Our upbringing and education influence not only how we present and distinguish ourselves in the social world but also how we perceive others. We apply this central sociological idea to the social media context. We conduct a large-scale online study to investigate whether observers can correctly guess the education of others from their Facebook profile pictures. Using the binomial test and cross-classified mixed-effects models, we show that observers can assess the education of depicted persons better than chance, especially when they share the same educational background and have experience with the social media. We also find that posting pictures of outdoor activities is a strong signal of having higher education, while professional photographs can obscure education signals. The findings expand our knowledge of social interaction and self-expression online and offer new insights for understanding social influence on social media.
AmbadyNRosenthalR (1992) Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin111(2): 256–274.
3.
BaertS (2018) Facebook profile picture appearance affects recruiters’ first hiring decisions. New Media & Society20(3): 1220–1239.
4.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerBMet al. (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48.
5.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1991) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
6.
BourdieuP (1974) The school as a conservative force: scholastic and cultural inequalities. In: EgglestonJ (ed.) Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, pp. 32–46.
7.
BourdieuP (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJ (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.
10.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11.
BourdieuP (2000) Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
BüchiMJustNLatzerM (2016) Modeling the second-level digital divide: a five-country study of social differences in internet use. New Media & Society18(11): 2703–2722.
13.
BuhrmesterMDTalaifarSGoslingSD (2018) An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science13(2): 149–154.
14.
CaslerKBickelLHackettE (2013) Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior29: 2156–2160.
15.
CialdiniRB (2007) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Business.
16.
CohenAKRaiMRehkopfDHet al. (2013) Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews14(12): 989–1005.
17.
CorrellSJRidgewayCL (2003) Expectation states theory. In: DelamaterJ (ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Springer, pp. 29–51.
18.
DanielsEAZurbriggenEL (2016) The price of sexy: viewers’ perceptions of a sexualized versus nonsexualized Facebook profile photograph. Psychology of Popular Media Culture5(1): 2–14.
19.
DaviesJ (2007) Display, identity and the everyday: self-presentation through online image sharing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education28(4): 549–564.
DumaisSA (2002) Cultural capital, gender, and school success: the role of habitus. Sociology of Education75(1): 44–68.
22.
EtcoffNLStockSHaleyLEet al. (2011) Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals. PLoS ONE6(10): e25656.
GleibsIH (2017) Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places. Behavior Research Methods49: 1333–1342.
25.
GoffmanE (1956) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
26.
GrayKKnobeJSheskinMet al. (2011) More than a body: mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101(6): 1207–1220.
27.
HancockJTomaCL (2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication59: 367–386.
28.
HaraKAdamsAMillandKet al. (2018) A data-driven analysis of workers’ earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal QC, Canada, 21–26April, p. 449. New York: ACM.
29.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research35(5): 602–621.
30.
HaselhuhnMPWongEM (2011) Bad to the bone: facial structure predicts unethical behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences279(1728): 571–576.
31.
HetsroniAGuldinDA (2017) Revealing images as Facebook profile pictures: influences of demographics and relationship status. Social Behavior and Personality45(6): 987–998.
32.
HoltDB (1998) Does cultural capital structure American consumption?Journal of Consumer Research25(1): 1–25.
33.
HorvatEMDavisJE (2011) Schools as sites for transformation: exploring the contribution of habitus. Youth & Society43(1): 142–170.
34.
HumNJChamberlinPHambrightBLet al. (2011) A picture is worth a thousand words: a content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior27: 1828–1833.
35.
HurhWMKimKC (1989) The “success” image of Asian Americans: its validity, and its practical and theoretical implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies12(4): 512–538.
36.
JohnstonJBaumannS (2007) Democracy versus distinction: a study of omnivorousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology113(1): 165–204.
37.
JuncoR (2013) Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior29: 2328–2336.
38.
KapidzicS (2013) Narcissism as a predictor of motivations behind Facebook profile picture selection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16(1): 14–19.
39.
KapidzicSHerringSC (2015) Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society17(6): 958–976.
40.
KleisnerKChvátalováVFlegrJ (2014) Perceived intelligence is associated with measured intelligence in men but not women. PLoS ONE9(3): e81237.
41.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Abingdon; New York: Taylor & Francis.
KuipersG (2015) Beauty and distinction? The evaluation of appearance and cultural capital in five European countries. Poetics53: 38–51.
44.
LawsonCLenzGSBakerAet al. (2010) Looking like a winner: candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics62(4): 561–593.
45.
LederHForsterMGergerG (2011) The glasses stereotype revisited: Effects of eyeglasses on perception, recognition, and impression of faces. Swiss Journal of Psychology70(4): 211–222.
46.
LehmannW (2013) Habitus transformation and hidden injuries. Sociology of Education87(1): 1–15.
47.
LinCAdolphsRAlvarezRM (2018) Inferring whether officials are corruptible from looking at their faces. Psychological Science29: 1807–1823.
48.
LiuH (2008) Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 252–275.
49.
LiuLPreotiuc-PietroDSamaniZRet al. (2016) Analyzing personality through social media profile picture choice. In: Proceedings of the Tenth international AAAI conference on web and social media, pp. 211–220. Available at: https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/download/13102/12741
50.
LutzC (2016) A social milieu approach to the online participation divides in Germany. Social Media + Society2(1): 1–14.
51.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
52.
OosterhofNNTodorovA (2008) The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America105(32): 11087–11092.
53.
PetersonRA (1992) Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics25: 75–92.
54.
PfeilUArjanRZaphirisP (2009) Age differences in online social networking—a study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in myspace. Computers in Human Behavior25: 643–654.
55.
PuhlRMHeuerCA (2009) The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity17(5): 941–964.
56.
QiuLLuJYangSet al. (2015) What does your selfie say about you?Computers in Human Behavior52: 443–449.
57.
RobinsonL (2009) A taste for the necessary. Information, Communication & Society12(4): 488–507.
58.
RogersEM (2010) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.
59.
RuleNOAmbadyN (2010) Democrats and republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS ONE5(1): e8733.
60.
SegalinCCelliFPolonioLet al. (2017) What your Facebook profile picture reveals about your personality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on multimedia conference, Mountain View, CA, 23–27October, pp. 460–468. New York: ACM.
StranoMM (2008) User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace2(2): 5.
63.
ThompsonTLKiangLWitkowMR (2016) “You’re Asian; you’re supposed to be smart”: adolescents’ experiences with the model minority stereotype and longitudinal links with identity. Asian American Journal of Psychology7(2): 108–119.
64.
TodorovAPorterJM (2014) Misleading first impressions: different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science25(7): 1404–1417.
65.
TodorovAMandisodzaANGorenAet al. (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science308: 1623–1626.
66.
TodorovAOliviolaCYDotschRet al. (2015) Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology66: 519–545.
67.
TurcotteJYorkCIrvingJet al. (2015) News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(5): 520–535.
VallaJMCeciSJWilliamsWM (2011) The accuracy of inferences about criminality based on facial appearance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology5(1): 66–91.
70.
Van DijckJ (2008) Digital photography: communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication7(1): 57–76.
71.
VeblenT (2007 [1899]) The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
WangRYangFHaighMM (2017) Let me take a selfie: exploring the psychological effects of posting and viewing selfies and groupies on social media. Telematics and Informatics34(4): 274–283.
73.
WangYKosinskiM (2018) Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology114(2): 246–257.
74.
WardJ (2017) What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society20(11): 1644–1659.
75.
WestE (2010) A taste for greeting cards: distinction within a denigrated cultural form. Journal of Consumer Culture10(3): 362–382.
WinstonJ (2013) Photography in the age of Facebook. Intersect6: 1–11.
78.
WuYCJChangWHYuanCH (2015) Do Facebook profile pictures reflect user’s personality?Computers in Human Behavior51: 880–889.
79.
YatesSLockleyE (2018) Social media and social class. American Behavioral Scientist62(9): 1291–1316.
80.
ZebrowitzLAMontepareJM (2008) Social psychological face perception: why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(3): 1497–1517.
81.
ZhaoSGrasmuckSMartinJ (2008) Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior24: 1816–1836.
82.
ZillienNHargittaiE (2009) Digital distinction: status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly90(2): 274–291.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
