Elsevier

Computers in Human Behavior

Volume 27, Issue 5, September 2011, Pages 1828-1833
Computers in Human Behavior

A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This research examines identity construction and gender roles in social networking sites by studying and comparing the profile photographs of male and female Facebook users. Specifically, the number of photos in the profile album and the content of the main profile picture are studied by coding specific pictures, and determining if the content and amount of profile pictures differ significantly by gender. Participants include male and female Facebook users between the ages of 18 and 23 who are currently enrolled in a college or university. Profile pictures tended to be inactive, posed, appropriate, and only including the subject. The content and amount of Facebook profile photographs also did not significantly vary by gender. Implications of these findings, as well as suggestions for future research, are discussed.

Highlights

► College students’ Facebook profile photographs are examined and compared by gender. ► Content analysis was used to code the 150 profile pictures for six categories. ► Profile photographs tend to be posed, inactive, appropriate, and contain only the subject. ► Profile picture albums typically contained more than 20 pictures. ► None of the profile picture categories significantly differed by gender.

Introduction

“OKAY. seriously, bye Facebook. SEE YOU GUYS JULY 16th.”

“I tried deactivating my facebook and it worked for 48 h. epic fail.”

These “status updates,” short posts by Facebook users to update their online friends on what their current state of affairs or emotions are, are examples of how pervasive social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook can be. At the end of 2009, 75% of online adults ages 18–24 had a profile on an SNS (Lenhart, 2009). Couple that growing number with the 500 million active Facebook users who spend over 700 billion minutes per month on the site, and it becomes quite obvious just how encompassing and time-consuming SNSs like Facebook are today (Facebook, 2010). It is no wonder that, for the first time, Facebook was the most-visited website in 2010 (Experian Hitline, 2010).

Facebook was launched in 2004 as a “social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers” (Facebook Factsheet, 2010, para. 1). By building a profile, each Facebook user is able to post notes, photos, links, and videos to be shared with “friends”; that is, other members who are connected to an individual’s online social network, and thus granted access to view the individual’s profile. The “Home Page” allows each Facebook user to be constantly updated on the most recent postings and interactions of and among friends. Facebook users can also enable “Facebook Chat” to instant message online friends in real time (Facebook Factsheet; Junco & Cole-Avent, 2008).

Taken together, these elements of Facebook combine to allow its users to construct an image or identity to communicate to the greater online community. 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 (Watson, Smith, & Driver, 2006). 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). Indeed, 98.7% of college students in one study reported that they posted a photo of themselves on Facebook (Young & Quan-Haase, 2009). Despite the prevalence and importance of this image, little known research has analyzed the content of Facebook profile photographs. As such, the goal of our study is to explore what Facebook users are posting in their profile photos, as well as how this content differs by gender. Doing so will expand on the existing knowledge surrounding social media and the limits of it with respect to how and why different subpopulations of young adults use and perceive the multitude of benefits and aspects of SNSs.

It is not the mere use of Facebook that has warranted social media research, but the motives and behaviors behind the online activity. Recent studies have examined these motivations, citing various reasons such as to gain social capital by initiating and maintaining friendships (Lenhart, 2009, Valenzuela et al., 2009) and to create and enhance a self-image (Utz, 2010, Zhang, 2010). These studies are a part of the increasing literature on the effects of computer mediated communication (CMC) to support the idea that the use of SNSs enhances, not detracts from, the growth of interpersonal relationships and social skills (Valenzuela et al.).

As mentioned, there has recently been a substantial increase in scholarly literature investigating the various motives for using SNSs as a way to identify the self, and to connect the self with others. Social capital is a concept that is separated into three domains: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and behavioral (Scheufele & Shah, 2000). The interpersonal domain encompasses the interactions one has with his or her social network; the intrapersonal domain describes the inner emotions and levels of self-satisfaction within the individual; and the behavioral domain involves the individual’s participation in civic and political activities (Scheufele & Shah). 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 maintained an online identity felt more connected with their peers 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 Pempek et al. 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. One of the largest appeals of Facebook therein lies in the ability to expand and strengthen one’s social network.

To highlight another dimension of social capital, Facebook Groups (an application feature that allows a user to join a subnetwork 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 Facebook (Groups) uses the community of registered voters to disseminate political information illustrates the effectiveness of Facebook to unite and empower communities with similar interests and views (Valenzuela et al.).

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 self-expression in order to form these social, geographical, and political connections. The idea of self-construction in a nonymous (i.e., the opposite of “anonymous”) setting such as Facebook is critical to our understanding of how and why individuals communicate on and through SNSs. 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 identities is not an innate behavior, but rather a response to the social conditions and environment that the individual is placed in (Zhao et al.).

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 participant’s 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 individual’s Facebook friends. When looking at communal traits, which enhance one’s social desirability, respondents judged the level of these traits based on the impressions received from the individuals’ friends; that is, the profiles of the individual’s 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 one’s 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, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, and Tong (2008) found that the level of attractiveness of one’s friends had a significant impact on the perception of attractiveness of the user whose profile was being examined. Additionally, Walther et al.’s results were consistent with Utz’s (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 themselves. 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, 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 “egocasting, [which is] the thoroughly personalized and extremely narrow pursuit of one’s 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. 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 self-disclosure. 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 (Mesch & Beker). Foon Hew’s (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). With the above research on Facebook and identity construction in mind, we thus offer our first research question, which explores exactly how many Facebook profile pictures college students utilize and what the content of these pictures consists of:

  • RQ1: What is the content and amount of college students’ Facebook profile photographs?

The rules that govern online disclosure norms are culturally and socially created, but do all groups, specifically males and females, respond in the same way? According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987, Eagly et al., 2000), socially constructed gender roles are considered when accomplishing primary goals and creating positive impressions or identities. Support for gendered social roles – which characterize females as more communal caregivers and males as more agentic providers – in online environments was recently provided by Guadagno, Muscanell, Okdie, Burk, and Ward (2011), who determined that Second Life behaviors differed according to gender. On Second Life, which is a virtual, interactive environment where users create visual avatars, female users were found to be more likely to meet new people, shop, and change their avatars’ appearance than males.

Further, some of the only known research that examined the content of Facebook profile photographs considered this content according to user gender. Specifically, the notion of face-ism, which is a cross-cultural form of gender stereotyping that assumes the focus of males is on his face and head, whereas females’ bodies are more central, was examined (Reichart Smith & Cooley, 2008). Cross-culturally, male Facebook users’ profile photographs were found to display greater scores on the face-ism index (i.e., the relative prominence of one’s face in an image) than female users’ photos (Cooley & Reichart Smith, 2010; Reichart Smith & Cooley). The authors conclude that gender stereotypes remain present even when users themselves can select the images that represent them in their Facebook profile photographs. As such, in line with social role theory and previous face-ism findings, we seek to continue this line of research to determine if other aspects of Facebook profile photograph content also varies by the user.

We also hope to add to the minimal, but growing, research on gender and the use of SNSs. For example, one study found that, upon analyzing groups of Facebook users who posted images of alcohol and marijuana-related photos, females posted photos of alcohol use more often and males were more likely to post photos of marijuana use (Morgan, Snelson, & Elison-Bowers, 2010). This finding was interpreted to possibly mean that for young adult males, marijuana use was considered more socially acceptable, or even socially desirable, whereas young adult females posted photos of alcohol use to foster connections with others or to maintain relationship management (Morgan et al.). These findings were consistent with Bond (2009), who found that females were more likely than males to “include images pertaining to friends, family, significant others, holidays, school, and alcohol” (p. 5). Male participants, in comparison to the females, uploaded more sports-related photos (Bond). Interestingly, Morgan et al. also noted that photo disclosure by women could be generally motivated by the desire to store data and memories.

The act of online photo disclosure was also studied by Mesch and Beker (2010), who found that while women are more likely than men to post photos (and allow these photos to be publicly accessed), men are more likely to post videos of themselves on Facebook. Generally speaking, however, both men and women disclosed close to the same amount of personal information online and were equally as likely to post an image of themselves (Young & Quan-Haase, 2009). This is a phenomenon that is not seen in traditional face-to-face interaction, thus supporting the idea that online self-disclosure follows a separate, and sometimes different, set of norms and rules.

Other research indicates that women are generally more active than men in online communities where information is shared and topics are discussed (Sussman & Tyson, 2000). The behavior of men and women on the Internet was reflective of social theories surrounding gender differences. In political and news areas, men posted six times more often than women about their opinions and stances on specific situations; women were more likely to initiate discussions (Sussman & Tyson). Additionally, Bond (2009) found that females self-disclose more than males on SNSs. These findings are consistent with social role theory’s idea that females behave in communal ways (Eagly, 1987).

Online behavior and gender is especially interesting when delving into the online dating community. While the general purpose of Facebook and SNSs is not to provide an online dating community, many SNS users have created and/or maintained romantic relationships through the convenience and affordability of SNSs. Hancock and Toma (2009) highlight the use of selective self-perception, that is, the transferring of text-based elements to online profile photos. The researchers argue that there are two motivations for selective self-perception: (1) the simple desire to enhance the self; and (2) the simultaneous need to present an accurate view of the self. Selective self-perception, at least with respect to posting profile photos, creates a tension between enhancement and accuracy that was seen more in women’s profiles than men. Researchers infer that this may be due to the beauty regimens that can alter a woman’s outward appearance to such an extent that it creates an inaccurate physical representation of the woman (Hancock & Toma).

While there seems to be several clues to gain insight into how men and women differ in their use of SNSs, specifically Facebook, there are limitations to the existing literature that justify additional research into this fairly new type of computer mediated communication. Further, does the preliminary support for Eagly’s (1987) social roles theory in online contexts also extend to Facebook profile photograph content? If existing literature tells us that we can infer such a significant portion of a person’s identity through his or her social network profile, then is it safe to say that this is true across all subgroups? And if not, where do these differences lie? These questions surrounding self-construction through online identities according to gender encompass our second research question:

  • RQ2: Does the content and amount of college students’ Facebook profile photographs vary by gender?

Section snippets

Sample and general procedures

All potential participants were current college students selected at random from the researchers’ list of active Facebook friends by utilizing a table of random numbers. If a prospective participant was chosen and was not a current college student, the researchers proceeded to the next eligible person on their list of Facebook friends, and continued randomly selecting individuals from there. The researchers’ own Facebook friends were exclusively employed for this study for three reasons: (1)

Number of photos

The vast majority of participants had 21 or more profile pictures in their profile picture album (86%, n = 129). Following that, 11 (7.3%) participants had 11–20 profile pictures in their album. Only 8 (5.3%) had 1–10 pictures and 1 (0.7%) fit in the other category (i.e., this person’s number of pictures was unknown). There was no significant difference between the number of profile pictures in males’ Facebook profile picture albums in comparison to females’ albums, χ2 (3) = 4.66, p = .20.

Physical activity

Most of the

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to analyze college students’ Facebook profile pictures and determine if the quantity and content of the photos differed according to gender. The study looked specifically at the number of photos in participants’ profile picture albums, as well as the level of physical activity, candidness, appropriateness, and the number of total individuals in the photos. Participants’ identity as constructed by their profile photographs was one where they were inactive, posed,

References (37)

  • M.J. Bugeja

    Facing the Facebook: Unless we reassess our high-tech priorities, issues of student insensitivity, indiscretion, and fabrication will consume us

    Chronicle Careers

    (2006)
  • D.J. Canary et al.

    Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?

    Communication Quarterly

    (1993)
  • Cooley, S. C., & Reichart Smith, L. M. (2010, June). International Facebook faces: An analysis of self-inflicted...
  • K. Dindia et al.

    What’s the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men

  • A. Eagly

    Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation

    (1987)
  • A.H. Eagly et al.

    Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal

  • N.B. Ellison et al.

    The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites

    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

    (2007)
  • Experian Hitline (2010). Facebook was the top search term in 2010 for second straight year....
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text