Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
Online Presentation of Self vs. Face-to-Face Presentation of Self
Christian Sterling
University of Kentucky
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
Abstract
This literary review will discuss the presentation of oneself online vs. the presentation of oneself
face-to-face. The discussion will explore the advantageous and disadvantageous sides of
presenting oneself online. In order to assess the benefits and disadvantages of online presentation
of self, this paper will explore three major topics. The first topic will be the construction of an
identity facade through selective images and posts. The second topic will explore the negative of
one’s self perception while online. The third topic will explore the positives of developing ones
identity through online communities. This discussion is a gathering of commentaries on previous
research articles. Limitations to research will be discussed as well as possibilities for future
research endeavors.
Keywords: identity; self-advertising; hyper-personal model; feedback; face
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
Online Presentation of Self vs. Face-to-Face Presentation of Self
Managing ones face has traditionally always been a priority for any individual when it comes to
communicating. People generally want to be thought of as an attractive, well educated, witty and
all around perfect person. Before the age of the internet, people managed their identity in face-toface settings. They could speak a certain way, behave a certain way, manipulate their body
language and if you were good, plan out everything you were going to say before you said it.
These traditional ways of managing ones identity were once sufficient, but as the internet
evolves and individuals are able to communicate interpersonally via social media networks,
individuals have found ways to manage the identities at a higher level. “Communicating through
mediated channels generally gives us more control over managing impressions than we have in
face-to-face communication.” (Adler & Proctor, 2011) Though managing ones identity online
may likely be more effective compared to managing ones identity in person, should we conclude
that online identity management is the best way for individuals to be identified in their
communities? After all if we can edit and censor everything we post, and everything other social
networkers see, doesn’t that say enough about who we are or at least who we would like to be?
My concern with online presentation of self is that we construct an identity of who we would like
to be not who we actually are. People will then perceive us as something we are not and as
embellished, exaggerated versions of our true selves. Once we have created this picture perfect
image of ourselves online, we are expected to live up to that image, both online and offline. This
creates a problem when you over exaggerated online self escapes you in an interpersonal face-toface setting and whomever you’re speaking with expects a sense greatness from you in which
you faked previously online. Being revealed as a liar or putting on a façade can be even more
detrimental to your face than you had ever imagined.
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
I realize that here are advantageous as well as disadvantageous sides to online identity
management; which will be explored in the remainder of this literary discussion; however it is
hypothesized that there is a significant discrepancy between one’s online identity and one’s faceto-face identity.
The internet was first created by the military in order to easily share information between
researchers and since then has become an information aid to virtually everyone in the world. But
how did the purpose of the internet evolve and when and how was this discussion of online
identity management even appropriately birthed, given the origin of the internet’s function?
However when you think abstractly, information about oneself is still information. For example,
“Today I walked my dog to the park.” “That vacation to the Bahamas was the best time of my
life.” “I just got promoted to Partner of my law firm.” All of these examples are data being
shared regardless if it is used for the purposes of scientific research or not. People also feel the
need to be a significant figure in their society so they naturally want to build a persona online ,
especially if that information can be shared with 100 times as many people and in a more time
effective way. With the need to share personal information, there is inevitably the tendency to
only share positive and self-praising information that reflects oneself in a positive light. This
information can be disguised as images, posts, videos so on. An example of these images can be
pictures of vacations, hanging out with friends, at an award ceremony being praised. These all
give positive image to the individual who post the pictures. Having only pictures in which the
individual is smiling or laughing conveys that they are happy all the time. And not to mention
when people only post about the good things that are happening in their lives, they create a false
perceived environment in which everything going on in their life is perfect. (Salimkhan, Manago,
& Greenfield, 2010)
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
Another way the internet provides ease in managing ones identity is with selective selfpresentation; one of the four components of the hyper personal model which will be discussed
later. With selective self-presentation online, users are afforded the opportunity to omit sound of
voice, familiarity with other social networkers, and intimidation of face-to face encounters. This
allows computer mediated communicators to present themselves is a self-advertising and self
serving way and omit any unwanted characteristics. Maintaining face is maintaining an image
that your life is great and you have no worries. Users online can create this in such a more
effective way than anybody could in a face-to-face setting. The construction of one’s identity
online depends on the four components of the hyper-personal model. The first component is
selective self-presentation, which involves taking selective images and posts and sharing them;
idealization, which involves creating an idealized self rather than the true self; channel
management, which involves using email, a social media website, etc. and feedback, which
involves how people react to that presentation of self. All components contribute greatly to how
one constructs their identity online however Feedback is the most influential of all components.
Users will use selective presentation through a series of channels to create what they think is an
ideal them. Once this perception is created, they await the feedback of their social network. Do a
certain amount of people “Like” their picture, or do people positively comment on their posts or
“Retweet” what the user’s original post because they liked what they had to say? All of these are
examples of feedback via internet and users will have the tendency to mold themselves and
conform to the likes of others. Literally. This process of conforming can be defined as an identity
shift. According to the research article, The Effect of Feedback on Identity Shift in Computer
Mediated Communication, “Identity shift online is greater when computer mediated
communication users are provided with feedback about their public online identity performances
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
compared to when they simply post their messages.” (Walther, Liang, DeAndrea, Tong, Carr,
Sppottswood, & Amichai-Hamburger, 2011). It is found that those who disclose characteristics
publicly on a social media network, and after having positive feedback, tend to describe
themselves more like that characteristic, whether it is a true trait of theirs or not. This presents an
obvious problem because users are not being truthful to themselves nor to their social networking
peers.
A term that has come to describe the virtual world is an “identity workshop.”
(Salimkhan, Manago, & Greenfield, 2010) One may find humor at the idea of people
strategically working at perfecting their identity but the term does not exaggerate any the realities
of today’s social networking. Computer mediated communication (CMC) users literally work at
the identities by creating a product, which is themselves, selling it to the public, through channel
management, and assessing the demand for the product , through feedback and tweak the product
based on previous reviews.. Users have become strategist in creating their identities since the
evolution of the internet. My question is how far this identity management will go.
Now that we have answered why and how CMC users manage their identities online, we
can explore the self threatening realities of such discrepancies between online self and face-to
face self. CMC users do not mind providing false information about themselves because they
either do not know their social networking peers outside of the internet or trust that their peers
will never know the truth because of the physically impersonal boundary which is the internet.
However false presentation of self online is more threatening to oneself than it is to their social
network. Like stated before, the fourth component of the hyper personal model, feedback allows
CMC users to alter their characteristics online based on the feedback of others. Another term for
this feedback is reflected appraisal. Reflected appraisal is “ The theory that a person’s self-
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
concept mirrors the way the person believes others regard him or her.” (Adler & Proctor, 2011)
If a user’s online identity is based on the reviews of others, will this user ever have a unique true
identity or will their identity be a product of their online environment. And to what extent can the
cycle of the hyper personal model effect one’s shift in identity. Studies from Media Psychology
show that Feedback can promote, intensify, exploit and shape communicators characteristics and
even shape their attitudes and perceptions. (Walther, Liang, DeAndrea, Tong, Carr,
Sppottswood, & Amichai-Hamburger, 2011) Such tendencies can threaten one’s principles,
behaviors and characteristics.
Those CMC users who abuse their online identity management also fall victim to the
perception fallacies. These are fallacies because they are unobtainable but one fails to recognize
it and thinks he or she should obtain them. One fallacy they may fall victim to is the fallacy of
approval, which is the need to seek everyone’s approval even if it means sacrificing your own
happiness and principles. CMC users shift their identities in order to receive positive feedback
from their social network. They may say things that they usually would not or post images that
create a false presentation of themselves because they believe it will help them achieve ultimate
approval. The fallacy of perfection is the belief that you should behave perfectly. This causes
you put on a façade that usually turns out to be mentally trying or face threatening if you get
caught. Those who possess these fallacies find themselves spiraling down the ladder of happiness
trying to achieve perfection and approval. The capabilities of the internet often make use think
we can achieve such perfection however as humans, we cannot.
Research by a professor at Stanford University in California discusses the use of avatars
when creating an online image of one’s self. Nick Yee questions if we use real representations of
ourselves or do create alter egos through our avatars. His research found that introverts, those
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
who are biologically more reserved, create avatars that hold alike characteristics to themselves.
On the other hand, it was found that extroverts, those who are biologically more open, tend to
create avatars that are incongruous with their real identities. (New Scientist, 2007) This research
suggests that introverts have a more stable sense of self and that extroverts are willing to explore
new selves and new identities that may clash with previous ideas of self. It was stated in this
article that fantasy-like avatars are created to “escape the mundane realities of their daily lives”
(New Scientist, 2007).
After commenting on the risks of online identity management, I should address the
benefits that it provides CMC users with. Much research has been conducted on how online
identity management can be beneficial to cultural communities and to self- development of a
CMC user within that community. We will explore the Arabic community and there use of
computer mediated communication. After the accumulation of terror incidents such as 911, the
Arabic community has use the internet to protect themselves from ridicule. The internet has
served as a “voice-giving medium” allowing the rest of the world to hear their perspective. After
911, nearly everyone in the Arabic community took on personal, racial, religious and political
attacks. Their community slowly gathered online to become a part of what was called the
Restorative Stage; In which they spoke out about terrorism, defended their beliefs and principles
and formed a strong defensive community. (Al Zidjaly, 2012).
The once non-existent voice of the Arab community had now birthed and become a
strong voice. The evolution of the internet has afforded parties the opportunity to be heard when
the otherwise would not have been, especially no aggressive communities. I will not be surprised
when more eastern Asian countries begin to form a strong national identity and voice online.
Another benefit of online identity management caters to the youth of society. As a generation
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
grows, different opinions form but those opinions without power are often silenced, such as the
youth. The internet provides the younger generation with a form of expression that allows them
to separate themselves from the overbearing mind of their nation.
Throughout this discourse, we have explored the tendencies of online identity
management, as well and its risks and benefits. Identity management is a natural occurrence in
everyday life and it has and always will exist. The evolution of social networking has made it
easier for computer mediated communicators to manage their identities in more effective ways,
however when I refer to effective I mean precise and not necessarily accurate. CMC lets users to
pinpoint exactly who they want to be perceived as and allows them to do so. The downside to
online identity management is that users may abuse their power online and become someone far
from who they are in efforts to people please. Identity shifts are a common reoccurrence in CMC
users and lead to perception fallacies such as the Fallacy of Approval and the Fallacy of
Perfection. User may even experience disillusionment in the process of shifting identities. Online
identity management can however be beneficial to communities of people whose voice would
otherwise be suppressed if there were not social networking facilities. It was hypothesized that
there is a significant discrepancy between online presentation of self and face-to-face
presentation of self and this literary review has revealed benefits of online networking but also a
concern for those who abuse social networking and the need for preventative precautions in the
social networking world.
Limitations to the research include the fact that there was never any specific study that
analyzed a specific age group. This leaves uncertainty when discussing how online identity
management affects different generations. Also, only the Arabic community was explored when
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
discussing benefits of online identify management. Should another community have been
explored, the reader may have been more convinced of the benefits to a community voice.
Running head: ONLINE PRESENTATION OF SELF VS. FACE –TO-FACE
PRESENTATION OF SELF
References
Adler, R.B., & Proctor, R.F. (2011). Looking Out/Looking In, Thirteenth Edition. Boston:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Al Zidjaly, N. (2012). What has Happened to Arabs? Identity and face management online.
Multingua, 31(4), 413-439.
Create the perfect virtual you. (2007). New Scientist, 194. 2603, 52.
Salimkhan, G., Manago, A.M., & Greenfield, P.M. (2010). The Construction of the Virtual Self
on Myspace. Cyberpsychology, 4(1), 1-18.
Walther, J.B., Liang, Y., DeAndrea, D. C., Tong, S., Carr, C.T., Sppottswood, E.L., & AmichaiHamburger, Y. (2011) The Effect of Feedback on Identity Shift in Computer Mediated
Communication. Media Psychology, 14(1), 1-26.
Wood, A.F., & Smith, M.J. (2005) Online Communication :Linking Technology, Identity, and
Culture. Mahwah, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.