F.

THE DIGITAL SELF: Self and other in cyberspace

• Online Identity
Internet identity (IID), also online identity or internet persona, is a social identity that an Internet
user establishes in online communities and websites. It can also be considered as an actively
constructed presentation of oneself. Although some people choose to use their real names online,
some Internet users prefer to be anonymous, identifying themselves by means of pseudonyms,
which reveal varying amounts of personally identifiable information. An online identity may even
be determined by a user's relationship to a certain social group they are a part of online. Some can
even be deceptive about their identity.

In some online contexts, including Internet forums, online chats, and massively multiplayer online
role-playing games (MMORPGs), users can represent themselves visually by choosing an avatar,
an icon-sized graphic image. Avatars are one way users express their online identity. Through
interaction with other users, an established online identity acquires a reputation, which enables
other users to decide whether the identity is worthy of trust. Online identities are associated with
users through authentication, which typically requires registration and logging in. Some websites
also use the user's IP address or tracking cookies to identify users.

The concept of the self, and how this is influenced by emerging technologies, are a subject of
research in fields such as education, psychology and sociology. The online disinhibit ion effect is
a notable example, referring to a concept of unwise and uninhibited behavior on the Internet,
arising as a result of anonymity and audience gratification.

• Selective Self-Presentation And Impression Management

The self-concept seems like a very private phenomenon. After all, people’s thoughts about
themselves are hidden and are often highly personal. Yet the self-concept is also very much a social
phenomenon. It has social roots (e.g., reflected appraisals, social comparison), it includes social
identities and roles, and it guides our perception of others and our behavior in social settings.

Self-presentational behavior is any behavior intended to create, modify, or maintain an impression

of ourselves in the minds of others. According to this definition, whenever we are attempting to
lead people to think of us in a particular way, we are engaging in self-presentation.

Because much of our time is spent in the company of other people, self-presentation is a

pervasive feature of social life. We even engage in self-presentation when we are alone; for
example, we rehearse what we are going to say or do in public, molding our behavior to an
imaginary or anticipated audience. Sometimes this rehearsal is deliberate and noticeable (as when
we prepare for a job interview or a public speaking engagement); other times it is automatic and
almost imperceptible (as when we mindlessly check our hair in the mirror before stepping out the
front door).

Self-presentation is not only a prevalent aspect of our lives, it is also a very important one. Our
success at leading others to believe we possess various characteristics has a profound influence on
our outcomes in life (Hogan & Briggs, 1986). Who we marry, who our friends are, whether we get
ahead at work, and many other outcomes depend, to a great extent, on our ability to convince
people that we are worthy of their love, their friendship, their trust, and their respect. Undoubtedly,
this need to create a positive impression is one reason that people spend billions of dollars a year
on cosmetics and other personal-appearance products. Self-presentational concerns also lead
people to engage in behaviors that enhance their appearance to others but simultaneously
jeopardize their own physical well-being (e.g., overexposure to the sun; excessive dieting) (Leary,
Tchividijian, & Kraxberger, 1994). Self-presentational concerns can even underlie selfdestructive
behaviors, such as cigarette smoking and substance abuse (Sharp & Getz, 1996).

Types of Self-presentation

• Authentic - Goal is to create an image consistent with the way we view ourselves.

• Ideal - Goal is to establish an image consistent with what we wish we were.

• Tactical self-presentation - Goal is to establish a public image consistent with what others
want or expect us to be. In tactical self-presentation, a person cares only about the impact
of the image they present to others, not about whether that image is consistent with their
real or ideal self. People who engage in tactical self- presentation usually have an ulterior
motive. They often want others to view them positively to get rewards.

Two distinct forms of selective self- presentation

• Self-enhancement - A person advertises his or her strengths, virtues, and admirable

qualities.

• Self-deprecation - A person makes only humble or modest claims.

I. The Nature of Self-Presentation

A. Why Do People Engage in Self-Presentation?

We begin our discussion by considering why people engage in self-presentation. Why do we

bother to lead people to see us in one way or another?

1. Facilitate Social Interaction The most basic function of self-presentation is to define the nature
of a social situation (Goffman, 1959). Most social interactions are very role governed. Each
person has a role to play, and the interaction proceeds smoothly when these roles are enacted
 effectively. For example, airline pilots are expected to be poised and dignified. As long as they
convince their passengers that they possess these qualities, their passengers remain calm and
behave in an orderly fashion. (Imagine, for example, how unsettling it would be if your airline
pilot acted like the character “Kramer” on the television show Seinfeld!)

This function of self-presentation was first highlighted by Erving Goffman (1959). Goffman noted
that social life is highly structured. In some cases, this structure is formalized (e.g., state dinners
at the White House are characterized by strict rules of protocol), but most often it is informal and
tacitly understood (e.g., norms of politeness and etiquette guide our social interactions).

Among these norms is one that mandates that people support, rather than undermine, one another’s
public identities. Goffman refers to these efforts as face work. Each participant in an interaction is
obliged to honor and uphold the other person’s public persona. Toward this end, people may
misrepresent themselves or otherwise refrain from saying what they really think or feel. For
example, people publicly claim to like the presents they receive, find another person’s new clothes
or hairstyle attractive, or make excuses for why they cannot get together for some social encounter.
This kind of selfpresentational behavior seems to be primarily driven by a desire to avoid social
conflict and reduce tension (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996).

2. Gain Material and Social Rewards People also strive to create impressions of themselves in the
minds of others in order to gain material and social rewards (or avoid material and social
punishments). As discussed earlier, it is usually in our best interests to have others view us in a
particular way. Employees generally have a material interest in being perceived as bright,
committed, and promising. To the extent that they are successful in inducing these impressions
in the minds of their employers, they are apt to be promoted and given raises. Social rewards
also depend on our ability to convince others that we possess particular qualities. Being liked
entails convincing others that we are likable; being a leader involves convincing others that we
are capable of leading.

Jones (1990; see also, Tedeschi & Norman, 1985) notes that this type of strategic self-presentation
represents a form of social influence in which one person (the self-presenter) attempts to gain
power over another (the audience). This approach assumes that we are in a better position to
influence the nature of social interaction in a manner that suits our purposes if we are able to control
how others see us. This emphasis is apparent in many popular books that carry titles like How to
Win Friends and Influence People (Carnegie, 1936) and Winning through Intimidation (Ringer,
1973).

To some, the idea that people actively strive to manipulate how they are viewed by others conjures
up images of duplicity and Machiavellianism. This need not be the case, however. Strategic
selfpresentation does not necessarily mean that we are trying to deceive others (though sometimes
we are). It can also involve genuine attempts to bring our (self-perceived) positive qualities to the
attention of others. In fact, for reasons to be discussed later, misrepresentation and lying tend to be
the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, strategic self-presentation involves “selective
disclosures and omissions, or matters of emphasis and timing, rather than blatant deceit or
dissimulation” (Jones, 1990, p.175).

3. Self-Construction Another reason we try to create impressions of ourselves in the minds of

others is to construct a particular identity for ourselves (Baumeister, 1982b; Rosenberg, 1979;
Schlenker, 1980). This type of self-presentational behavior serves a more private, personal
function. Convincing others that we possess some quality or attribute is a means of convincing
ourselves.

Sometimes, self-construction is initiated in order to create an identity. Rosenberg (1979) notes that
this is particularly prevalent during adolescence. Adolescents routinely try out different identities.
They adopt the dress and mannerisms of various social types (e.g., the sophisticate; the rebel), and
studiously note people’s reactions to these displays in an attempt to fashion an identity that fits.
Other times, self-construction is undertaken to confirm an already established self-view. The
successful Wall Street banker may wear suspenders, carry a beeper, and drive a Lexus to signal to
others that he is indeed a man of “wealth and taste.” Swann (1990) calls this form of
selfconstruction “self-verification,” and Wicklund and Gollwitzer (1982) refer to such behavior as
“self-symbolizing.”

Self-enhancement needs also underlie self-construction. Most people like to think of themselves
as being competent, likable, talented, and so forth. By convincing others that they possess these
positive attributes, people are better able to convince themselves. This, in turn, makes people feel
better about themselves. In this sense, we can say that people seek to create impressions in the
minds of others because it makes them feel good about themselves to do so.

Finally, self-construction can serve a motivational function. People are expected to be who they
claim to be (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 1980). When they publicly announce an intention or
otherwise stake a claim to an identity, people experience additional pressures to make good on
their claims. The reformed alcoholic who proclaims his sobriety is utilizing this function. By
publicly renouncing the use of alcohol, he increases his commitment to stay sober. We also see
this in the world of sports. Before the 1968 Super Bowl, Joe Namath boldly predicted that his New
York Jets would beat the Baltimore Colts (which they did). The great boxer, Muhammad Ali, also
routinely predicted the outcomes of his fights. Under some circumstances, this kind of public
boasting can serve to make the idea a reality.

4. Summary

In this section, we distinguished three functions of self-presentation. Although conceptually

distinct, the three functions often operate simultaneously in the real world. For example, airline
pilots project an air of dignity because doing so (1) makes the plane ride go smoother; (2) helps
them retain their jobs; and (3) leads them to think of themselves as dignified people, which in turn
makes them feel good about themselves. B. When and How Do People Manage Impressions?
 People form impressions of us whenever we are in public, but we are not always actively
monitoring or regulating those impressions. In many situations, our self-presentations are
automatic or habitual, and we are devoting little conscious attention to how we are being perceived
by others. In other situations, we become acutely aware of the impressions we are creating, and we
actively strive to take control of these impressions (Leary, 1993; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992). In
this section, we will discuss factors that influence when we are most likely to actively engage in
self-presentation and what it takes to successfully present ourselves to others.

1. Situational Variables That Influence Impression Motivation

The first component of self-presentation is a motivational one. Before we can create a desired
impression, we have to be motivated to do so. Several factors can arouse this motive. One of the
most important occurs when desired external rewards depend on the judgments of others (Buss &
Briggs, 1984; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). Job interviews and first dates are two
prototypic examples. In these situations, we are highly concerned with making a positive
impression and we try to “put our best foot forward.”

The motivation to engage in self-presentation also tends to increase when we are the focus of other
people’s attention. For some people, speaking in front of a group or audience is an aversive
experience, in part because it causes them to become highly aware of their public identities. Certain
stimuli, such as cameras and tape recorders, can also make us aware of our public appearance, as
they remind us of how we are seen by others (Carver & Scheier, 1985; Scheier & Carver, 1982b).

Paradoxically, perhaps, being ignored or shunned by others can also increase self-presentational
concerns (Buss, 1980). Think of how you would feel if you were being ignored by others at a party.
Chances are this would make you feel acutely aware of yourself and motivate you to make a
positive impression. This occurs, in large part, because being alone at a party is not a desired
identity. In more general terms, we can say that a motive to actively engage in self-presentation
increases whenever we encounter obstacles to creating a desired impression (Schlenker, 1985,
1986).

Familiarity with an audience is another factor that influences the nature of self-presentational
behavior (Leary, Nezlek, Downs, Radford-Davenport, Martin, & McMullen, February 19, 2013 at
9:44 PM 452_chapter_07.docx page 6 of 42 1994; Tice, Butler, Muraven, & Stillwell, 1995).
Although there are exceptions, people are generally more attentive to the impressions they are
creating when they are interacting with casual acquaintances and business associates than when
they are interacting with close friends, family members, and loved ones. Many people, for example,
walk around the house with their hair uncombed, but they wouldn’t go out to a business meeting
that way. People also tend to be more modest and authentic when interacting with those they feel
close to (particularly those of the same sex) than when interacting with people they don’t know
well. In the vernacular of the 1960s, people are more apt to “let their hair down and be themselves”
when they are in the company of people they feel comfortable with and know well.
2. Social Acuity

Once we are motivated to create a particular impression, we need to possess an awareness of how
that impression can best be created. This cognitive ability is called social acuity (Hogan & Briggs,
1986). Social acuity refers to our ability to know what we would need to do in order to successfully
create a desired impression. Usually this involves adopting the perspective of other people and
inferring what particular behaviors will give rise to a particular impression in their minds. Imagine,
for example, that I want to convince you that I am witty. In order to do so, I must figure out what
is required. I need to know what behaviors I must execute in order to create the desired impression.
This perspective taking ability is what we mean by social acuity.

Mead’s influence is apparent here. As discussed in Chapter 4, Mead (1934) argued that in order to
communicate effectively, people must be able to anticipate how their own symbolic gestures will
be interpreted by others. The same is true for successful self-presentation. To create a desired
impression, we must put ourselves in other people’s shoes and discern what behaviors would
produce a given impression. If we are inept at adopting the other person’s perspective, we are
unlikely to create the impressions we desire.

3. Behavioral Skills Behavioral

Skills are the third component of successful self-presentation. People need to be capable of
performing the behaviors they believe will create a desired impression. To return to an earlier
example, I may be motivated to create the impression that I have the wit of Noel Coward, and I
may recognize that in order to create this impression I need to toss out one bon mot after another.
But wanting to create a particular impression and knowing what it would take do not guarantee
that I can pull it off. I also need to be able to enact the desired behavior.

Numerous tactics are used to create a desired impression. Verbal claims are perhaps the most
common strategy. People selectively disclose, accidentally mention, or overtly boast as a means of
creating a particular impression. Like actors, we also use props to establish our characters. Our
hair, physique, figure, and clothing all serve to create particular impressions of us in the minds of
others. Although we may deny that self-presentation is the most important consideration that
guides our decisions in such matters, few people claim that such decisions are made without any
regard for the social consequences. Those that do make such claims are typically trying to create
an impression February 19, 2013 at 9:44 PM 452_chapter_07.docx page 7 of 42 of nonconformity
or independence (Schlenker & Weigold, 1990)! Even our movements signal to others what we are
like. People draw inferences about what we are like from observing our mannerisms and gestures
and the way we stand and walk (McArthur & Baron, 1983). Aware of this, people actively regulate
their movements to control the impressions others form of them. For example, unattached people
at a party or bar typically carry themselves differently than do those who are accompanied by
someone. Their behavior signals to others that they are available.

4. Summary
 To summarize, successful self-presentation involves a mix of motivation and ability. People can
be motivated to make a particular impression, but they may fail to do so because they are unaware
of what behaviors are needed or because they aren’t able to perform the appropriate behaviors.
Viewed in this way, it can be seen that successful self presentation is a complicated affair. It
requires a good deal of skill and sophistication. Recognizing this complexity, Schlenker and Leary
(1982a) theorized that social anxiety arises when individuals are motivated to make a positive
impression but they see little likelihood that they will do so. In extreme cases, these doubts can be
paralyzing and lead to social phobias.

C. Individual Differences in Self-Presentation

Although everyone engages in self-presentation, people vary with respect to how concerned they
are with their public image and with the kinds of impressions they try to convey.

Impression Management

Impression management can be defined as a study of how peo-ple attempt to manage or control
the perceptions which others form of them (Bozeman and Kacmar 1997; Drory and Zaidman
2007).The main aim of impression management is to steer others’ impression with the use of
controlling information, photos, and videos and present them in a proper way in social media. In
real life, the impression management takes place through both verbal and nonverbal
communication, including body language, posture, speech and rank(i.e., status) (Bolino and
Turnley 1999; Leary and Kowalski 1990). Both in real life and online, self-representation connects
the idea ofwho we are to the outside world (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan2002). Thanks to
the feedback from recipients, people can explore their presented images and develop or adjust it to
the desired images. Impression management is recognized as the key element of successful
communication with co-workers, team members, and col-leagues. According to Gardner and
Avolio (1998), it can help managers who are charismatic leaders to achieve an authentic
selfrepresentation, allowing them to increase their trustworthiness, credibility, esteem and power
(Jung and Sosik 2003). Impression management is one of Gofman’s focal points in the study of
social interaction. Impression management implies that our actions, appearance, involvement, and
so forth all giveaway parts of our intent and purpose. Some of these impressions are given
intentionally while others are given of unwittingly. Gofman argues that people are empowered to
facilitate this revilement, or block it, or even misdirect their audience. Impression management
hence presumes that people have a certain degree of control over the way they are perceived by
their audience. Impression management analysis as conceived by Gofman aims to uncover the
various strategies by which people alter or control their audiences’ perceptions of them when they
present themselves in public settings.

It is important to note that impression management according to Gofman is not limited to upholding
one’s personal impressions, but equally those of one’s team. The audiences too will usually be
prepared to save the show. As such, impression management reveals the investment that we all
have in the “staged production of social reality” (Manning, 2005a, p. 398).
 THE IMPACT OF ONLINE
The Internet has turned our existence upside down. It has revolutionized communications,
to the extent that it is now our preferred medium of everyday communication. In almost everything
we do, we use the Internet. Ordering a pizza, buying a television, sharing a moment with a friend,
sending a picture over instant messaging. Before the Internet, if you wanted to keep up with the
news, you had to walk down to the newsstand when it opened in the morning and buy a local
edition reporting what had happened the previous day. But today a click or two is enough to read
your local paper and any news source from anywhere in the world, updated up to the minute.

The development of the Internet today is being shaped predominantly by instant, mobile
communications. The mobile Internet is a fresh revolution. Comprehensive Internet connectivity
via smartphones and tablets is leading to an increasingly mobile reality: we are not tied to any
single specific device, and everything is in the cloud.

OPPORTUNITIES CREATED BY ONLINE:

1. COMMUNICATION

Social media have changed our personal space, altering the way we interact with our loved
ones, our friends, and our sexual partners; they have forced us to rethink even basic daily processes
like studying and shopping; they have affected the economy by nurturing the business startup
culture and electronic commerce; they have even given us new ways to form broad-based political
movements.

2. EDUCATION

The Internet has clearly impacted all levels of education by providing unbounded possibilities
for learning. The future of education is a networked future. People can use the Internet to create
and share knowledge and develop new ways of teaching and learning that captivate and stimulate
students’ imagination at anytime, anywhere, using any device. By connecting and empowering
students and educators, we can speed up economic growth and enhance the well-being of society
throughout the world. We should work together, over a network, to build the global learning
society. The web is a formidable resource for enhancing the process of building knowledge.

3. CULTURE

The Internet is bringing culture closer to more people, making it more easily and quickly
accessible; it is also nurturing the rise of new forms of expression for art and the spread of
knowledge. Some would say, in fact, that the Internet is not just a technology, but a cultural artifact
in its own right.
 4. PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

An increasing number of couples come together, stay together, or break up with the aid or even
as a consequence of social communication tools. There are even apps and social networks out there
that are purposely designed to help people get together for sex.

5. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM

Research has shown that young people who voice their political opinions on the Internet are
more inclined to take part in public affairs. The better informed a citizen is, the more likely they
will step into the polling booth, and the better they will express their political liberties. The Internet
has proved to be a decisive communication tool in the latest election campaigns. It is thanks to the
Internet that causes in the social, welfare, ideological, and political arenas have been spoken up for
and have won the support of other citizens sharing those values—in many cases, with a real impact
on government decision making.

6. CONSUMER TRENDS

The Internet offers an immense wealth of possibilities for buying content, news, and leisure
products, and all sorts of advantages arise from e-commerce, which has become a major
distribution channel for goods and services. You can book airline tickets, get a T-shirt from
Australia, or buy food at an online grocery store. New applications support secure business
transactions and create new commercial opportunities. Consumers’ access to information
multiplies, and their reviews of their experience with various products and services take center
stage. Access to product comparisons and rankings, user reviews and comments, and
recommendations from bloggers with large followings have shaped a new scenario for consumer
behavior, retail trade, and the economy in general.

7. THE ECONOMY

The Internet is one of the key factors driving today’s economy. No one can afford to be left
behind. Even in a tough macroeconomic framework, the Internet can foster growth, coupled with
enhanced productivity and competitiveness.

Interactions on the Self

Boundaries of the Self Online:

 The rapid advances in information and communication technologies have created tremendous
changes all over the world, not least among which concern a number of new philosophical
problems and ways to solve them. During the last few years social networking websites such as
Facebook and Twitter seem to throw much of the traditional thinking about the self and the object
into confusion. A main characteristic of social networking is to form webs of links among
‘‘persons’’ whose identities are there on the social networking websites. It is typical for a member
of Facebook to have hundreds of ‘‘friends.’’ It does not matter how many of these ‘‘friends’’ are
those whom the member actually meet and interact in real life; what does matter is that the
interaction is taking place more and more online. The line between the real person (or the ‘‘offline’’
one) and her projection onto social networking sites (her ‘‘online’’ self) is becoming blurred. There
are situations where a real person has multiple accounts on Facebook, each with a unique
personality. For example, the person might appear as a serious professional in one account, and a
completely different personality in another. These accounts, or to put it better these personae, seem
to be on a par with the real person herself when it comes to the question of identity. So the questions
are how one can distinguish between the offline, real-world self and her online projection onto
social networking sites? How are the two different or similar to each other?; and who is the real
person behind all these personae and façades?

Private vs. Public

People like to show their different personalities and behaviors based on their relationship with
other people; for example, private-self for the ones who are close to them and the public-self for
those who are less close to them. Having two personalities is so much common in human nature
because mostly people don’t want others to see how they are in private. People mostly hide their
private-self and show others their public-self which can be the opposite from the other one.
Basically, an individual only show its original-self which means private-self, to those who he/she
can trust on, and not everyone.

The public-self is a framework of a human nature in order to hide their original self from others.
It shows that human personality is different depends on the situation which can led to the different
behavior. According to Nicholson the behaviors change in different setting is normal in human
nature. In other words, the environment which an individual live in, drives them to pretend what
they are not instead of what they are. This is why people hide their private-self and show others
their public-self which can be different for the first one. For example, people use the phrase that
we can be whatever we want behind the doors of our homes. The home represents the secure and
comfortable environment for an individual be in their private-self. However, it can be any place as
long as an individual feel comfortable with.

People mostly hide their private-self and show others their public-self which can be the
opposite from the other one. People use words like “Personal Life” or “Personal Space” as a barrier
to hide their private-self behind it. For example, my cousin works in a private company and the
boss of that company usually seen as arrogant, strict and angry. As compare to these similarities
his boss is actually like that. My cousin told me that doesn’t matter how he behave in the office
but outside the work he is a completely different person. He also told me that if you meet him in
the office and then at his home, you will question yourself that is this a same person that we have
in the office.

This shows that people like to hide what they like about themselves and don’t want others to
know about and also don’t let them to make judgment over them. Many people don’t like people
judging them about how they are or how they behave, which drives them to their public-self
according to what people want to see.

Personal/Individual vs. Social Identity Online

When we look at the popular social networking websites today, we are struck by the sheer
number of the people who are connected to one another through them. Facebook has more than
500 million users at the last count (http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics), and the
number far exceed the entire population of many countries. Twitter has around 75 million
(http://www.numberof.net/number-of-twitter-users/) (There are certainly other social networking
sites, such as Google Plus, Hi5, MySpace, and so on, but these two are the most popular). These
users put up their ‘‘profile pages’’ on the websites, which are essentially a projection of their own
identities in the online world for their peers, colleagues and friends. In most cases the profiles
actually represent the persons behind them; in other words, the profiles are mostly intended to refer
to the persons themselves. This can be useful when, for example, I would like to find out whether
my long lost high school friend is on Facebook or not and can get reconnected with her again after
I have seen her profile. In this case there is a clear link between the profile and the person. However,
in some areas, the profiles on Facebook serve another function. Many Facebook users opt not to
show their faces or their real names on their profile pages. Instead they are very creative in
inventing new names for themselves which effectively prevents anybody from knowing who the
real person behind the Facebook persona is. So unless the person herself tells her friends who she
really is, nobody would know who she is. Instead of putting up their own portrait on the profile as
is originally intended by the very name ‘‘Facebook,’’ many people are putting up all kinds of
pictures: Some put up pictures of their favorite pets; some put up a political banner, some use
pictures of well-known cartoon personalities such as Winnie the Pooh, and so on. Furthermore,
they are not using their real names in the profiles. Some call themselves ‘‘Laughing out Loud
throughout the Field,’’ ‘‘Red Linguist,’’ ‘‘Dragon from the Plateau,’’ and so on. A recent practice
has a result of the ongoing politicalconflicts in Thailand is that many put up the phrase ‘‘love the
King’’ following theirnames to show their support for the King. Someone else who stand on the
other side of the political divide then say something like ‘‘Love Everybody’’ or ‘‘Love my
Parents’’ or ‘‘Love Humanity,’’ to mimic those who declare their love for the King. They cannot
say outright that they do not love the King because according to the draconian law against
criticizing the King in Thailand this might be interpreted as insulting to the King himself.
 This practice of putting up anonymous or alternative profiles on social networking sites, then,
is very common. The practice is rather different from the older one of putting profiles on web
discussion forums in that social networking sites are originally intended to act as a forum where
those who are already know one another interact online. When one poses a profile on Facebook
orbLinkedIn, a professional social networking site, for example, one in effect is telling one’s own
social group of one’s presence and is inviting those in the circle to join the link. The sites are
‘‘social’’ in the sense that getting together in a bar or in a meeting are social—the sites are gathering
places where one interacts with one’s friends. In older web discussion forums, however, these
social aspects are not as much emphasized. The profile page is almost non-existent in these older
forums and there is no way for a user to ‘‘update her status’’ in order to tell her social group of
what she is up to as she can on Facebook or Twitter.

Let us look at a profile page of one Thai user of Facebook. He calls himself ‘‘Burn Out.’’ Then
we can analyze his strategies in constructing his online identity on the social networking website:

We do not need to worry about his real identity here, because he does not use his real name on
his profile page. He also uses a picture of a koala as his profile picture. The result is that, if one
does not know beforehand who Burn Out really is, then there is no possibility of knowing his real
identity. So Burn Out has created an online persona that does not necessarily connect with his real
life person. The name ‘‘Burn Out’’ is only used for his Facebook account. The koala apparently
does not have anything to do with his personality (I know this because I know who ‘‘Burn Out’’
really is, and he is just an ordinary Thai man having no essential connection to a koala). Thus, it
seems that the profile page here functions only as a place holder, a neutral platform on which Burn
Out can project his thoughts and ideas to his friends most of whom already know him in real life.
Furthermore, those who do not know him personally also can interact with him; they know that he
is a Thai person and has certain likes and dislikes based on what he posts on his Facebook profile.
Since they are all Thai, they already share quite a lot in common so there is little need to reintroduce
background information as is the case when people from remotely different background need to
do when they interact. The situation here represents Hall’s view of the ‘‘high context’’ (Hall 1976),
in contrast with the ‘‘low context’’ situation normally found when people from different cultural
background meet and interact with one another.

Gender and Sexuality Online

Gender Identity

Gender identity is an internal sense or awareness. For most people, it can be described as a kind
of man-ness or woman-ness, so to speak. But gender is not limited to two. It’s not binary. There
are many more genders than man and woman (some people use terms like androgynous, gender
queer, butch, femme, boi, third gender, and the list goes on and on).

For most people, their gender is consistent with their biological sex. For some people, it’s
different. This means that some people who were assigned male or female by their doctor at birth
express different gender identities later in life. Someone assigned male at birth may or may not
later identify as a boy or a man, and someone assigned female at birth may or may not later identify
as a girl or a woman. People whose gender and assigned sex are the same (i.e. someone who was
male at birth and identifies as a man) are called cisgender (cis is borrowed from chemistry, meaning
same). People whose assigned sex and gender are different are called transgender (trans is
borrowed from chemistry, meaning different). The term assigned sex is used instead of just sex
because doctors will usually determine a baby to be either male or female even though the reality
is not always that definite. People who have chromosomes, hormonal profiles or genitals that are
not typically male or female are called intersex. Historically, intersex babies have been operated
on and/or assigned one of the two binary sexes at birth.

Sometimes, Trans* is used as an umbrella term for transsexual and transgender, where the
asterisk acts as a wild card. There is not one single, consistent definition for each of these terms.
Every community and every individual may define them differently. Trans is an identity that
someone chooses for themselves, and not something you can tell or determine in others. Some
Trans people choose to change their bodies (through hormones or surgical operations), and some
do not. Disclosure of Trans identity can bring many different social consequences, especially in
schools, and should always be that individual’s own decision.

Gender Expression

While gender identity is internal, gender expression is how a person publicly presents their
gender. This can include behavior and outward appearance such as how someone dresses, wears
their hair, if they use make-up, their body language and their voice. A person’s chosen name and
pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender. Someone may identify as a woman and dress
in a traditionally feminine way. Someone else may identify as a woman and dress in a traditionally
masculine way. Another may identify as neither a man nor a woman and playfully incorporate
traditionally masculine and feminine elements in how they present. Or dress in an androgynous
fashion. It’s important to remember that gender identity and gender expression are not necessarily
related.

Some Indigenous people use the term two-spirit(ed) to refer to a person with a fluid gender
identity or transgender identity. The term is also sometimes used to refer to sexual orientation – in
a similar way as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer.

Children who do not conform to conventionally gendered behavior are sometimes referred to
as gender independent or gender creative. Kids who are non-conforming may or may not grow up
to identify as Trans.

Transgression of conventional, binary gender can be a challenge to many social structures,

including the use of gender pronouns (like she, his, them). Never make assumptions, ask when you
can (privately) and use the pronoun each person chooses or prefers for themselves.

Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation refers to a person’s emotional and/or sexual attraction to others. Sexuality
is complex and attraction can manifest very differently for different people. Categories are
commonly used to understand our attractions but aren’t always inclusive of the vast variety of
expression that make up human sexuality.

Language about sexuality is constantly evolving and deserves our continued attention and
learning. Some common terms today: People who are attracted to a different gender are referred to
as heterosexual or straight. People who are attracted to people of the same gender are referred to
as lesbian (a woman attracted to other women) and gay (a man attracted to other men). Some
people, however, use the term gay for all same-gender attraction. The term homosexual, while
sometimes clinically useful, is becoming outdated and carries a lot of social stigma (and should be
avoided!). A person who is attracted to both men and women may identify as bisexual, and
someone who is attracted to all genders may identify as pansexual. Some people prefer to identify
as queer, instead of these other terms. Some people use queer for themselves as a political statement
against the oppression to which they have been subjected and/or because it’s a broader, umbrella
term. Some aboriginal and indigenous people use the term two-spirit. People who are uncertain
about their sexual orientation are sometimes referred to as questioning. Some people do not have
sexual attraction or desire, and they may identify as asexual.

The Chemistry and Chimera of Desire

 Written by Elijah Wolfson on February 1, 2010

Desire is, at its most literal, "the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state." Desire can lead
to new and better things; it can also get us in trouble. Since Aristotle, philosophers and theorists
have considered desire the impetus for just about everything; desire is possibility.

What is Desire?

Typically, we tend to think of desire as an emotion — that is, arising from our mental status,
akin to affection or anger or grief or surprise or ecstasy. But this is probably not the case. Many
scientists and psychologists now believe that desire is, in fact, a bodily urge, more analogous to
hunger or the blood's need for oxygen. For anyone who has been maddeningly in love, driven to
the edge of despair by an unquenchable desire for another, this probably doesn't seem so farfetched.
According to clinical psychologist Dr. Rob Dobrenski (denizen of shrinktalk.net), "in many ways
we can't control what we desire because it is a hard-wired emotional and physiological response."

Dr. Dobrenski is talking specifically about sexual desire. No surprise: desire and sexuality are
practically inextricable. The word "desire" probably brings to mind tawny romance novels,
adultonly activities, and a longing for sexual connection. Sexual desire may in fact be the only type
of desire; psychoanalytic theory holds that all other forms of desire and creative energy are the
result of rerouted sexual energy — often called "the libido" — towards other endeavors. The bodily
urge of desire is only sexual in nature; everything else is an emotional state developed out of this
primary desire.

Whether or not you buy that, it is clear that sexual desire is one of the — if not the — strongest
of human needs. Typically, it takes up a huge portion of our time, emotional energy, and lives.
Why? What drives the often unstoppable freight train of sexual desire?

Formation of Desire

According to sexologists Miss Jaiya and Ellen Heed, "desire is the coming together of visual,
biochemical, emotional, and biomechanical cues that trigger a hormonal cascade that may
culminate in the successful fertilization of an egg by a sperm." A pretty clinical explanation, but
one held widely throughout the profession and related fields of study. David Buss's keystone work
The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Matingis perhaps the textbook on the subject. Buss
argues that, in essence, instincts rule our desire; the preferences we have in our sexual lives are,
more or less, simply an expression of our search for evolutionary advantage.

In the book, Buss affirms a number of tenets of popular wisdom regarding sexual preference
through an evolutionary appeal:

• Good looks are more important to men than they are to women because good looks signal
good health and thus an enhanced ability to reproduce.
 • Women find social standing essential in a mate because that signals a capability to care and
protect their future children.

• Women prefer older men because they are more likely to have the resources to provide for
them and their children.

Buss claims that these and a few other basic instincts drive desire and are the same across all
cultures and societies. When it comes down to it, for Buss and many others, it's all about the need
to reproduce.

Obviously, Buss's explanation greatly simplifies the complexity of human sexuality. Some
might argue that he simplifies it to the point of offense. Where, for example, do men who prefer
men as sexual partners fit into this explanation? Or women who prefer women? And why do people
who are physically unable to reproduce still feel sexual desire? Nevertheless, the argument is
compelling.

Dr. Dobrenski agrees: "Desire is indeed based on an evolutionary need," he said. "We have a
very strong, sometimes unconscious desire to perpetuate our species." Dobrenski points out an
important distinction: Perpetuating mankind is unconscious. The expression of sexual desire —
our conscious feelings and our performances of sexuality — is far more complex than just trying
to have babies.

The expression of sexual desire is most likely rooted in childhood. As stress-management

expert Debbie Mandel points out, "children observe their parents and absorb lessons about parental
sexuality and desire." Although at first we do not have the ability or the occasion to express them,
these initial impressions of desire are not lost on us. When we enter puberty, we start to feel the
evolutionary desire towards reproduction. Immediately, this desire begins to express itself as the
learned sexuality we have been soaking up since childhood. As we grow older, it changes as it is
shaped by social cues from our peers and by mass media portrayals. It may take one of any number
of forms; though desire may be simple, sexuality is multifarious and varied. Sexuality is the
expression of desire, and the aspect of desire we can access, manipulate, and enjoy.

The Scent of Attraction

Sexual desire itself is a drive lodged deep in the gut, working without our knowledge and
beyond our control. Jaiya and Heed believe that we are attracted to one another on a subconscious
level, as the result of biomechanical cues, including posture and the pheromones they give off —
their sexual "scent" — that cause us to choose the mates we do. Perfume manufacturers and admen
have latched onto this theory of pheromones, marketing scents that supposedly will "help you
attract sexual attention instantly from the opposite sex!" But what are they actually selling?

Pheromones are chemical signals sent out by one member of a species in order to trigger a
natural response in another member of that same species. It's been well observed that pheromones
are used by animals, especially insects, to communicate with each other on sublingual levels. In
1971, Dr. Martha McClintlock published a now well-known study showing that the menstrual
cycles of women who live together in close quarters tend to become synchronized over time.
McClintlock and others believe this effect is caused by human female pheromone communication
and that this is only one example of a type of sexual communication that is constantly occurring
between humans on the sublingual level.

Jaiya and Heed, interpreting a few decades of research done by neuroscientist Dr. R. Douglas
Fields, believe that pheromones "talk to the sex centers of the brain and can trigger a release of
specific sex hormones," testosterone and estrogen. The effects of pheromones are clearest in cases
where, for example "couples who for every reason should be disinterested in each other suddenly
can't stay out of each other's presence after an 'up-close-and-personal encounter'" — coworkers on
a business trip, for example.

In recent years, scientists have begun to suspect that a little-known cranial nerve may be the
key to the mysterious workings of pheromones. First discovered in humans in 1913, the "cranial
nerve zero" or "terminal nerve" runs from the nasal cavity to the brain, ending in what Dr. Fields
calls "the hot-button sex regions of the brain." For years, scientists believed that nerve zero was
part of the olfactory nerve, helping our brain interpret smells. But in 2007, Dr. Fields discovered
that while the brain of a pilot whale had no olfactory nerve whatsoever, it did have nerve zero.
What difference does a whale brain make? Whales long ago evolved to lose the ability to smell,
their noses becoming blowholes. And yet, though whales no longer have neural hardware for smell,
they still have nerve zero, connecting the whale's blowhole to its brain. Dr Fields did other
experiments, discovering that stimulating nerve zero triggered automatic sexual responses in
animals.

Dr. Fields, along with many others, now believe that cranial nerve zero may be responsible for
translating the signals of sex pheromones and initiating reproductive behavior. In other words,
cranial nerve zero may be the bio-machinery for desire.

A Potent Cocktail

Pheromones may act as a kind of stoplight for sexual desire. They let us know that we're good
to go, but they certainly don't work alone. Regardless what turned it on, something's still got to be
driving the car. It turns out to be an intoxicating mix of hormones and neurochemicals firing in the
brain.

That "hot-button sex region" mentioned by Dr. Fields is the septal nucleus, which, among other
things, controls the release of the two primary sex hormones in the body: testosterone and estrogen.
Both hormones are essential in the process of desire. Scientists know this, because as men grow
older, they tend to lose testosterone and, as a result, develop erection and libido problems. Women
also lose testosterone as they age. However, due to poor results from tests involving testosterone
administration in women with a loss of sexual desire, scientists now believe that a combination of
testosterone and estrogen is the ultimate "love hormone."
 Estrogen and testosterone, in turn, stimulate neurochemicals in the brain — specifically,
dopamine, serotonin, norapenephine and oxytocin. Dr. Craig Malkin, a clinical psychologist who
is currently writing a book about how we control desire, noted that the power of this neurochemical
cocktail can be potent. "The combination of neurochemicals triggers dizzying feelings of
excitement, euphoria, and passion," he said. "Some brain imaging studies show a similarity
between neural activity in subjects with obsessive-compulsive disorder and those who are falling
in love." Love — or at least desire — literally drives you crazy. How? What are these chemicals
actually doing?

• Dopamine - Dopamine has mostly been studied in the context of drug addiction.
Essentially, it's the neurotransmitter that makes external stimuli arousing. Dopamine trains you to
associate the feeling of being satiated and pleasured with certain things. In the case of sexual desire,
dopamine is released in the brain whenever you encounter something to which or someone to
whom you're attracted.

• Serotonin - Serotonin is similar to dopamine; it is a neurotransmitter that teaches your

body a cycle of desire and satisfaction.

• Norapenephrine - Usually, this neurotransmitter is stimulated when we need extra energy

to escape a dangerous or scary situation. But it also tends to increase during masturbation and sex,
peaking at orgasm and then declining.

• Oxytocin Oxytocin has been called the "cuddle hormone." It is believed to play an essential
role in parent-child bonding and in partner formation. A 1992 study by the National Institute of
Mental Health of the prairie vole — an animal known for being firmly monogamous — showed
that when forming a bond with a mate, the vole's brain releases a rush of oxytocin. Even more
telling, when oxytocin is blocked, the vole can’t make a connection at all. Oxytocin doesn't cause
arousal, but it may be part of the overall drive that is desire. According to Dr. Malkin, it "relaxes
our guard and deepens trust."

Various studies through the years have shown that all of these neurochemicals and more
(including epinephrine, alpha melanocyte polypeptide, phenethylamine, and gonadotropins), are in
one way or another involved in sexual desire. But when it comes down to it, it's pretty much
impossible to isolate any one mechanism. It's helpful to take a small step back to see why.

Mysteries of Desire

When the technology to look at brain activity during sexual stimulation became available,
scientists expected it to show a fairly straight path from visual recognition to emotional/sexual
interest. And yet the brain-imaging studies done by Stephanie Ortigue and Francesco
BianchiDemicheli in 2007 showed that sexual desire creates an incredibly intricate and non-linear
network of brain activity, including lighting up regions in the brain typically devoted to "higher"
functions, such as self-awareness and understanding others, prior to lighting up the more
straightforward physical-response sections. It all happens incredibly fast and often below the radar
of consciousness. In many cases, people do not even seem to know what turns them on.

Attempting a scientific explanation of desire is a murky business: Ortigue and

BianciDemicheli's study revealed more complexity. The interaction of neurochemicals involved in
desire is dense and convoluted. And the mechanics of what may turn out to be the most essential
element of desire - phermones and cranial nerve zero - still remains unclear. All of this confusion
does help to explain why treatment methods for loss of libido seem at best haphazard and often
ineffective. In many cases, placebos tend to work just as well as the real thing. [If you're interested,
yes, Viagra works, but it doesn't actually affect desire; it affects arousal, an entirely different bodily
mechanism (and a whole other discussion)].

Maybe the confusion isn't so bad. What's nice about the inability of science to fully unravel
this mystery is that it keeps some of the magic of love and desire alive. After all, if desire was a
thing known, perhaps it would no longer be a thing to keep us going. Perhaps without the
uncertainty, we wouldn't have had Adam and Eve, or the Sorrows of Young Werther, or Titanic.
So perhaps it's best not to know after all.

THE DIGITAL
SELF: Self and other
in cyberspace
Submitted by:
 Baoanan, Elaizza

Biscocho, Mary Bless Amaina

Coreaje, Camille

Garcesa, Kate Michelle

Gordoncillo, Ronn

Omalin, Rizza

Submitted to:

Prof. Constantino

References:

Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal
individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin,
104, 3-22.

Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1985). Aspects of self, and the control of behavior. In B. R.
Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 146-174). New York: McGraw-Hill.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in
everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979- 995.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Hogan, R., & Briggs, S. R. (1986). A socioanalytic interpretation of the public and the private
selves. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private life (pp. 179- 188). New York:
SpringerVerlag.

Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and
twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B.E. (1994). Self-presentation can be hazardous
to your health: Impression management and health risk. Health Psychology, 13, 461-470.

Ringer, R. J. (1973). Winning through intimidation. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Publishing.

Sharp, M. J., & Getz, J. G. (1996). Substance use as impression management. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 60-67.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression

regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168.

Tedeschi, J. T. & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R.
Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293-322). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wolfson (2010). The Chemistry and Chimera of Desire.

http://www.healthline.com/healthy/whatis-desire.

Zaryn Dentzel . “How the Internet Has Changed Everyday Life”.

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/internet-changed-everyday-life/

https://slideplayer.com/slide/6142770/ https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-

psychology/self/self-presentation
CHAPTER 07 SELF-PRESENTATION

PDFhttps://faculty.washington.edu › jdb › 45...

Impression Management in Social Media: The Example of LinkedIn

PDFwww.fm-kp.si › zalozba › ISSN

(PDF) Impression Management in Social Media - ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net

› publication