comes to you deciding profile pictures? a. Not at all relevant b. Not relevant c. Relevant 26. How big a role of your Facebook experience is your profile picture? a. Plays no role. b. A very small role. c. Plays some role d. Plays a big role. 27. What kind of privacy settings do you use for your Facebook account a. No settings b. Basic Settings c. Customised settings e. Plays a very big role. d. Very relevant.

69 | P a g e

ANNEXURE-II
TRANSCRIPTIONS FROM FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
We have added some of the responses to our questions from the focus group discussions we conducted and are hoping that the reader finds them interesting.

Focus Group Discussion 1

Q-1 - Introduction of the Participant. Respondent 1: I have two Facebook accounts, created in my 12th grade. Orkut migrant. One account has my proper name and other account has a nickname. I was confused with Facebook in the starting. I started using Facebook after 2 years, I mean from my graduation. Then I have been very frequent to Facebook in recent times. Respondent 2: using Facebook for more 2 years, more active in Facebook to be touch with friends and family. These days I have been very active on Facebook because I am staying away from family and friends. Respondent 3: using Facebook since 4 to 4 & half years, migrant from orkut. Respondent 4: using Facebook since 3 years, staying away from home after 12th standard, to be in touch with friends. But Im not much active on Facebook. Still Facebook is an alienated platform she thinks. Q 2 What time did the user migrated from orkut to Facebook? Why did it happen?

70 | P a g e

Respondent 1: likes Orkut forums, Facebook lacks this. Likes orkut smiley symbols and were very special. Decrease in forum activities and too much of spams in forums. Followed my friends regarding migrating from orkut to Facebook. Likes certain aspects of orkut, unlike Facebook it does not show the photos and scraps you shared with your friends. Respondent 2: with suggestion of friends, moved to Facebook. Sharing photos and commenting on them would keep her in touch with friends. Gradually, I liked using Facebook. I still have an orkut account but its almost dead Respondent 3: after 12th standard, my graduation friends were very active on Facebook. So had no other choice to create a Facebook account and I am very active on Facebook. Now I dont have an orkut account, I deleted it. Respondent 4: the last person among my friends to join Facebook, I was forced to join Facebook. But I like certain features of orkut like Testimonial. Its nice feeling that somebody writes about you. Its never there in Facebook. Q 3 Why do you use Facebook? And what do you like most about it? Respondent 2: Facebook increases interactivity. I want to know whats happening to my people back home with my family and friends. In that sense, my usage of Facebook has increased a lot. Respondent 3: I dont think this generation is technologically dependent. We are not much dependent on orkut, I mean while using orkut everything was calm not much
71 | P a g e

of activity, check the updates and chat with friends. But Facebook is much more than that. Everything should happen in Facebook. Respondent 4: one thing I like about Facebook is the messages. Orkut scraps are visible to everyone, but Facebook has a option, only that user can read those messages which have personal content. Q - 4 What picture are using as profile picture in Facebook? Respondent 3: I have profile picture of me and my friend Respondent 1. We went to Pondicherry, took at beach. Its not a regular picture. Its bit blurred. I thought its good looking so I kept as profile picture. Before that I had Bleed Blue as Indian cricket won the World cup. Then after I had a man climbing a mountain made of books, as exams were going on that time. I used to change my profile picture depending upon the mood, but its not the scenario now. You have to change profile picture frequently because you have to tell your friends how you look now! Respondent 4: my point of view of profile picture is simple. I havent changed my profile picture for 3 years. Finally my friends got bored of that picture and forced me to change my profile picture. Its an edited picture. Profile picture does not play any role, I liked it and I kept it. Respondent 2: I used my picture as profile pictures. I use recent pictures of mine to show my family how I look now. Facebook is a medium of self-branding and its your own virtual space.

72 | P a g e

Respondent 1: I use profile pictures of only me. Presently the picture is of mine sitting in Marine beach in Pondicherry and listening to my favorite track. Q - 5 Identity on Facebook, how different is the real you from what you are in Facebook? Respondent 1: more or less I am the same what I am in real life. It depends on the person also. I make a conscious effort to see that Im not too different from Facebook. Whatever my profile is it defines me when a certain person meets me in person. I have no privacy settings. Respondent 2: Im not much cyber user. I am the same as person also in Facebook. But I restrict people of acquaintance. But people close to me know more about me than me. Its just an extension of me with virtual element attached. Respondent 4: as Im not much active person in Facebook. Once in a blue moon if I find something interesting and appealing then I would comment or chat with my friends. My friends know that Im not much a Facebook user. Respondent 3: except one person, the rest in my friends list I met all of them. Generally the post I made in Facebook and comments I receive shows what I am. Q 6 The best profile picture you had or you have seen so far and the worst picture? Respondent 4: I hate profile pictures who keep of actors and celebrities. I use profile picture of mine. A profile picture should look good and presentable.
73 | P a g e

Respondent 3: one of my friends in list uses glow in her profile picture to look good. It shows they are edited. Its fake but then she receives many likes. There is no need to put in much effort to look good in Facebook. People who look good real I like their profile picture. Also creativity plays a role in profile picture. Presenting of yourself differently I like. Respondent 2: I like lighten shaded picture. I dont like fake picture. I like people putting childhood pictures. I use pictures of mine to show to my family. I look better in camera than in real. Respondent 1: I dislike pictures of actors but if people keep pictures of music rock bands and pop singers I like them. Generally I use pictures of mine. I edit the picture to make sharper and I also add creative thing to picture.

74 | P a g e

Focus Group Discussion 2

Q: 1 INTRODUCTION Respondent 1: using Facebook since 2008, before more that active in Orkut. I log in check updates and notifications, around 4 to 5 times a day. I spend around an hour or two in Facebook. I also use to be in touch my friends with whom I cannot share my personal mobile number. Respondent 2: using Facebook since 2-3 year due to force from friends. I was more active in Facebook but realized its waste of time. So now Im not much active in Facebook. I log in once in a while Respondent 3: Im a Facebook addict. I created because my sister forced me to do. Im online throughout the day. I use mainly to be in touch with my school friends and cousins. Respondent 4: using Facebook since 6-7 years. I used Orkut before to be in touch with friends. Then my friends shifted to Facebook and I had to shift. To check the updates, photos of my friends and chat with friends. I dont think use of Facebook is not waste of time, because if not Facebook what else do u do ? Respondent 5: using Facebook since 2007. I use it to be in touch with my long lasting friends and family. Also to be in touch with celebrities whom I subscribed and I like. I also use Facebook for group activity. Q: 2 What kind of Profile pictures do you have and how consistent are they?
75 | P a g e

Respondent 5: I have my own profile picture. Its funny and candid because it shows my fun loving character. Right now I have picture of mine with long hair, I usually dont carry long hair. This is for my family to show that Im sporting a long hair. Profile pictures reflects yours personality. Once in 3 or 4 months I change my profile picture. If any of my friends suggest me to change my profile picture, I wouldnt change because its mine. Respondent 4: A profile picture to me means updating about myself. Like if I have a profile picture with guitar then it shows Im into guitar these days. Also to show my passion towards anything I like. I generally change profile picture in every 2 or 3 months. If I have more Likes and Comments of a picture I would keep it for a long time. Respondent 3: I feel my profile picture makes no difference. My current profile picture I put it because one my friend clicked it and he liked, even I liked it and it is associated with memories. Once in 6 months I change my profile picture. Respondent 2: my profile pictures reveal my state of mind. At times I put my own pictures and sometimes I keep random cartoon and landscape images. Also I keep pictures of school days, college days and farewell. If I use Facebook regularly I change my profile picture frequently. It depends in the usage of Facebook and if I personally like a picture I would prefer it.

76 | P a g e

Respondent 1: I keep shuffling between my pictures and random images of my Facebook profile pictures. It depends on my mood. If I get a good picture I would keep it. It should define my personality. Q: 3 What kind of profile pictures of anybody you like and you hate? Respondent 1: I like most of my friends pictures. Mostly of the people makes sure that others would like it so they put such pictures. The picture should look appealing for some reason. There are many I hate unable to point out. Respondent 2: my favourite picture is me and with three of my friends. Everything is defined in that picture and kept it as profile picture for very long time. I dont think I hate any picture. Respondent 5: I think profile pictures should be the person who using the account. Its not about random pictures. Some of your long lasting friend whom you havent met in years should identify you. There is no point in putting random pictures. It should certain aspects of your personality. One profile picture I liked the most is of my cousin brothers. He was jumping over a puddle on a rainy day. The picture is shown in three stages, it was very striking. The picture I disliked is of my friends who kept a cartoon character, it was irritating. Respondent 4: one of my friend looked like a woman in his profile picture, I did not liked it. So I told my friend to change. One of my pictures I liked is of mine only. It

77 | P a g e

was clicked my professional camera man. I kept it for long time. That picture is the best of mine. Respondent 3: Pictures of my friends doing a rappelling session I like the most. I would love to keep those pictures as profile pictures. But I cannot do. The pictures I hate are one of my friend put a 4th standard of mine and tagged me in it. Q: 4 How comfortable are you in editing a picture of yours? How ok are you with editing software? Respondent 1: Its ok to use software to improve the quality and contrast of the image as long as it looks natural. I just use the auto adjust option to improve quality of my pictures to make it look clear. Respondent 2: Its ridiculous, if people use software to edit picture to look extremely sexy and appealing. Im not okay with it but its fine if they adjust the shades and for fun things. You are what you are. Respondent 3: It seriously idiotic if people use software for something to show off which they are not. I never used any kind of software for my profile pictures. Its okay to use to improve the quality of the picture. Respondent 4: To certain extent its okay to use software to edit pictures. Like, nobody wants to see their pimples in profile pictures. Im fine with changing the brightness and contrast of the image. I usually change color balance and brightness for my pictures and crop them.
78 | P a g e

Respondent 5: Everybody wants to look good, especially in Facebook. I dont have any problem with using in software. As long as the person is identifiable as him/her and there is no problem in being creative and editing your profile picture. Q: 5 How secure do you feel in Facebook? What kind of privacy setting you use in Facebook? Respondent 5: I use custom settings in Facebook. Im not comfortable sharing my photos with my friends of friends. Respondent 4: only my friends can view my photos, there are customized settings in my account. Its kind of scary in a way. Respondent 3: for pictures only selected friends can view them and updates of me, everyone can view them. I use customized settings. Respondent 2: I add only people only I know. Im quite secure in Facebook and even though people I know I keep them in restricted list if Im not comfortable with them. Its okay with whatever I do on my Facebook wall. I use customized settings. Respondent 1: Im settings are really customized. I had to add few people out of obligation. My pictures and updates are hidden from many people. The recent incident of my cover photos has awaked me. Somebody has shared and used it. Now I removed them.

79 | P a g e

Focus Group Discussion 3

Q: 1 INTRODUCTION Respondent 1: I have been in Facebook past 2 to 2 & half years. People whom Im in contact with should identify with my real name. I log in once in 3 days. I was reluctant to join in Facebook, but my brother forced me to join it. I have around 250 friends. Respondent 2: some people call me as Rajkumar but its my surname name and Nordan is my actual name. I have been using Facebook past 3 years. I log in 3 or 4 times a week. I have above 500 friends. Respondent 3: I have been in Facebook past 4 years. I have above 900 friends in my list because I travel a lot and meet new people. I still use Orkut, because some of friends whom stay abroad prefer Orkut than Facebook. I log in 3 or 4 times a day. Respondent 4: I have been using Facebook past 5 years. I have about 500 odd friends, I log in 3 or 4 times a day. I am searchable in Facebook. Respondent 5: I have been in Facebook since 6 years. I have a little over 300 friends. I was really bored with Orkut so got into Facebook. I saw many people migrating to Facebook at the same time. Q: - 2 When was last time you changed Facebook profile picture, reasons for it?

80 | P a g e

Respondent 5: my current profile picture is with friends, we went to Mushroom Rock, it was a very funny moment. I like it a lot and trying since first semester to go there. I have very lesser pictures of mine and in that I select and keep them as profile picture. It basically depends on that moment. Respondent 4: my current picture is of me in a saree at a wedding. The picture came out well, I look pretty in it. The profile picture will remind of memories. I dont bother about comments or likes on my pictures. I change profile picture for every 2-3 weeks. Respondent 3: if I feel its too long that I havent changed the picture then Ill change my profile picture. Its ones own individual choice. Once I had picture of my tummy. My friends commented what happened to you? I dont care about others commenting on my pictures. Its my wish and my pictures. I change only when feel like changing. Respondent 2: my current picture is of me and my friend. When feel like Im missing my friends, I keep those memories pictures. I dont change profile picture frequently. I change for every 2 or 3 months. Respondent 1: its been very long time I changed my profile pictures. Its been 8 to 9 months I last changed my profile picture. My current picture is of mine in which I look cool I think. It also depends on the access of the technology. Q: 3 profile picture you liked and hated the most so far?

81 | P a g e

Respondent 1: one the profile picture that stroked me was of my friends. He took a photo of a foot of my friends. I thought it was ordinary but when it was put on Facebook, it was very good and even it got many likes and comments. I hate pictures that have celebrities in it. Respondent 2: one of my friends put a profile picture of a monkey with alcohol bottle, it was very funny. Once people get to know about photography, they tend to come with creative things. I hate pictures who have celebrities and also of fake accounts. Respondent 3: my list of profile pictures has very long list. One of my friends kept her tattoo as profile picture. I like it a lot because of the tattoo. There is nothing I hate but I hate fake pictures. Respondent 4: the pictures I dont like people standing in front of mirror and take. Its very ridiculous. There is no specific picture that I like. I like pictures with family and friends. Memories would matter in terms of pictures. Respondent 5: there is no particular picture that I like. I like pictures of caught in the moment or they represent something to that person. Those pictures I really like. I hate pictures posing and expressing in weird positions. Q: 4 How important do you think is editing of pictures? Respondent 5: I dont like the idea of editing. I do edit but I change the color and brightness, I do basic editing and its very minimal. Im very passionate about
82 | P a g e

photography. Changing the background, adding of effects I dont think that would be good idea. Respondent 4: I do basic editing like changing color and cropping of unnecessary portions. Once I kept picture of mine which looked artificial, but my friends did liked it but I did not like it. So later I removed it. Respondent 3: I dont really use photo edit softwares. For me being real feels good. I have pictures of mine in black & white mode. I like it. Respondent 2: I change contrast of my pictures. I dont think its a big deal in editing your photo. In fact one should look good in a picture of his/her. Respondent 1: I would prefer editing pictures. I would change or add something which brings freshness to the picture.

83 | P a g e