Strategic self-presentation on Facebook: Personal motives and audience response to online behavior

Highlights

• We examine a model for self-presentation on Facebook.

• We link achievement motivation, self-presentation goals, online behavior & response.

• Performance goals are associated with increased online self-enhancement, not self-derogation.

• Self-enhancement and self-derogation may be effective for increasing online feedback.

Abstract

People have always been concerned with their social image and engaged in strategic self-presentation (Goffman, 1959), but the growth of social networking sites (SNS) has had a major influence on such social endeavors. When people choose how to present themselves online, they use strategies and make choices that influence the liking and respect they receive from others. We examine a model that links: (a) motives for self-presentation, (b) actual online behavior on Facebook, and (c) feedback: social network members' responses (“likes,” comments). One hundred and fifty-six undergraduates (37 males, 119 females, mean age = 24.5) reported on their last three Facebook status updates (468 status updates overall). Based on structural equation modeling, we found that performance goals predict increased levels of self-enhancement on Facebook and increased levels of social feedback – “likes” and comments by others. Mastery goals do not predict increased levels of self-derogation (posting negative contents about self), but those who do choose to derogate also receive increased numbers of “likes” and comments from their network friends.

Introduction

People have always been concerned with their social image and with strategic self-presentation (Goffman, 1959). Modern technology developments and the growth of social networking sites (SNS) have had a major influence on such social endeavors (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012). In the current era, individuals are expected to create and maintain their own unique personal identities. As private and professional identities converge (Ramarajan, 2014, Ramarajan and Reid, 2013), we constantly present ourselves online in various roles. What was in the past unique to public figures or celebrities – broadcasting messages to a large audience and therefore using intensive one-to-many self-presentation (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013, Schau and Gilly, 2003) – is now the norm for individuals. Facebook is the most popular SNS today, with 1276 million active monthly users who account for 51% of total Internet users worldwide (Statista, 2014).

When people choose how to present themselves online, they use strategies that influence the liking and respect they receive from others (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). Building on research on the link between Facebook use and personality (Back et al., 2010, Gosling et al., 2011, Mehdizadeh, 2010, Seidman, 2013, Winter et al., 2014), and on online self-presentation (Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012, Seidman, 2013, Wilson et al., 2012), we examine the relationship between: (a) motives for self-presentation, (b) actual online self-presentation on Facebook, and (c) feedback: social network members' responses (“likes,” comments). Specifically, we aim to link individual differences with respect to achievement motivation goals (mastery vs. performance) to online goals (self-enhancement vs. verification), online behavior (enhancement vs. derogation), and consequent online audience responses.

People employ varying self-presentation strategies both during face-to-face interactions and online (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Utilizing online tools to form and maintain relationships is beneficial in bringing those relationships to the “real” world (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002).

The need for self-presentation on Facebook has been found to be related to personality traits such as neuroticism, narcissism, shyness, self-esteem, and self-worth (Marshall et al., 2015, Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012). For example, extroversion and narcissism were found to be reflected by excessive online self-promotion (Gosling et al., 2011). Neuroticism was found to be related to ideal and false self-presentation (Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2014). A significant link was found between some dimensions of narcissism and specific categories of selfies taken by participants (Barry, Doucette, Loflin, Rivera-Hudson, & Herrington, 2015). Spending time on social network site profiles causes young people to endorse positive self-views, sometimes narcissistic ones (Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, & Campbell, 2012).

Research on strategic self-presentation in face-to-face environments has demonstrated that people are more likely to employ self-enhancing presentations in an attempt to make the best possible impression (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). In addition, people attempt to compensate for negative information that is publicly known about them by boosting their self-descriptions on dimensions that are irrelevant to the damaging data (Baumeister, 1982, Baumeister and Jones, 1978). Classic theory of self-presentation describes interactions between people as an attempt to control or guide the impressions they make on others. Goffman argued that, as in theatrical performances, “actors” (individuals) are on stage in front of others, where the positive aspects of self and the desired impressions are highlighted (Goffman, 1959). The desire to increase the positivity and reduce the negativity of self-views is highlighted by self-enhancement theorists (for a review see Leary, 2007). According to this view, people attempt to maintain positive impressions on others (Paulhus et al., 2003, Sedikides, 1993). Online, too, people at times present a “false Facebook-self” that substantially deviates (for the better) from their true image (Gil-Or, Levi-Belz, & Turel, 2015).

As opposed to self-enhancement theory, self-verification theory (e.g., Swann, 1983) assumes that people have a powerful desire to confirm and stabilize their firmly held self-views. This implies that people with negative self-views will seek negative feedback from others with whom they are willing to share negative information about themselves, an action called “self-derogation” (Kaplan, 1975). However, since most people hold positive self-views (Diener & Diener, 1995), even self-verification theorists expect most people to describe themselves in a positive manner while engaging in self-presentation acts (Kwang & Swann, 2010).

Therefore, our first hypothesis is:

H1

When engaging in online self-presentations on Facebook, people will use enhancement strategies more than derogation strategies.

Online communication allows for anonymity and asynchronous communication, which increase control over interactions (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). This, in turn, may allow “one to express one's true mind, or authentic self” (Spears & Lea, 1994, p.430; Stone, 1996). Communicating anonymously online may not involve the increased vulnerability that usually follows self-disclosure of personal information (Ben-Ze’ev, 2003). Even when people interact non-anonymously online, they often still feel relatively unidentifiable (Amichai-Hamburger, 2005, Joinson, 2001, Misoch, 2015).

Therefore, while most evidence supports the notion that self-idealization or self-promotional content are more prevalent online than in face-to-face interactions (Ellison et al., 2006, Mehdizadeh, 2010), and while our first hypothesis is that people will use enhancement strategies more than derogation strategies, other work suggests that “true self” or actual personality are also accessible during online interactions (Back et al., 2010, Bargh et al., 2002, Seidman, 2014). As we further explain below, here we propose that individual differences with respect to basic achievement motivation goals are likely to drive consequent differences in online self-presentation.

Achievement motivation goals are conceptualized as the purpose or the cognitive-dynamic focus of competence-related behavior, and have generally been categorized into two goal types: mastery goals and performance goals. Although achievement motivation theory was originally developed in the area of academic learning, it has been broadly expanded and proven relevant across a wide range of other environments and includes research that has demonstrated the effects of mastery and performance goals on employees at work (de Lange, Van Yperen, Van der Heijden, & Bal, 2010), research in the area of negotiation (Bereby-Meyer, Moran & Unger-Aviram, 2004; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2007), and more.

People with mastery goals endorse the implicit belief that ability is malleable (i.e., incremental theorists Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and are thus concerned with developing their competence. People with performance goals, in contrast, believe that ability is fixed (i.e., entity theorists), and are thus primarily concerned with demonstrating their competence relative to others (Dweck, 1986, Elliot and Murayama, 2008). Accordingly, we hypothesize that mastery-oriented individuals who engage in self-presentation online will be motivated to reveal their inner “true-self” or an image that is not necessarily “perfect” in order to receive candid feedback from their network audience and perhaps learn from it. In contrast, we expect individuals who are dominantly performance-oriented to engage in more self-promotional, “ideal self” presentation acts, which present them as positive, successful, and competent individuals.

Consistent with the above rationale, an existing framework for online self-presentation conjectures that some individuals are motivated to present themselves in a positive and socially desirable manner, i.e., employing self-enhancement, while others are motived to present themselves in a manner that confirms their own positive and negative views of themselves, i.e., employing self-verification (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). These two self-presentation motives have received extensive empirical support. (For theory on self-enhancement see: Sedikides, 1993. For self-verification, see: Kwang and Swann, 2010, Swann, 1983.)

These varying achievement motivation goals (e.g., “I want to learn vs. I want to do better than others”), may in turn reflect different self-presentation motives (e.g., “this is my true life” vs. “my life is perfect”). The link between achievement motivation and self-presentation is well documented. Some define and assess performance-based goals in terms of self-presentation per se – i.e., concerns about how we appear to others (Harackiewicz et al., 2002, Paulhus and Trapnell, 2008).

Therefore, our second hypothesis is as follows:

H2

Individuals with performance achievement goals will adopt enhancement motivation for online self-presentation, while individuals driven by mastery achievement goals will adopt verification motivation for online self-presentation.

Self-enhancers selectively attend to and promote information that has favorable self-implications and avoid information that has negative self-implications (Paulhus et al., 2003, Sedikides, 1993). In social networks, enhancers will selectively choose only positive life events and favorable personal information to share with their social network friends.

In contrast, self-verification drives people to seek affirmation of their pre-existing self-concept (Kwang and Swann, 2010, Swann, 1983). Notably, self-verification can entail presenting both positive and negative aspects of the self. The key difference between verification and enhancement relates to the readiness to present negative self-information in the former.

When evaluating behavior (in our case Facebook status updates) the motives underlying the specific behavior are not readily available. For example, when a person posts a positive self-presentation, we do not know if this post is motivated by the need to self-enhance or the need to self-verify. Since positive verification and enhancement are expressed similarly in terms of online behavior, when evaluating verification behavior, we chose to focus only on instances of negative verification. As mentioned above, conveying negatively valued self-attributes and behaviors is termed “self-derogation” (Kaplan, 1975). Assuming that there is a direct link between self-presentation motives and actual online self-presentation, our third hypothesis is as follows:

H3

People with self-enhancement vs. verification motives will post more self-promoting than self-derogating statuses on Facebook.

When engaging in self-presentation, we typically consider our audience and speculate about their response. We constantly evaluate ourselves, often by searching for external feedback (Goffman, 1959). When we post a status on Facebook, we are soon able to know in a measurable way exactly how many people from our social network “liked” our status or commented on it, and we use the “like” and comment mechanisms as a personal feedback system (Lee, Kim, & Ahn, 2014).

Self-derogation is usually considered a deviant behavior that may lead to negative social consequences such as social rejection or decreased levels of liking and respect (Kaplan, 1975, Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). However, some evidence exists that self-derogation may not always result in negative consequences, and that self-enhancement is not always favorable. For example, subjects who engaged in self-enhancement and subsequently underperformed in an actual task were seen as boastful and received low evaluations from other participants (Schlenker & Leary, 1982).

Research on audience response to online self-presentation is relatively limited, but some interesting relevant findings do exist. Recent work, for example, found that the extent to which online content evokes emotional arousal (both positive and negative) predicts the virality, i.e., the social transmission, of the content (Berger & Milkman, 2010). The notion that online contagion exists both for positive and negative online contents is further supported in a study by Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock (2014). Another study linking between the “Big 5” questionnaire and Facebook “likes” found that two different personality attributes, openness and neuroticism, led to a higher number of “likes” (Bachrach, Kosinski, Graepel, Kohli, & Stillwell, 2012). While the neuroticism finding may be surprising, one possible explanation may be that neuroticism can lead to sharing emotionally arousing negative information, which in turn stimulates audience response and display of social support (i.e., “likes”). Recent findings on enhancement and verification in close relationships (not online) also confirm that verification/derogation can lead to positive social consequences; verification regarding relationship-peripheral traits was found to reduce negative emotional responses to couples' daily conflicts (Seidman & Burke, 2015).

Consequently, although it is commonly agreed that enhancement leads to social approval, whereas verification/derogation is often deemed a nonfunctional social behavior, we suggest that in light of the occurrence of online emotional contagion, derogation may also evoke increased social feedback. Therefore, our next hypotheses are:

H4

Online self-enhancement will be positively associated with social feedback (“likes”/comments).

With regard to self-derogation, we propose two competing hypotheses:

H5a

Online self-derogation will be positively associated with decreased levels of social feedback (“likes”/comments).

H5b

Online self-derogation will be positively associated with increased levels of social feedback (“likes”/comments).

In the current work, we propose a model that links achievement motivation goals (mastery vs. performance) to online goals (enhancement vs. verification), online behavior (enhancement vs. derogation), and consequent audience responses. See Fig. 1 to review the proposed models, with Model A reflecting H5a and Model B reflecting H5b.