Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Photos are a ubiquitous mode of social communication. Analysis of thousands of online profiles finds that people overwhelmingly post posed photos of themselves. But might candids actually lead observers to react more favorably? Five studies test this possibility. Compared to posed photos, candids made observers feel more connected to the poster, feel more interested in getting to know or date them, and like them more. This was driven by candids making people seem more genuine, which made others react more favorably. Furthermore, consistent with the hypothesized role of genuineness, the benefits of candids were diminished when observers learned that the poster realized their photo was being taken. These finding highlight the role of authenticity in person perception and a potential disconnect between photo posters and viewers. Although posters seem to post mostly posed photos, observers may prefer candids because they provide a more authentic sense of who the poster really is.

Keywords

interpersonal perception authenticity self-presentation social media photography

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

N. H.

(1968). Likeableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272–279.

Aronson

Willerman

Floyd

(1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227–228.

Barasch

Berman

J. Z.

Small

D. A.

(2016). When payment undermines the pitch on the persuasiveness of pure motives in fund-raising. Psychological Science, 27, 1388–1397.

Barasch

Diehl

Silverman

Zauberman

(2017). Photographic memory: The effects of volitional photo taking on memory for visual and auditory aspects of an experience. Psychological Science, 28, 1056–1066.

Campbell

M. C.

Kirmani

(2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69–83.

Carlson

E. N.

Furr

R. M.

Vazire

(2010). Do we know the first impressions we make? Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 94–98.

Diehl

Zauberman

Barasch

(2016). How taking photos increases enjoyment of experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 119–140.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor.

Gosling

S. D.

Augustine

A. A

Vazire

Holtzman

Gaddis

(2011). Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 483–488.

10.

Grandey

A. A.

Fisk

G. M.

Mattila

A. S.

Jansen

K. J.

Sideman

L. A.

(2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 38–55.

11.

Hancock

J. T.

Toma

C. L.

(2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367–386.

12.

Harker

Keltner

(2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women's college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112.

13.

Hayes

A. F.

Preacher

K. J.

Myers

T. A.

(2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, 23, 434–465.

14.

Hitsch

G. J.

Hortaçsu

Ariely

(2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. The American Economic Review, 100, 130–163.

15.

Jenkins

White

Van Montfort

Burton

A. M.

(2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323.

16.

Judd

C. M.

Kenny

D. A.

McClelland

G. H.

(2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subjects designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134.

17.

Leary

M. R.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.

18.

Meeker

(2013). Internet trends: D11 conference. Retrieved from http://www.kpcb.com/blog/2013-internet-trends

19.

Montoya

A. K.

Hayes

A. F

. (2015). Two condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Manuscript submitted for publication.

20.

Olivola

C. Y.

Todorov

(2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110.

21.

Schlenker

B. R.

(1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

22.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Hershey

J. C.

Bradlow

E. T.

(2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 1–19.

23.

Strano

M. M

. (2008). User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2, article 1, 5.

24.

Swann

W. B.

Jr De La Ronde

Hixon

J. G.

(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869.

25.

Swann

W. B.

Jr Milton

Polzer

(2000). Creating a niche or falling in line: Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 238–250.

26.

Todorov

Porter

J. M.

(2014). Misleading first impressions different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25, 1404–1417.

27.

Todorov

Said

C. P.

Verosky

S. C.

(2011). Personality impressions from facial appearance. In Calder

Haxby

J. V.

Johnson

Rhodes

(Eds.), Handbook of face perception (pp. 631–652). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

28.

Tuk

M. A.

Verlegh

P. W. J.

Smidts

Wigboldus

D. H. J.

(2008). Sales and sincerity: The role of relational framing in word-of-mouth marketing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 38–47.

29.

Tyler

J. M.

Feldman

R. S.

Reichert

(2006). The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 69–77.

30.

Vazire

Gosling

S. D

. (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123–132.

31.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

(2011). Ecological and social approaches to face perception. In Calder

Rhodes

Johnson

Haxby

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of face perception (pp. 31–50). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

A Candid Advantage? The Social Benefits of Candid Photos

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material