online self presentation examples

A Simple Way to Introduce Yourself

by Andrea Wojnicki

Summary .   

Many of us dread the self-introduction, be it in an online meeting or at the boardroom table. Here is a practical framework you can leverage to introduce yourself with confidence in any context, online or in-person: Present, past, and future. You can customize this framework both for yourself as an individual and for the specific context. Perhaps most importantly, when you use this framework, you will be able to focus on others’ introductions, instead of stewing about what you should say about yourself.

You know the scenario. It could be in an online meeting, or perhaps you are seated around a boardroom table. The meeting leader asks everyone to briefly introduce themselves. Suddenly, your brain goes into hyperdrive. What should I say about myself?

Partner Center

• Personality

Self-Presentation in the Digital World

Do traditional personality theories predict digital behaviour.

Posted August 31, 2021 | Reviewed by Chloe Williams

• What Is Personality?
• Take our Agreeableness Test
• Find a therapist near me
• Personality theories can help explain real-world differences in self-presentation behaviours but they may not apply to online behaviours.
• In the real world, women have higher levels of behavioural inhibition tendencies than men and are more likely to avoid displeasing others.
• Based on this assumption, one would expect women to present themselves less on social media, but women tend to use social media more than men.

Digital technology allows people to construct and vary their self-identity more easily than they can in the real world. This novel digital- personality construction may, or may not, be helpful to that person in the long run, but it is certainly more possible than it is in the real world. Yet how this relates to "personality," as described by traditional personality theories, is not really known. Who will tend to manipulate their personality online, and would traditional personality theories predict these effects? A look at what we do know about gender differences in the real and digital worlds suggests that many aspects of digital behaviour may not conform to the expectations of personality theories developed for the real world.

Half a century ago, Goffman suggested that individuals establish social identities by employing self-presentation tactics and impression management . Self-presentational tactics are techniques for constructing or manipulating others’ impressions of the individual and ultimately help to develop that person’s identity in the eyes of the world. The ways other people react are altered by choosing how to present oneself – that is, self-presentation strategies are used for impression management . Others then uphold, shape, or alter that self-image , depending on how they react to the tactics employed. This implies that self-presentation is a form of social communication, by which people establish, maintain, and alter their social identity.

These self-presentational strategies can be " assertive " or "defensive." 1 Assertive strategies are associated with active control of the person’s self-image; and defensive strategies are associated with protecting a desired identity that is under threat. In the real world, the use of self-presentational tactics has been widely studied and has been found to relate to many behaviours and personalities 2 . Yet, despite the enormous amounts of time spent on social media , the types of self-presentational tactics employed on these platforms have not received a huge amount of study. In fact, social media appears to provide an ideal opportunity for the use of self-presentational tactics, especially assertive strategies aimed at creating an identity in the eyes of others.

Seeking to Experience Different Types of Reward

Social media allows individuals to present themselves in ways that are entirely reliant on their own behaviours – and not on factors largely beyond their ability to instantly control, such as their appearance, gender, etc. That is, the impression that the viewer of the social media post receives is dependent, almost entirely, on how or what another person posts 3,4 . Thus, the digital medium does not present the difficulties for individuals who wish to divorce the newly-presented self from the established self. New personalities or "images" may be difficult to establish in real-world interactions, as others may have known the person beforehand, and their established patterns of interaction. Alternatively, others may not let people get away with "out of character" behaviours, or they may react to their stereotype of the person in front of them, not to their actual behaviours. All of which makes real-life identity construction harder.

Engaging in such impression management may stem from motivations to experience different types of reward 5 . In terms of one personality theory, individuals displaying behavioural approach tendencies (the Behavioural Activation System; BAS) and behavioural inhibition tendencies (the Behavioural Inhibition System; BIS) will differ in terms of self-presentation behaviours. Those with strong BAS seek opportunities to receive or experience reward (approach motivation ); whereas, those with strong BIS attempt to avoid punishment (avoidance motivation). People who need to receive a lot of external praise may actively seek out social interactions and develop a lot of social goals in their lives. Those who are more concerned about not incurring other people’s displeasure may seek to defend against this possibility and tend to withdraw from people. Although this is a well-established view of personality in the real world, it has not received strong attention in terms of digital behaviours.

Real-World Personality Theories May Not Apply Online

One test bed for the application of this theory in the digital domain is predicted gender differences in social media behaviour in relation to self-presentation. Both self-presentation 1 , and BAS and BIS 6 , have been noted to show gender differences. In the real world, women have shown higher levels of BIS than men (at least, to this point in time), although levels of BAS are less clearly differentiated between genders. This view would suggest that, in order to avoid disapproval, women will present themselves less often on social media; and, where they do have a presence, adopt defensive self-presentational strategies.

The first of these hypotheses is demonstrably false – where there are any differences in usage (and there are not that many), women tend to use social media more often than men. What we don’t really know, with any certainty, is how women use social media for self-presentation, and whether this differs from men’s usage. In contrast to the BAS/BIS view of personality, developed for the real world, several studies have suggested that selfie posting can be an assertive, or even aggressive, behaviour for females – used in forming a new personality 3 . In contrast, sometimes selfie posting by males is related to less aggressive, and more defensive, aspects of personality 7 . It may be that women take the opportunity to present very different images of themselves online from their real-world personalities. All of this suggests that theories developed for personality in the real world may not apply online – certainly not in terms of putative gender-related behaviours.

We know that social media allows a new personality to be presented easily, which is not usually seen in real-world interactions, and it may be that real-world gender differences are not repeated in digital contexts. Alternatively, it may suggest that these personality theories are now simply hopelessly anachronistic – based on assumptions that no longer apply. If that were the case, it would certainly rule out any suggestion that such personalities are genetically determined – as we know that structure hasn’t changed dramatically in the last 20 years.

1. Lee, S.J., Quigley, B.M., Nesler, M.S., Corbett, A.B., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 701-722.

2. Laghi, F., Pallini, S., & Baiocco, R. (2015). Autopresentazione efficace, tattiche difensive e assertive e caratteristiche di personalità in Adolescenza. Rassegna di Psicologia, 32(3), 65-82.

3. Chua, T.H.H., & Chang, L. (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 190-197.

4. Fox, J., & Rooney, M.C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161-165.

5. Hermann, A.D., Teutemacher, A.M., & Lehtman, M.J. (2015). Revisiting the unmitigated approach model of narcissism: Replication and extension. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 41-45.

6. Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.

7. Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Frackowiak, T., Karwowski, M., Rusicka, I., & Oleszkiewicz, A. (2016). Sex differences in online selfie posting behaviors predict histrionic personality scores among men but not women. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 368-373.

Phil Reed, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Swansea University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

50 Inspiring Examples: Effective Self-Introductions

By Status.net Editorial Team on September 22, 2023 — 19 minutes to read

• Structure of a Good Self-introduction Part 1
• Examples of Self Introductions in a Job Interview Part 2
• Examples of Self Introductions in a Meeting Part 3
• Examples of Casual Self-Introductions in Group Settings Part 4
• Examples of Self-Introductions on the First Day of Work Part 5
• Examples of Good Self Introductions in a Social Setting Part 6
• Examples of Good Self Introductions on Social Media Part 7
• Self-Introductions in a Public Speaking Scenario Part 8
• Name-Role-Achievements Method Template and Examples Part 9
• Past-Present-Future Method Template and Examples Part 10
• Job Application Self-Introduction Email Example Part 11
• Networking Event Self-Introduction Email Example Part 12
• Conference Self-Introduction Email Example Part 13
• Freelance Work Self-Introduction Email Example Part 14
• New Job or Position Self-Introduction Email Example Part 15

Part 1 Structure of a Good Self-introduction

• 1. Greeting and introduction: Start by greeting the person you’re speaking to and introducing yourself. For example, “Hi, my name is Jane. Nice to meet you!”
• 2. Brief personal background: Give a brief overview of your personal background, such as where you’re from or what you do. For example, “I’m originally from California, but I moved to New York a few years ago. I work in marketing for a tech company.” Related: 10 Smart Answers: “Tell Me About Yourself”
• 3. Professional experience: Highlight your relevant professional experience, including your current or previous job titles and any notable achievements. For example, “I’ve been working in marketing for about 5 years now, and I’m currently a Senior Marketing Manager at my company. Last year, I led a successful campaign that resulted in a 20% increase in sales.” Related: How to Describe Yourself (Best Examples for Job Interviews)
• 4. Skills and strengths: Mention any skills or strengths that are relevant to the conversation or the situation you’re in. For example, “I’m really passionate about data analysis and using insights to inform marketing strategy. I’m also a strong communicator and enjoy collaborating with cross-functional teams.” Related: 195 Positive Words to Describe Yourself [with Examples] 35 Smart Answers to “What Are Your Strengths?” What Are Your Strengths And Weaknesses? (Answers & Strategies)
• 5. Personal interests: Wrap up your self-introduction by mentioning a few personal interests or hobbies, which can help to humanize you and make you more relatable. For example, “In my free time, I love hiking and exploring new trails. I’m also a big fan of trying out new restaurants and cooking at home.”
• Related: Core Values List: 150+ Awesome Examples of Personal Values Best Examples of “Fun Facts About Me” What Are Your Values? How to Discover Your Values

Part 2 Examples of Good Self Introductions in a Job Interview

Try to cover these aspects:

• Current or most recent position/job
• A relevant accomplishment or strength
• Why you are excited about the company or role

Templates and Scripts

“Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I recently worked as a [Your Most Recent Position] at [Company/Organization]. I successfully managed a team of [Number] members, achieving a [Relevant Accomplishment or Growth]. I’m excited about the opportunity at [Interviewer’s Company] because [Reason Why You’re Interested].”

“Hi, I’m [Your Name], a [Current Job Title or Major Accomplishment]. I’m passionate about [Relevant Industry or Skillset] and have a proven track record of [Specific Result or Achievement]. I believe my skills and experience make me well-suited for this role at [Company], and I’m excited to explore how I can contribute to [Company Goal or Project].”

“Hi, my name is Jane Doe, and I’m the Assistant Marketing Manager at ABC Corp. I recently implemented a successful social media campaign, which increased engagement by 30%. I’m thrilled about the possibility of working with XYZ Inc. because of your innovative marketing strategies.”

“Hello, I’m John Smith, a financial analyst with five years of experience in the banking industry. I’ve consistently exceeded sales targets and helped my team win an award for excellent customer service. I’m excited to join DEF Ltd. because of your focus on sustainable and responsible investing.”

Try to tailor your introduction to the specific interview situation and always show enthusiasm for the position and company. This will show the interviewer that you are the right fit.

Related: How to Describe Yourself (Best Examples for Job Interviews)

Part 3 Examples of Good Self Introductions in a Meeting

General tips.

• Start with a greeting: Begin with a simple “hello” or “good morning.”
• State your name clearly: Don’t assume everyone knows you already.
• Mention your role in the company: Help others understand your position.
• Share relevant experience or accomplishments: Give context to your expertise.
• Be brief: Save detailed explanations for later conversations.
• Show enthusiasm: Display interest in the meeting and its objectives.
• Welcome others: Encourage a sense of connection and camaraderie.
• Basic introduction : Hi, I’m [Name], and I work as a [Your Role] in the [Department]. It’s great to meet you all.
• Involvement-focused : Good morning, everyone. I’m [Name], [Your Role]. I handle [Responsibility] in our team, and I’m looking forward to working with you on [Project].
• Experience-based : Hello! My name is [Name] and I’m the [Your Role] here. I’ve [Number of Years] of experience in [Skills or Industry], so I hope to contribute to our discussions during the meeting.
• New team member : Hi, I’m [Name]. I just joined the [Department] team as the new [Your Role]. I have a background in [Relevant Experience] and am excited to start working with you on our projects!
• External consultant : Hello everyone, my name is [Name], and I’m here in my capacity as a [Your Role] with [Your Company]. I specialize in [Skill or Industry], and I’m looking forward to partnering with your team to achieve our goals.
• Guest speaker : Good morning, I’m [Name], a [Your Position] at [Organization]. I have expertise in [Subject], and I’m honored to be here today to share my insights with you.

Related: 10 Smart Answers: “Tell Me About Yourself”

Part 4 Examples of Casual Self-Introductions in Group Settings

Template 1:.

“Hi, I’m [your name], and I’m a [profession or role]. I love [personal hobby or interest].”

“Hi, I’m Emily, and I’m a pediatric nurse. I love gardening and spending my weekends tending to my colorful flower beds.”

“Hello, I’m Mark, and I work as a data analyst. I love reading science fiction novels and discussing the intricacies of the stories with fellow book enthusiasts.”

“Hey there, I’m Jessica, and I’m a chef. I have a passion for traveling and trying new cuisines from around the world, which complements my profession perfectly.”

Template 2:

“Hey everyone, my name is [your name]. I work as a [profession or role], and when I’m not doing that, I enjoy [activity].”

“Hey everyone, my name is Alex. I work as a marketing manager, and when I’m not doing that, I enjoy hiking in the wilderness and capturing the beauty of nature with my camera.”

“Hello, I’m Michael. I work as a software developer, and when I’m not coding, I enjoy playing chess competitively and participating in local tournaments.”

“Hi there, I’m Sarah. I work as a veterinarian, and when I’m not taking care of animals, I enjoy painting landscapes and creating art inspired by my love for wildlife.”

“Hi there! I’m [your name]. I’m currently working as a [profession or role], and I have a passion for [hobby or interest].”

“Hi there! I’m Rachel. I’m currently working as a social worker, and I have a passion for advocating for mental health awareness and supporting individuals on their journeys to recovery.”

“Hello, I’m David. I’m currently working as a financial analyst, and I have a passion for volunteering at local animal shelters and helping rescue animals find their forever homes.”

“Hey, I’m Lisa. I’m currently working as a marine biologist, and I have a passion for scuba diving and exploring the vibrant underwater ecosystems that our oceans hold.”

Related: 195 Positive Words to Describe Yourself [with Examples]

Part 5 Examples of Good Self-Introductions on the First Day of Work

• Simple Introduction : “Hi, my name is [Your name], and I’m the new [Your position] here. I recently graduated from [Your university or institution] and am excited to join the team. I’m looking forward to working with you all.”
• Professional Background : “Hello everyone, I’m [Your name]. I’ve joined as the new [Your position]. With my background in [Your skills or experience], I’m eager to contribute to our projects and learn from all of you. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.”
• Personal Touch : “Hey there! I’m [Your name], and I’ve recently joined as the new [Your position]. On the personal side, I enjoy [Your hobbies] during my free time. I’m looking forward to getting to know all of you and working together.”

Feel free to tweak these scripts as needed to fit your personality and work environment!

Here are some specific examples of self-introductions on the first day of work:

• “Hi, my name is Alex, and I’m excited to be the new Marketing Manager here. I’ve been in the marketing industry for five years and have worked on various campaigns. Outside of work, I love exploring new hiking trails and photography. I can’t wait to collaborate with you all.”
• “Hello, I’m Priya, your new Software Engineer. I graduated from XYZ University with a degree in computer science and have experience in Python, Java, and web development. In my free time, I enjoy playing the guitar and attending live concerts. I’m eager to contribute to our team’s success and learn from all of you.”

Related: Core Values List: 150+ Awesome Examples of Personal Values

Part 6 Examples of Good Self Introductions in a Social Setting

Casual gatherings: “Hi, I’m [Name]. Nice to meet you! I’m a huge fan of [hobby]. How about you, what do you enjoy doing in your free time?”

Networking events: “Hello, I’m [Name] and I work as a [profession] at [company]. I’m excited to learn more about what everyone here does. What brings you here today?”

Parties at a friend’s house: “Hi there, my name is [Name]. I’m a friend of [host’s name] from [work/school/etc]. How do you know [host’s name]?”

• Casual gathering: “Hey, my name is Jane. Great to meet you! I love exploring new coffee shops around the city. What’s your favorite thing to do on weekends?”
• Networking event: “Hi, I’m John, a website developer at XY Technologies. I’m eager to connect with people in the industry. What’s your field of expertise?”
• Party at a friend’s house: “Hello, I’m Laura. I met our host, Emily, in our college photography club. How did you and Emily become friends?”

Related: Best Examples of “Fun Facts About Me”

Part 7 Examples of Good Self Introductions on Social Media

• Keep it brief: Social media is fast-paced, so stick to the essentials and keep your audience engaged.
• Show your personality: Let your audience know who you are beyond your job title or education.
• Include a call-to-action: Encourage your followers to engage with you by asking a question or directing them to your website or other social media profiles.

Template 1: Brief and professional

Hi, I’m [Your Name]. I’m a [Job Title/Field] with a passion for [Interests or Hobbies]. Connect with me to chat about [Subject Matter] or find more of my work at [Website or Social Media Handle].

Template 2: Casual and personal

Hey there! I’m [Your Name] and I love all things [Interest or Hobby]. In my day job, I work as a [Job Title/Field]. Let’s connect and talk about [Shared Interest] or find me on [Other Social Media Platforms]!

Template 3: Skill-focused

Hi, I’m [Your Name], a [Job Title/Field] specializing in [Skills or Expertise]. Excited to network and share insights on [Subject Matter]. Reach out if you need help with [Skill or Topic] or want to discuss [Related Interest]!

Example 1: Brief and professional

Hi, I’m Jane Doe. I’m a Marketing Manager with a passion for photography and blogging. Connect with me to chat about the latest digital marketing trends or find more of my work at jdoephotography.com.

Example 2: Casual and personal

Hey there! I’m John Smith and I love all things coffee and travel. In my day job, I work as a software developer. Let’s connect and talk about adventures or find me on Instagram at @johnsmithontour!

Example 3: Skill-focused

Hi, I’m Lisa Brown, a Graphic Designer specializing in branding and typography. Excited to network and share insights on design. Reach out if you need help with creating visually appealing brand identities or want to discuss minimalistic art!

Part 8 Self-Introductions in a Public Speaking Scenario

• Professional introduction: “Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I have [number of years] of experience working in [your field]. Throughout my career, I have [briefly mention one or two significant accomplishments]. Today, I am excited to share [the main point of your presentation].”
• Casual introduction: “Hey everyone, I’m [Your Name], and I [briefly describe yourself, e.g., your hobbies or interests]. I’m really thrilled to talk to you about [the main point of your presentation]. Let’s dive right into it!”
• Creative introduction: “Imagine [paint a visual with a relevant story]. That’s where my passion began for [the main point of your presentation]. My name is [Your Name], and [mention relevant background/information].”
• Professional introduction: “Hello, my name is Jane Smith, and I have 15 years of experience working in marketing and advertisement. Throughout my career, I have helped companies increase their revenue by up to 50% using creative marketing strategies. Today, I am excited to share my insights in implementing effective social media campaigns.”
• Casual introduction: “Hey everyone, I’m John Doe, and I love hiking and playing the guitar in my free time. I’m really thrilled to talk to you about the impact of music on mental well-being, a topic close to my heart. Let’s dive right into it!”
• Creative introduction: “Imagine standing at the edge of a cliff, looking down at the breathtaking view of nature. That’s where my passion began for landscape photography. My name is Alex Brown, and I’ve been fortunate enough to turn my hobby into a successful career. Today, I’ll share my expertise on capturing stunning images with just a few simple techniques.”

Effective Templates for Self-Introductions

Part 9 name-role-achievements method template and examples.

When introducing yourself, consider using the NAME-ROLE-ACHIEVEMENTS template. Start with your name, then mention the role you’re in, and highlight key achievements or experiences you’d like to share.

“Hello, I’m [Your Name]. I’m currently working as a [Your Current Role/Position] with [Your Current Company/Organization]. Some of my key achievements or experiences include [Highlight 2-3 Achievements or Experiences].”

“Hello, I’m Sarah Johnson. I’m a Senior Software Engineer with over 10 years of experience in the tech industry. Some of my key achievements include leading a cross-functional team to develop a groundbreaking mobile app that garnered over 5 million downloads and receiving the ‘Tech Innovator of the Year’ award in 2020.”

“Hi there, my name is [Your Name]. I serve as a [Your Current Role] at [Your Current Workplace]. In my role, I’ve had the opportunity to [Describe What You Do]. One of my proudest achievements is [Highlight a Significant Achievement].”

“Hi there, my name is David Martinez. I currently serve as the Director of Marketing at XYZ Company. In my role, I’ve successfully executed several high-impact marketing campaigns, resulting in a 30% increase in brand visibility and a 15% boost in revenue last year.”

Template 3:

“Greetings, I’m [Your Name]. I hold the position of [Your Current Role] at [Your Current Company]. With [Number of Years] years of experience in [Your Industry], I’ve had the privilege of [Mention a Notable Experience].”

“Greetings, I’m Emily Anderson. I hold the position of Senior Marketing Manager at BrightStar Solutions. With over 8 years of experience in the technology and marketing industry, I’ve had the privilege of spearheading the launch of our flagship product, which led to a 40% increase in market share within just six months.”

Part 10 Past-Present-Future Method Template and Examples

Another template is the PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE method, where you talk about your past experiences, your current situation, and your future goals in a concise and engaging manner.

“In the past, I worked as a [Your Previous Role] where I [Briefly Describe Your Previous Role]. Currently, I am [Your Current Role] at [Your Current Workplace], where I [Briefly Describe Your Current Responsibilities]. Looking to the future, my goal is to [Your Future Aspirations].”

“In the past, I worked as a project manager at ABC Corporation, where I oversaw the successful delivery of multiple complex projects, each on time and within budget. Currently, I’m pursuing an MBA degree to enhance my business acumen and leadership skills. Looking to the future, my goal is to leverage my project management experience and MBA education to take on more strategic roles in the company and contribute to its long-term growth.”

“In my earlier career, I [Describe Your Past Career Experience]. Today, I’m [Your Current Role] at [Your Current Company], where I [Discuss Your Current Contributions]. As I look ahead, I’m excited to [Outline Your Future Plans and Aspirations].”

“In my previous role as a software developer, I had the opportunity to work on cutting-edge technologies, including AI and machine learning. Today, I’m a data scientist at XYZ Labs, where I analyze large datasets to extract valuable insights. In the future, I aspire to lead a team of data scientists and contribute to groundbreaking research in the field of artificial intelligence.”

“During my previous role as a [Your Previous Role], I [Discuss a Relevant Past Achievement or Experience]. Now, I am in the position of [Your Current Role] at [Your Current Company], focusing on [Describe Your Current Focus]. My vision for the future is to [Share Your Future Goals].”

“During my previous role as a Sales Associate at Maplewood Retail, I consistently exceeded monthly sales targets by fostering strong customer relationships and providing exceptional service. Now, I am in the position of Assistant Store Manager at Hillside Emporium, where I focus on optimizing store operations and training the sales team to deliver outstanding customer experiences. My vision for the future is to continue growing in the retail industry and eventually take on a leadership role in multi-store management.”

Examples of Self-introduction Emails

Part 11 job application self-introduction email example.

Subject: Introduction from [Your Name] – [Job Title] Application

Dear [Hiring Manager’s Name],

I am writing to introduce myself and express my interest in the [Job Title] position at [Company Name]. My name is [Your Name], and I am a [Your Profession] with [Number of Years] of experience in the field.

I am impressed with [Company Name]’s reputation for [Company’s Achievements or Mission]. I am confident that my skills and experience align with the requirements of the job, and I am excited about the opportunity to contribute to the company’s success.

Please find my resume attached for your review. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss my qualifications further and learn more about the position. Thank you for considering my application.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

Related: Get More Interviews: Follow Up on Job Applications (Templates)

Part 12 Networking Event Self-Introduction Email Example

Subject: Introduction from [Your Name]

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I hope this email finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am excited to introduce myself to you. I am currently working as a [Your Profession] and have been in the field for [Number of Years]. I am attending the [Networking Event Name] event next week and I am hoping to meet new people and expand my network.

I am interested in learning more about your work and experience in the industry. Would it be possible to schedule a quick call or meeting during the event to chat further?

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Best regards, [Your Name]

Part 13 Conference Self-Introduction Email Example

Subject: Introduction from [Your Name] – [Conference or Event Name]

I am excited to introduce myself to you as a fellow attendee of [Conference or Event Name]. My name is [Your Name], and I am a [Your Profession or Industry].

I am looking forward to the conference and the opportunity to network with industry experts like yourself. I am particularly interested in [Conference or Event Topics], and I would love to discuss these topics further with you.

If you have some free time during the conference, would you be interested in meeting up for coffee or lunch? I would love to learn more about your experience and insights in the industry.

Part 14 Freelance Work Self-Introduction Email Example

Subject: Introduction from [Your Name] – Freelance Writer

Dear [Client’s Name],

My name is [Your Name], and I am a freelance writer with [Number of Years] of experience in the industry. I came across your website and was impressed by the quality of your content and the unique perspective you offer.

I am writing to introduce myself and express my interest in working with you on future projects. I specialize in [Your Writing Niche], and I believe my skills and experience would be a great fit for your content needs.

Please find my portfolio attached for your review. I would love to discuss your content needs further and explore how we can work together to achieve your goals. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Part 15 New Job or Position Self-Introduction Email Example

Subject: Introduction from [Your Name] – New [Job Title or Position]

Dear [Team or Department Name],

I am excited to introduce myself as the new [Job Title or Position] at [Company Name]. My name is [Your Name], and I am looking forward to working with all of you.

I have [Number of Years] of experience in the industry and have worked on [Your Achievements or Projects]. I am excited to bring my skills and experience to the team and contribute to the company’s success.

I would love to schedule some time to meet with each of you and learn more about your role in the company and how we can work together. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to meeting all of you soon.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can you create a powerful self-introduction script for job interviews.

To make a strong impression in job interviews, prepare a script that includes:

• Your name and current role or profession.
• Relevant past experiences and accomplishments.
• Personal skills or attributes relevant to the job.
• A brief mention of your motivation for applying.
• An engaging statement that connects your aspirations with the role or company.

How can students present a captivating self-introduction in class?

For an engaging self-introduction in class, consider mentioning:

• Your name and major.
• Where you’re from or something unique about your upbringing.
• Hobbies, interests, or extracurricular activities.
• An interesting fact or anecdote about yourself.
• Your academic or career goals and how they connect to the class.

What are tips for introducing yourself to a new team at work?

When introducing yourself to a new team at work, consider the following tips:

• Be friendly, respectful, and approachable.
• Start with your name and role, then briefly describe your responsibilities.
• Mention your background, skills, and relevant experiences.
• Share a personal interest or fun fact to add a personal touch.
• Express how excited you are to be part of the team and your desire to collaborate effectively.

How do you structure a self-introduction in English for various scenarios?

Regardless of the scenario, a well-structured self-introduction includes:

• Greeting and stating your name.
• Mentioning your role, profession, or status.
• Providing brief background information or relevant experiences.
• Sharing a personal touch or unique attribute.
• Concluding with an engaging statement, relevant to the context, that shows your enthusiasm or interest.
• Self Evaluation Examples [Complete Guide]
• 42 Adaptability Self Evaluation Comments Examples
• 40 Competency Self-Evaluation Comments Examples
• 45 Productivity Self Evaluation Comments Examples
• How to Live By Your Values
• 20+ Core Values Examples for Travel & Accommodation

Daring Leadership Institute: a groundbreaking partnership that amplifies Brené Brown's empirically based, courage-building curriculum with BetterUp’s human transformation platform.

What is Coaching?

Types of Coaching

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Find your coach

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Impression management: Developing your self-presentation skills

Jump to section

What is impression management?

Examples of impression management, the theory behind impression management, impression management in the workplace, 7 impression management techniques, noticing the practice of impression management.

How much is a first impression worth?

We all know the value of a strong first impression, but not many of us know how to strategically go about creating one . Instead, we tend to cultivate two different personas. There’s our relaxed self, when we don’t feel like we have to impress. And then there are the times when we’re “on,” and we become deliberate about every word we say and move we make.

Social media has made us even more aware of the power of our personas. And that doesn’t mean that we have to be inauthentic. Understanding impression management can help us emphasize the qualities that we want to shine through and how to be more at ease with others.

Canadian social psychologist, sociologist, and writer Erving Goffman first presented the idea of impression management in the 1950s. In his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , Goffman uses the idea of theatre as a metaphor for human social interactions.

His theory became known as Goffman's dramaturgical analysis. It provides an interesting contextual framework for understanding human behavior.

Impression management is the sum total of actions we take — both consciously and unconsciously — to influence how others perceive us. We often attempt to manage how people see us to make us more likely to achieve our goals.

People use impression management to align how we’re seen with what we want. In general, we want other people to think of us as confident, likeable, intelligent, capable, interesting, and any number of other positive traits.

We then “adjust” our behavior to exhibit these characteristics to meet a desired goal. This is closely related to the self-presentation theory — and in fact, the two ideas are often used interchangeably.

If you’ve ever seen the musical Chicago, you’re familiar with the idea of impression management.

Our client, Roxie Hart, was an ambitious adulterer — a persona that wouldn’t have made her too sympathetic to the jury during her murder trial. Instead, she and her lawyer carefully curated a set of behaviors, actions, and even a backstory that made her seem more likeable and naive. 

This impression management strategy culminated in the song, “ They Both Reached for the Gun .” Her lawyer, Billy Flynn, stepped in to manage every part of her presentation to the court, emphasizing that Roxie would only have fired a gun in self-defense.

Outside of the Cook County jail, people use impression management strategies in all kinds of ways. Here are some examples you might have experienced in the workplace: 

• A person is walking into a meeting. They’ve had a rough morning and an even rougher commute. But they smile broadly and wave at each person as they walk in, hiding their bad mood and exhaustion. To all watching, they’re happy to be here.
• You’ve been working in your pajamas all day amongst a pile of paperwork and cookie crumbs. Before joining the afternoon Zoom call, you brush your hair, throw on a clean shirt, and dust the crumbs off the sofa.
• A candidate arrives for their job interview several minutes late. “So sorry,” they say breathlessly. “I was here early, but I got sent to the wrong office.”

What’s the point of this duplicity? 

Well, it might not be all that inauthentic . Despite a rough morning, the first person might genuinely be thrilled to be at work — or might be trying to salvage the day. You might be extremely punctual and just ended up in the wrong place. And it’s totally possible you have no idea how those cookies got there.

On both conscious and unconscious levels, we’re aware that in different situations, we need to emphasize different aspects of our personality and behavior. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t true, just that they’re hidden (under a layer of cookie dust). We tend to engage in a constant, quiet self-monitoring that makes us aware of behaviors that don’t align with how we want to be seen. 

Awareness of these internal contradictions is known as cognitive dissonance . It’s the sense of psychological discomfort that we feel when we’re doing something that contradicts our beliefs or values. We typically resolve cognitive dissonance by taking an action that’s better aligned with our beliefs, or by changing our beliefs to justify our behavior.

So in the above examples, we smile, clean up, or apologize because we want to emphasize our good nature, professionalism, and punctuality. We curate these behaviors to try to control the impressions others have of us. 

Over time, the behaviors (and feedback we get based on those behaviors) inform our self-concepts. We begin to believe that we are the face that we’re putting out to the world, and to a large extent we are.

After all, a tree makes a sound if it falls in the forest, even if no one is around to hear it. But it’s hard to understand the impact of the sound — or put it into context — without an audience.

Goffman explained impression management theory using theatre as a metaphor. Our behavior in a given setting is based on three components: motives , self-presentation , and social context .

We adapt our behaviors as a means to an end. We might want to seem more likeable, competent, or attractive. The qualities we decide to emphasize are the ones that we believe are in line with the outcome we want.

If you pay attention to people’s behavior across different settings, you can often guess what they want to accomplish. The behaviors and qualities they “play up” will clue you into the goal. 

Self-presentation

Self-presentation falls into two main categories: actions that are aligned with your self-image, and actions that align with the expectations of the “audience.” When people respond positively to the projected self, it has a positive impact on our self-esteem. 

This effect is multiplied when the desired image feels congruent with the audience’s expectations. In other words, when people feel like they can bring their whole selves to the “performance,” and that self is welcomed and rewarded, they feel great about themselves. In the workplace, these individuals have higher job satisfaction, a sense of belonging , and increased retention.

Social context

Our public image is also closely tied to how we conduct ourselves in social situations. We inform our understanding of acceptable and unacceptable (and by extension, desirable and undesirable) behavior according to context and social norms.

When we’re successful in making the desired impressions on a group, we feel good about our social standing.

Impression management is a very important skill to have in the workplace. It affects your social influence at work, or — in other words — how others perceive you and your company. 

How organizations use impression management

Organizations use it for both internal and external purposes. Internally, companies want to be seen by the industry as a good place to work. They want to appear organized, capable, supportive, and financially stable. Impression management is closely related to company culture. 

Organizations also use impression management for external purposes. This might include communications with clients, partners, or investors. Managing the positive and negative impression a company has on the general public is usually called public relations or marketing.

Impression management in interviews

The classic scenario of impression management in the workplace is the job interview. Candidates and interviewers alike feel compelled to try to look “perfect.” This means coming across as “authentically perfect” — that is, pleasant, competent, and yet not so perfect as to seem disingenuous.  

Interviews also involve quite a bit of self-promotion. Although self-promotion gets a bit of a bad rep, it’s often the best way for a company to find out about a candidate's skills and experience. This kind of self-promotion can help a candidate leave a positive impression on a prospective employer or client.

Note that this is only true when self-promotion is based in honesty. Lying about your skills or competencies doesn’t earn you any ingratiation points.

Interpersonal impression management

Another common use of impression management at work is building relationships with your colleagues. People usually have a work “persona,” which encompasses a range of behaviors, wardrobe choices, and even topics of conversation. 

While we all shift our behavior to suit different contexts, many feel the shift that happens at work acutely. This is because of the pressure and high value placed on social capital at work, which often compounds other issues of belonging. This kind of impression management is called code-switching .

Impression management techniques can be used in a variety of situations, from job interviews to networking events. Even if it happens unconsciously, we tend to match our behavior and techniques to the situation. According to Goffman, there are 7 different types of impression management tactics we use to control how others perceive us: conformity , excuses , acclaim , flattery , self-promotion , favors , and association .

1. Conformity

Conformity means being accepted by a larger group. In order to conform, you have to (implicitly or explicitly) uphold the social norms and expectations of the group.

Group norms are the behaviors that are considered appropriate for a situation or in a particular set of people. For example, if your job may have a business-casual dress code, so cut-off jeans would feel out-of-place.

Excuses are explanations for a negative event given in order to avoid (or lessen) punishment and judgment. There are countless examples of excuses being made — in and out of the workplace. For example, you might hear people blame traffic when they’re late to meetings.  

Generally speaking, you can only count on but so much social favor with excuses and apologies. Once you make an excuse, you’ve given up a little bit of authority in the situations. Do this too often, and you’ll be seen as unreliable or as a perpetual victim .

That being said, traffic, setbacks, and emergencies really do happen. Communicating these changes proactively can go a long way towards building rapport — especially if you show you’re willing to work through it. 

Public recognition of someone’s accomplishments often goes a long way towards building rapport. When you acclaim someone in this way, you applaud them for their skills and success. If your team is recognition-driven, this sentiment will likely inspire others to work hard as well. It can help incentivize specific behaviors.

4. Flattery

Flattery is a technique often used to improve your relationship with someone through compliments. It’s meant to make you seem agreeable, perceptive, and pleasant. After all, who wouldn’t want to spend time with someone who always has something positive to say about them?

As with the other techniques — if not even more so — flattery can easily come across as insincere. Anchor flattering comments in specific praise, and try not to go overboard. It can be helpful to develop self-awareness and ask yourself why you’re piling it on. Are you truly impressed, or are you feeling a little insecure?

5. Self-promotion

Self-promotion is about highlighting your strengths and drawing attention to your achievements. This phenomenon is especially common in business settings, but it’s frequently seen in personal relationships, too. Because it’s self-directed, some worry that “bragging” on themselves will make them less likeable.

You can eliminate a little of this pressure by looking for spaces where talking about yourself isn’t just welcomed, but expected. Social media, job interviews, and professional networking events are great platforms for practicing self-promotion. Curate at least one space where you can own your full range of accomplishments.

Doing a favor for someone, whether in business or in everyday life, shifts the power dynamic of a relationship. It establishes the person doing the favor as “useful,” and may result in the recipient feeling like they owe something to the other party. 

When favors only come with strings attached, people feel manipulated and resentful. When they’re done freely and out of a desire to be helpful, they can build mutual affinity in a relationship.

7. Association

Association means ensuring that any information shared about you, your company, and your partners is truthful and relevant. This is especially important, as being associated with someone means that everyone’s impressions reflect on each other's values and image.

Sometimes, we consciously associate with certain people to promote our self-image. Some people will network with you (and you with others) in hopes of being introduced to a larger network of contacts.

Impression management is the act of managing how other people perceive you. It is a social strategy that we employ in order to make a good impression on others and to control what they think about us. 

The practice of impression management is a common one in modern society. It’s one of the main ways that people try to maintain their social status and establish themselves as a worthy individual. We may not be aware that we’re doing it, but — at any given time — we’re making dozens of decisions that are influenced by what others might think of us.

You can learn how to better manage your own persona, thrive in social situations, and understand the behavior of others by working with a coach. Coaches can help you understand what you need to project more (or less) of to get what you want, and how to align it with your authentic self.

Ready to learn how to improve your influence, both in and out of the workplace? Schedule a demo with a BetterUp coach today.

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

Allaya Cooks-Campbell

With over 15 years of content experience, Allaya Cooks Campbell has written for outlets such as ScaryMommy, HRzone, and HuffPost. She holds a B.A. in Psychology and is a certified yoga instructor as well as a certified Integrative Wellness & Life Coach. Allaya is passionate about whole-person wellness, yoga, and mental health.

Professional development is for everyone (We’re looking at you)

Goal-setting theory: why it’s important, and how to use it at work, 10 organizational skills that will put you a step ahead, 10+ interpersonal skills at work and ways to develop them, why an internship is step #1 to figuring out what to with your career, your work performance will sky-rocket with these 13 tips, how to set short-term professional goals, be cool: how to manage your emotions and avoid rage quitting, 10 essential negotiation skills to help you get what you want, the self presentation theory and how to present your best self, bringing your whole self to work — should you, how to not be nervous for a presentation — 13 tips that work (really), 25 unique email sign-offs to make a good impression, developing individual contributors: your secret weapon for growth, what are hard skills & examples for your resume, how to stop self-sabotaging: 5 steps to change your behavior, self-management skills for a messy world, make a good first impression: expert tips for showing up at your best, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case studies
• ROI of BetterUp
• What is coaching?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Personal Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Briefing
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

The HOUSTON OCTOBER 7-8 PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS IS ALMOST FULL! RESERVE YOUR SPOT NOW

• Public Speaking Classes
• Corporate Presentation Training
• Online Public Speaking Course
• Northeast Region
• Midwest Region
• Southeast Region
• Central Region
• Western Region
• Presentation Skills
• 101 Public Speaking Tips
• Fear of Public Speaking

How to Introduce Yourself in a Presentation [with Examples]

In this post, we are going to cover the best way, a very simple three-step process that will help you introduce yourself in a presentation. A summary of the steps is below.

• Start with your name and company (or organization or school).
• Tell your audience what problem you can solve for them.
• Share some type of proof (social proof works best) that you can solve this problem.

I will break down each step into a simple-to-follow process. But first… a little background.

Want to beat stage fright, articulate with poise, and land your dream job? Take the 2-minute public speaking assessment and get the Fearless Presenter’s Playbook for FREE!

First, Identify What Your Audience Wants from Your Presentation

So, before you design your introduction, think about what your audience wants from your presentation. Why do they want to spend their valuable time listening to you? Are going to waste their time? Or, are you going to provide them with something valuable?

For instance, I have expertise in a number of different areas. I’m a public speaking coach, a keynote speaker, a best-selling author, a search engine optimization specialist, and a popular podcaster. However, if I delivered that sentence to any audience, the most likely reaction would be, “So what?” That sentence doesn’t answer any of the above questions. The statement is also really “me-focused” not “audience-focused.”

So, when I start to design my self-introduction, I want to focus just on the area of expertise related to my topic. I’m then going to answer the questions above about that particular topic. Once you have these answers, set them aside for a second. They will be important later.

How to Introduce Yourself in a Presentation in Class.

Instead, you probably want to add in a fun way to start a speech . For example, instead of introducing yourself in your class speech and starting in an awkward way, start with a startling statistic. Or start with a summary of your conclusion. Or, you could start the presentation with an inspirational quote.

Each of these presentation starters will help you lower your nervousness and decrease your awkwardness.

If you are delivering a speech in a speech competition or to an audience who doesn’t know you try this technique. Just introduce yourself by saying your name , the school you represent , and your topic . Make it easy. This way you get to your content more quickly and lower your nervousness.

Typically, after you get the first few sentences out of the way, your nervousness will drop dramatically. Since your name, school, and topic should be very easy to remember, this takes the pressure off you during the most nervous moments.

Obviously, follow the guidelines that your teacher or coach gives you. (The competition may have specific ways they want you to introduce yourself.)

How to Introduce Yourself in a Business Presentation — A Step-by-Step Guide.

In a professional setting, when new people walk into a meeting and don’t know what to expect, they will feel uncomfortable. The easiest way to ease some of that tension is to chat with your audience as they come into the room.

By the way, if you are looking for a template for an Elevator Speech , make sure to click this link.

Step #1: Start with your name and company name (or organization).

This one is easy. Just tell your audience your name and the organization that you are representing. If your organization is not a well-known brand name, you might add a short clarifying description. For instance, most people outside of the training industry have never heard of The Leader’s Institute ®. So, my step #1 might sound something like…

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company…

Still short and sweet, but a little more clear to someone who has never heard of my company.

Should you give your job title? Well… Maybe and sometimes. Add your title into the introduction only if your title adds to your credibility.

For example, if you are delivering a financial presentation and you are the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of your company, you might mention that. Your title adds to your credibility. However, if the CFO is delivering a presentation about the value of joining a trade association, the CFO title adds little credibility. So, there is very little value in adding the title.

Step #2: Tell your audience what problem you can solve for them.

For instance, if my topic is how to deliver presentations, I have to determine why the audience would care. What problem will they have that I can help them with? For my audiences, the problem that I most often help people with is how to eliminate public speaking fear. Once I have the problem, I add that to my introduction by using the words, “I help people…”

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company, and I help people eliminate public speaking fear.

However, if my topic is How to Close a Higher Percentage of Sales Presentations , I’d likely want to alter my introduction a little. I might say something like…

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company, and I help people design more persuasive sales presentations.

I have expertise in both areas. However, I focus my introduction on just the expertise that is applicable to this audience. If I gave the first introduction to the second audience, they will likely respond by thinking, well, I don’t really get nervous speaking, so I guess I can tune out of this speech .

So, create a problem statement starting with, “I help people…” Make the statement apply to what your audience really wants.

Step #3: Share some type of proof (social proof works best) that you can solve this problem.

By the way, if you just do steps #1 and #2, your introduction will be better than most that you will hear. However, if you add Step #3, you will gain more respect (and attention) from your audience. Without adding some type of proof that you can solve this problem, you are just giving your opinion that you are an expert. However, if you can prove it, you are also proving that you are an expert.

This is the tricky part. For some reason, most people who get to this part feel like they haven’t accomplished great things, so they diminish the great accomplishments that they do have.

For instance, an easy way to offer proof is with a personal story of how you have solved that problem in the past.

A Few Examples of How to Introduce Yourself Before a Presentation.

For instance, one of my early clients was a young accountant. When I was working with him, he came up with the following introduction, “I’m Gary Gorman with Gorman and Associates CPA’s, and I help small businesses avoid IRS audits.” It was a great, audience-focused attention-getter. (No one wants to get audited.) However, as an accountant, it wasn’t like his company was getting a lot of five-star reviews on Yelp! So, he was kind of struggling with his social proof. So, I asked him a series of questions.

Me, “How many clients do you have?”

Gary, “Over 300.”

Me, “How many small business tax returns have you processed?”

Gary, “Well, at least a couple hundred a year for 15 years.”

Me, “So, at least 3000?” He nodded. “How many of your 300 clients have been audited since you have been representing them?”

He looked at me and said, “Well, none.”

So, we just added that piece of proof to his talk of introduction.

I’m Gary Gorman with Gorman and Associates CPA’s, and I help small businesses avoid IRS audits. In fact, in my career, I’ve helped clients complete over 3000 tax returns, and not a single one has ever been audited.

Here Is How I Adjust My Introduction Based on What I Want the Audience to Do.

For my proof, I have a number of options. Just like Gary, I have had a lot of clients who have had great successes. In addition, I have published two best-selling books about public speaking. I also have hundreds of thousands of people who listen to my podcast each week. So, I can pick my evidence based on what I want my audience to do.

For instance, if I’m speaking at a convention, and I want the audience to come by my booth to purchase my books, my introduction might sound like this.

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company, and I help people eliminate public speaking fear. One of the things that I’m most know for is being the author of two best-selling books, Fearless Presentations and Mastering Presentations.

However, if I’m leading a webinar, I may want the audience to purchase a seat in one of my classes. In that case, my introduction might sound like this.

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company, and I help people eliminate public speaking fear. For instance, for the last 20 years, I’ve taught public speaking classes to over 20,000 people, and I haven’t had a single person fail to reduce their nervousness significantly in just two days.

If my goal is to get the audience to subscribe to my podcast, my intro might sound like…

Hi, I’m Doug Staneart with The Leader’s Institute ®, an international leadership development company, and I help people eliminate public speaking fear. One of the ways that I do this is with my weekly podcast called, Fearless Presentations, which has over one million downloads, so far.

Use the Form Below to Organize How to Introduce Yourself in a Presentation.

The point is that you want to design your introduction in a way that makes people pause and think, “Really? That sounds pretty good.” You want to avoid introductions that make your audience think, “So what?”

If you have a speech coming up and need a good introduction, complete the form below. We will send you your answers via email!

Can You Replace Your Introduction with a PowerPoint Slide?

Is it okay to make your first slide (or second slide) in your presentation slides an introduction? Sure. A good public speaker will often add an introduction slide with a biography, portrait, and maybe even contact information. I sometimes do this myself.

However, I NEVER read the slide to my audience. I often just have it showing while I deliver the short introduction using the guide above. This is a great way to share more of your work experience without sounding like you are bragging.

For tips about how many powerpoint slides to use in a presentation , click here.

Remember that There Is a Big Difference Between Your Introduction in a Presentation and Your Presentation Starter.

When you introduce yourself in a presentation, you will often just use a single sentence to tell the audience who you are. You only use this intro if the audience doesn’t know who you are. Your presentation starter, though, is quite different. Your presentation starter should be a brief introduction with relevant details about what you will cover in your presentation.

For details, see Great Ways to Start a Presentation . In that post, we show ways to get the attention of the audience. We also give examples of how to use an interesting hook, personal stories, and how to use humor to start a presentation.

Podcasts , presentation skills

View More Posts By Category: Free Public Speaking Tips | leadership tips | Online Courses | Past Fearless Presentations ® Classes | Podcasts | presentation skills | Uncategorized

Looking to end your stage fright once and for all?

This 5-day email course gives you everything you need to beat stage fright , deliver presentations people love , and land career and business opportunities… for free!

Newly Launched - AI Presentation Maker

Researched by Consultants from Top-Tier Management Companies

AI PPT Maker

Powerpoint Templates

PPT Bundles

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

Top 10 Templates to Design an Introduction Slide About Yourself (Samples and Examples Included)

Siranjeev Santhanam

Introducing oneself in the workplace is one of the more under-valued and under-emphasized moments in the average professional’s career. Making a good first impression can make a big difference, whether it be dealing with managers, clients, stakeholders, or during interviews with potential employers. It can help you strengthen your professional credibility, broadcast your strengths and gain traction.

Dive deeper into this issue by checking out other blog on must have cover letter templates to use for introductions. Click here and read it now.

In the modern workplace, there are many methods and formats that professionals weaponize to create a good first impression. 

Crafting a cogent and compelling PPT Presentation can be one empowering way to present oneself and get people to place their faith in you. Whether it be during interview sessions, business meetings or during engagements with clients, having a presentation can be a great way to command attention, to assert your own presence and to establish your identity during meetings.

In this blog, we’re going to be taking a look at ten templates that you can use to create an authentic introduction slide, one that you can accommodate within distinct settings, be it in interviews or in personal business conventions. These slides are 100% editable and customizable, giving you the flexibility to work with them and to redesign them exactly the way you see fit. Let’s begin.

Are you seeking similar content-rich templates on employee introduction as well? Click here and read our other blog on this subject now.

Explore our blogs on  Presentation About Myself Templates  and  Self-Introduction Templates   for an extensive collection of PowerPoint designs by SlideTeam, offering a solid framework to introduce yourself in formal settings. Craft engaging and informative presentations effortlessly with 100% editable slides, saving you time and energy.

Template 1 - Ten Minutes Presentation About Myself PowerPoint Bundle

This PPT Set helps showcase your professional journey in a concise manner. This versatile set covers essential aspects, including your work experience, personal profile, education, hobbies, and contact information. With a focus on your career map, SWOT analysis, professional qualifications, achievements, and training, the presentation highlights your unique skill set and experience. The sleek design ensures a dynamic and compelling delivery of your professional story within the allotted time, making it an ideal tool for self-introduction in professional settings. Download now!

Download this template

Template 2 - Introduce Yourself PPT Presentation Slides

Leverage the use of this well-designed PPT Bundle to create and implement an introductory presentation that leaves a lasting impression. Packed with 65 slides, the presentation is complete with a wide range of intricate tools and resources to enhance your professional profile. Legitimize your career in the eyes of the audience with the personal qualifications section and elevate your own corporate credentials with the achievements section. Establish a more personal account of yourself with the about me section. Also present are slides dedicated to your professional experience, your language skills, your hobbies, and more.

Download now

Template 3 - Be able to introduce yourself PPT presentation slides

This template can be a defining feature of your corporate success story, if used properly. It comprises 57 slides, complete with tables, graphs, charts, and a range of slides that can help master the office world. With the aid of the slides in this deck, you’re given the chance to elaborate on your career objectives, establish your own personal set of ethos and your ‘mission’, detail your work experience, education details, achievements, and map out a career path. Get it now and win over more people.

Template 4 – Self-Introduction in Interview for Job PPT Presentation Slides

Strengthen your corporate profile, control your appearance in the office and boost your chances in interviews, all with the aid of this ready-to-use PPT Deck in 39 slides. It is complete with powerful aesthetics, content-rich slides and a host of well-researched information pockets that you can harness to introduce yourself. Some key segments included within in package are about me, career, SWOT analysis, professional qualifications, achievements, training, and more. Get it now and ace your next job interview with ease!

Template 5 - How to introduce yourself PowerPoint Presentation slides

Elevate your own standing in the office and make more people notice you using this PPT Template. The 34-slide deck and is rich with content, allowing you to tailor it your needs and the stakeholder who is to view it. Some highlights incorporated into the slide include a SWOT analysis, sections dedicated to your job experience, sections dedicated to the path to career, and more. Download this template and sharpen your own appeal in the workplace, creating a more engaging corporate personal in the process.

Template 6 - Name position self-introduction template with details

This one-page PPT Template can be your means to creating a more professional and polished self-introduction session. It has been segregated into smaller sections that cover aspects within the corporate experience, each of which can be customized to fit your individual needs. Space for a photograph is also present at the top left corner of the slide, along with space to accommodate other crucial information such as your job description and application requirements.

Template 7 – Self-presentation creative resume template

This PowePoint Theme can be a valuable resource for professionals seeking to make a positive first-impression in the work place, and specifically in job interviews. The high-resolution slide allows you to craft your own personalized resume theme, allowing you to stand out from the crowd and attract more attention. Some key subheadings include education, skills, contact, experience, and more. Get this template and make people notice you in the office.

Template 8 - Formal self-introduction framework for interviews infographic template

Are you searching for a way to present yourself in curated and professional manner during interviews? Then this one-page PPT Layout is the answer. It allows you to illustrate your professional strengths and distinctive qualities in an elegant and concise manner. You can use it to draw attention to your own internal guiding ethos and to underscore your professional strengths, creativity, and personality.

Template 9 - Self-introduction of branding professional with skills

This template offers you a creative and wholesome means of promoting yourself, giving you the tools to facilitate better connections in the workplace and impress people with your profile. The template can be re-tailored to suit the needs of a resume, or be used by its own self within the office, making it adaptable and valuable within the corporate framework. It has been endowed with some pertinent subheadings such as profile, contact, education, skills, work experience, and some space for a personalized image as well.

Template 10 - Detailed self-introduction for managing director profile interview infographic template

Are you struggling to unleash your full potential as you wade through the corporate world? Make a firmer impact on your peers and get more people to invest in you, all with the aid of this vibrant one-page template. It has been designed with the structure of a typical resume template, with the aid of some basic features such as skillset, name, hobbies, etc. It has the added advantage of a more rousing appearance with the use of contrasting white and green colour grading and prominent black font.

Template 11 - Case study self-introduction PPT inspiration

This dashboard could be your solution to getting your dues in the workplace. It is a case study template, designed to be able to add value to any presentation centred around your own professional experience. It has been divided into three major segments, challenge, solution and results, allowing you to outline your own personal challenges and results in a clear and compelling manner.

BE BOLD IS THE BEST INTRO

Introducing oneself in the right manner, with the right etiquette and professionalism, can go a long way in the workplace. The templates featured in this blog make for simple, yet effective instruments of communication, giving you the tools needed to cultivate a distinct appeal for yourself when using them. Download our self introduction ppt templates and deploy them in whichever business settings you deem necessary, adding some boldness to your own presence in the workplace.

Don’t turn away just yet! We’ve got more for you on this subject. Click here now and read our other blog on ten self-introduction templates. 

FAQs on Introduction Slides

How do you introduce yourself in a slide.

Here are some steps to follow when seeking to introduce yourself in a slide within a professional setting:

Step 1 – Establish the relevant information, such as the name and title

Step 2 – Outline a brief summation of your professional history and the work experience. 

Step 3 – Engage with the audience by including some basic personal information such as hobbies, etc. 

Step 4 – Employ strong visuals and incorporate graphs, tables, etc. to add colour to the experience.

How can you do a five-minute presentation about yourself?

To be able to deliver a five-minute presentation on oneself, one would have to be brief, focused and concise. Here are some general tips to follow:

1 – Plan your content and determine what information needs to be included and what needs to be left out.

2 – Practice the presentation, making sure to enact rehearsals if needed to attain a degree of comfort.

3 – Design the slides and structure them in accordance with the presentation plan.

What is the best self-introduction?

There is no definitive answer to this question. However, general guidelines to improve upon and strengthen one’s self-introduction within the professional environment are:

1 – Be brief, concise and make relevant points. 

2 – Underscore your strengths, accomplishments and professional accomplishments. 

3 – Be confident and charismatic when presenting yourself. 

4 – Be authentic; no overselling please.

Related posts:

• Top 10 Self-Introduction Templates with Samples and Examples
• Top 10 Personal Presentation Templates with Examples and Samples
• Proven Best Practices and Templates to Deliver My Presentation (Samples and Examples Inside)
• Top 10 Personal Introduction Slide Templates to Make Yourself Unforgettable

Liked this blog? Please recommend us

Must-have Power BI Templates with Samples and Examples

Top 7 Communication Flow Chart Templates With Samples and Examples

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA - the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

How To Introduce Yourself Professionally [Examples + Templates]

Are you tired of the same old, boring self-introductions? It’s time to step into the spotlight and make a memorable entrance. Whether you’re facing a panel of interviewers or a room full of expectant attendees. To help you deal with this problem, this blog is going to teach you the best tips on how to introduce yourself during an interview and presentation in a professional way! So, what’s the wait? Let’s dive in!

A Framework On How To Introduce Yourself Professionally

Introducing yourself properly and sensibly can be a confusing journey, especially when you try to gather your thoughts! When trying to introduce yourself, nervousness can manifest in various ways, like brain fog, long and frequent pauses, overuse of filler words like “um,” “so,” and more! Now, to tackle this problem, you must follow this basic 3-step framework, and you are bound to give a great self-introduction in any situation with ease.

1. First Phase (The Present)

At the beginning of your introduction, remember to talk in the present tense! Why present tense? That is because, in the beginning, you introduce yourself with your name and job title, opening up the pathway to further elaborate on your projects, background, and expertise. This allows your introduction to sound more natural and doesn’t sound broken.

• Hi, I am Alisa, a data analyst working at the Brooklyn branch of XYZ company.  
• Hi, I’m Dylan, a content writer focusing on optimizing web pages to help them rank on Google.

2. Second Phase (The Past)

The second part of your introduction contains mainly two to three points of relevant experience, background, education, and past projects. Remember that this phase is usually spoken in the past tense! Also, this is the perfect opportunity to establish credibility and gain the trust of the person you are talking to.

• My background in computer science has helped me gain the necessary skills to work with big data and identify insights for the company,
• I have been a writer for two years, and I have worked with multiple organizations where I have helped them gain organic traffic with the help of high-quality content.  

3. Third Phase (The Future)

The last part of this framework, introducing yourself, mainly talks about your future goals. This is the perfect time for you to show that you are excited about what the future holds. Especially if you are in an interview, this is when you can show your eagerness for the opportunities at the company you are applying to.

• I am really happy to be here and hope to contribute significantly to the team.
• I am excited to help you gain more traffic to your website and increase your page rankings on Google.

With the help of this easy framework, you can easily introduce yourself professionally without spending much time framing your sentences. All you have to do is remember the major highlights of your career and follow the 3-steps. Also, a good introduction is one of the best ways to keep your audience engaged. If you want to learn more rules on how to engage your audience, check out our blog on the golden rules to keep your audience engaged and learn more!

Tips On How To Introduce Yourself In An Interview

Now that you know the basic structure, it’s time to increase your arsenal by introducing yourself during an interview. There are many ways to introduce yourself, but these tips will help you understand what to say when you face the dreaded question, ‘T ell me something about yourself. ‘

1. Greet The Interviewers

One of the best ways to start your introduction is just by simply greeting the interviewers; many underestimate how far a simple good morning or afternoon can go. After that, you can start your introduction by talking about who you are, your job title, and where you live ( the first phase)

2. Talk About Your Educational Background

Once you have given a brief about yourself, take a small dive into the past ( the second phase ) and discuss your educational background and where the university/college you graduated from. If you are fresher, you can talk about your grades if they can highlight and make you stand out, or else try not to talk about your scores. A few important things to mention include the projects you have completed and any certifications you have that are related to the job description.

3. Talk About Your Hobbies

Mentioning your hobbies and passions is a great way to create a personal connection with the interviewer, and it helps them understand your personality, as hobbies and passions are the see-through glass that shows one’s true personality. If you are a fresh graduate, you can even touch base on the co-curricular activities you participated in.

4. Have A Closing Statement

One final tip on how to introduce yourself in an interview is to have a good closing statement ( the third phase) . A great closing statement usually contains your motivations for applying to that specific job role and how it aligns with your career goals. Talk about how you are ready for all the challenges and how your core skills will help the organization from your role. Your statement should make the interviewer feel as if you are one of the greatest assets that the organization could have.

Tips On How To Introduce Yourself In A Presentation

Introducing yourself during a presentation is a different ball game than when you give a self-introduction in an interview. Your name and job title follow the same rules when introducing yourself, but the overall structure differs. A good introduction in a presentation helps to keep your slideshow interactive and fun! Follow these five tips to catch the eye of your audience when talking about yourself in a presentation.

Grab the attention of your audience immediately by being bold. You can easily do this by asking a captivating question, a surprising story about your topic, or even a cool statistic.

2. Be Clear & Concise

After grabbing your audience’s attention, start talking about yourself directly and clearly state your name, title, and relevant experience. Avoid rambling and talking about unnecessary details.

3. Establish Credibility

Quickly highlight your qualifications and expertise with regard to the presentation, allowing you to build trust and establish credibility.

4. Connect With The Audience

Finding common ground with your audience is an important tip when it comes to introducing yourself during a presentation, as it can help create a personal connection with them. Try using an anecdote or personal experience to create a connection.

5. Brief The Presentation

Give a quick outline of the presentation and everything you will cover, giving the audience a clear idea of what to expect and maintaining focus.

If you want to learn more ways how to keep your presentations interactive, check out our blog on the 10 ways to make an interactive presentation .

Tips To Follow When You Are Talking About Yourself

Now that you know how to introduce yourself during an interview and a presentation, with the help of the 3-step framework. Here are a few tips to keep in mind before talking about yourself and while you are giving your introduction.

1. Preparation Is Key

Being prepared to introduce yourself is a key tip to follow because it is one of the first things you do either when you start a presentation or during an interview. Practice your introduction in front of family or friends, who will help you find places for improvement. Doing this helps you gain confidence and ensures your speech is clear and professional.

2. Be Genuine

Being genuine and sincere is an important tip when it comes to talking about yourself. Everyone values honesty and sincerity, and being genuine helps build trust between you and others faster.  

3. Maintain Eye Contact

Always remember to maintain eye contact when you are talking about yourself. Looking around while talking shows that you are nervous, and it might even look like you are not interested. Always look at your interviewer when speaking, and if you are presenting, then keep looking at everyone, making them feel like you are personally talking to them.

4. Keep Your Body Language In Check

When you start talking about yourself, ensure that you are not speaking too fast, or there is unclarity in your speech, or showing that you are nervous, as it can hurt your introduction. Be relaxed and think before you speak, and ensure that your tone is clear and audible; this shows that you are confident and makes you look professional. Also, try to smile or nod from time to time as if you are in a normal conversation.

How Long Should Your Introduction Last?

When it comes to how long your self-introduction should last, there is no set time limit to get the best results. Everyone has a different approach to introducing themselves, so treating your introduction as any other question is best. Give out all the important information without missing any key points. On average, an introduction can last anywhere between 30 seconds to a minute. If you cross the average, you risk the opposite party losing interest!

Things To Avoid When Introducing Yourself Professionally

When you think about how to give an introduction about yourself, there are a few things that you need to avoid. They may seem small, but they play a major part in the grand scale of things! These include:

1. Try to keep your introduction short and sweet ( around 30 seconds to a minute ), and do not recite your resume!

2. Do not just list down your skills; instead, while you are mentioning your skills, back them up with examples to give your interviewer a clearer idea.

3. Do not include irrelevant skills in the applied job, as it may confuse the interviewer.

4. Do not use too much jargon when speaking; instead, keep your language clear so that everyone can understand your introduction.

5. Always show enthusiasm when talking about yourself because it might sound off-putting if you don’t show interest.

How To Introduce Yourself Professionally Samples

To help you understand how a good introduction should sound, here are a few examples of candidates introducing themselves in an interview. 

Sample 1: Dyaln (SEO Content Writer)

I’m Dylan, a seasoned SEO content writer with a passion for crafting compelling narratives that drive results. With a strong foundation in SEO best practices and a keen eye for detail, I’ve successfully developed and executed content strategies for two years. My experience spans a diverse range of industries, from student accommodation to medicine, where I’ve honed my skills in crafting engaging content across various CMS platforms.

I’m particularly drawn to XYZ Company because of its reputation for multiple growth opportunities. Your commitment to helping out people and pushing for growth aligns perfectly with my professional goals. I’m excited to contribute my expertise in SEO and content creation to elevate XYZ Company’s online presence and drive organic growth.

Sample 2: Alisa (Data Analyst Fresher)

“Hello everyone, I’m Alisa, a recent graduate with a degree in Computer Science. My passion for data and problem-solving led me to pursue a career in data analysis. While I’m new to the professional world, I’m eager to apply my academic knowledge and analytical skills to real-world challenges.

I’m particularly interested in XYZ Company because of its reputation for data handling and visualization. I believe my strong foundation in statistics, data visualization, and programming languages combined with my enthusiasm for learning will make me a valuable asset to the team.”

How To Introduce Yourself Example Templates

SlideUpLift has abundant about me PowerPoint templates suited for all your needs. All of them are available for PowerPoint and Google Slides. Some of are about me PowerPoint templates include:

Interview Resume Presentation PowerPoint Template

About me slide powerpoint template.

Resume PowerPoint Template

Professional Resume Slide

Now that you know how to introduce yourself in the most professional way, it is time for you to apply everything you have learned in the blog in real life and impress everyone you meet in a professional environment.

How to introduce yourself?

Here are a few steps you should follow when you are starting to introduce yourself 1. Start with a greeting 2. State your job title 3. Mention your relevant experience 4. Talk about your professional goals

Are there any things I should avoid when talking about myself?

Yes, a few things you should avoid when introducing yourself include the likes of: 1. Using too much jargon 2. Over-sharing 3. Lack of enthusiasm 4. Not making eye contact 5. Bad posture

How long should an introduction last?

An introduction should, on average, last around 30 seconds to a minute or two. Make sure that you cover all the major points without missing out on anything important.

Table Of Content

Related presentations.

Resume Profile PowerPoint Template

Modern Resume PowerPoint Template

Funny About Me PowerPoint Template

Related posts from the same category.

14 Feb, 2023 | SlideUpLift

How To Make A Presentation: A Comprehensive Guide

Are you tired of mediocre presentations that leave your audience bored and uninterested? Presentations are a crucial aspect of communication in the modern world, whether in the workplace, school, or

6 Jan, 2021 | SlideUpLift

How To Start a Presentation : Make A Strong First Impression

Presenting well requires preparation, and the first step is mastering the art of the opening statement. You may pique your audience's curiosity by crafting a captivating introduction to your presentation.

13 Sep, 2023 | SlideUpLift

How to Write A Good Presentation?

Have you ever sat down and tried to write a presentation, but you only found yourself looking at a blank screen with nothing coming to mind? Fear not; you are

7 Sep, 2023 | SlideUpLift

How to Hire a Presentation Designer?

Presentations have a special power, whether used in business, education, or public speaking. They can enlighten, convince, incite any information. An effective presentation is the key to winning over stakeholders,

14 Oct, 2022 | SlideUpLift

How To Create Your Perfect Webinar Presentation

Webinars are becoming an increasingly important tool for businesses to connect directly with their customers — to educate and inform, maintain relationships and even build a brand. They're also excellent

21 Aug, 2024 | SlideUpLift

10 Tips On How To End A Presentation [Examples + Templates]

Everyone agrees that the beginning of a presentation is crucial as it catches your audience's attention and keeps them engaged, but what about the ending? The end of a presentation

27 Sep, 2023 | SlideUpLift

10 Bad PowerPoint Slides Examples to Avoid

A presentation serves two purposes: 1) it teaches your audience something new and 2) motivates them to take action. However, achieving these goals is only possible if your audience is

10 Nov, 2021 | SlideUpLift

PowerPoint Presentation Tips: How to Make a Good PowerPoint Presentation

A well-crafted PowerPoint presentation can have a lasting impact on your audience. However, creating an effective presentation can be daunting, especially if you are unsure how to make it engaging

3 Sep, 2024 | SlideUpLift

10+ Agenda Examples To Make Every Meeting Count

In today's fast-paced world, effective communication is key. A well-structured agenda provides a roadmap for your audience by outlining the key topics and their estimated time. This helps you manage

28 Oct, 2021 | SlideUpLift

How Much Time Does It Take To Prepare A Presentation?

How much time does it take to prepare a presentation? It depends Duh! Two big factors decide that- The complexity of your presentation and your familiarity with the topic. Add

Related Tags And Categories

Forgot Password?

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Psychological Health
• Psychological Resilience
• Self Esteem

The Best Tips for Presenting & Introducing Yourself

Last Updated: August 22, 2024 References

This article was co-authored by Alexandra Janelli . Alexandra Janelli is a Certified Hypnotherapist, Anxiety & Stress Management Coach, and owner and founder of Modrn Sanctuary, a holistic health and wellness facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With over 10 years of experience, Alexandra specializes in helping clients push through their roadblocks to achieve their goals using her hypnotherapeutic approach. Alexandra holds a BS from the University of Miami. She graduated from the Hypnosis Motivation Institute with an Advanced Training Graduate Diploma in Hypnotherapy and Handwriting Analysis. Alexandra is also a Certified Life Coach from the iPEC Coach Training Program. She has worked with Academy Award Nominee Actors, world-renowned photographers, singers, top-level executives, and professionals across many sectors of business. Alexandra has been featured on MTV, Elle Magazine, Oprah Magazine, Men's Fitness, Swell City Guide, Dossier Journal, The New Yorker, and Time Out Chicago. There are 7 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been viewed 76,101 times.

How you present yourself to others makes an enormous difference in how you view yourself. With the right mindset, confidence, look and behavior you can improve your self-image and feel your best. Take a look at the tips in this article and change your life for the better.

Improving Your Look

• Simple dietary changes can lead to massive improvements in your overall health and look. Focus on eating more healthy foods, like lean proteins (salmon, chicken breast, soy beans), fresh fruits and vegetables (cranberries and avocados are loaded with nutrients), and healthy grains (brown rice).
• Avoid trans fats and foods high in sodium. Cutting fast food and soda out of your diet will help.
• Jogging is a fun and easy way to exercise and stay fit that doesn’t require equipment or a health club membership. Get a friend to tag along and keep each other motivated.

• People are more likely to trust, be friendly with, and invest in a person who wears nice clothes. Subconscious judgments occur in the minds of even the most non-judgmental people. [1] X Research source
• Iron your shirts and pants to avoid looking like you just rolled out of bed. It’s easy to do and doesn’t take very long, yet the results have a big impact on your presentation.
• Try to coordinate outfits that match, using clothes that fit and accessories that don’t clash.

• Maintaining eye contact when you talk to someone assures them that you’re invested in what they have to say and that you respect them. This reflects well on you.
• Practicing proper posture tells people that you’re alert, focused, and care about your health. Don’t slouch, instead, try to sit upright while aligning along the natural curve of your back. Set reminders throughout the day to keep you on track until its second nature. [3] X Research source

• Good personal hygiene will keep you looking and feeling better. It helps prevent disease and improves confidence and self-image. [4] X Research source
• Keep a clean house. When you have guests over, a tidy living room, organized kitchen, and made bed inform visitors that you are in control of your life.

Demonstrating Proper Behavior

• Offer small compliments to make people feel appreciated. Maybe they got a new hairstyle or made a strong contribution to a good effort. Saying “You look nice today” or “That was a great idea” can make somebody’s day and doing so improves their perception of you.
• Simply saying “please,” “thank you,” or “bless you” goes a long way when meeting new people.

• Be careful not to over-share or pry to hard with your questions. Keep topics light in the beginning by asking about fun parts of people’s lives like vacations and hobbies.

• When encountering new people, find a balance between shyness and assertiveness. Make an effort to introduce yourself to people but don’t force your way into conversations. Be aware of people’s body language.

• Besides the benefit of other people’s perception of you, working hard results in improved feelings towards yourself. People derive satisfaction and pride from a strong work ethic.
• Good ways to improve your work ethic include: Better punctuality, avoiding procrastination, helping with other people’s projects, focusing on small details, embracing responsibility, starting early, and never saying “that’s not my job.” [6] X Research source

Changing Your Attitude

• Many of the steps listed above in this article can help build confidence. Exercising, dressing well, and being a gracious and friendly conversationalist all lead to improved levels of confidence.

• When focused on your own flaws, it’s easy to forget other people aren’t perfect either. If you actively work to better yourself, people will notice and admire you for it.

Be Charismatic with this Expert Series

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

Expert Interview

Thanks for reading our article! If you’d like to learn more about psychological resilience, check out our in-depth interview with Alexandra Janelli .

• ↑ https://riskology.co/dress-well/
• ↑ https://artofeloquence.com/articles/body-language/
• ↑ https://personalexcellence.co/blog/good-posture/
• ↑ https://www.hygieneexpert.co.uk/importancegoodpersonalhygiene.html
• ↑ https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-4005/10-Ways-to-Be-More-Gracious.html
• ↑ https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2014/02/how-to-build-a-strong-work-ethic/
• ↑ https://lifehacker.com/how-to-build-your-confidence-and-why-it-matters-1442414831

About This Article

If you want to successfully present yourself to others, improve your look by dressing in flattering clothes that make you feel confident and comfortable. You should also project positive body language by maintaining proper posture and eye contact during conversations, so people know you're interested in what they have to say. In addition, be gracious, polite, and kind to others as well as yourself to show that you are a caring, balanced person. For example, offer small compliments to make people feel appreciated, and try to say "please," "thank you," and "bless you" more, since little friendly gestures like these can go a long way with people you've just met. Furthermore, remember to demonstrate a strong work ethic by meeting deadlines and showing up on time, so others will see you as reliable. For more advice, including how to change your attitude and present yourself with confidence, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

42 templates

indigenous canada

48 templates

cute halloween

16 templates

day of the dead

13 templates

fall background

24 templates

oktoberfest

7 templates

About Me Presentation templates

Do you want your classmates to know a bit more about you maybe you want to tell others what your favorite hobbies are these google slides themes and powerpoint templates are great for introducing yourself and sharing a bit about yourself..

• Calendar & Weather
• Infographics
• Marketing Plan
• Project Proposal
• Social Media
• Thesis Defense
• Black & White
• Craft & Notebook
• Floral & Plants
• Illustration
• Interactive & Animated
• Professional
• Instagram Post
• Instagram Stories

It seems that you like this template!

Register for free and start downloading now

All about me for high school students.

Download the "All About Me for High School Students" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. The education sector constantly demands dynamic and effective ways to present information. This template is created with that very purpose in mind. Offering the best resources, it allows educators or students to efficiently manage their...

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

About Me Infographics

Download the "About Me Infographics" template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience to understand your topic. Slidesgo infographics like this set...

About Me: Printable Sheets

Do you want your friends or your classmates to know you better? And do it in a cool way too? Granted! We have a new template with printable sheets, which are very colorful and can be modified with your own content. What are your favorite books or movies? What do...

All About Me

Download the All About Me presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources....

Create your presentation Create personalized presentation content

Writing tone, number of slides, about yourself.

Download the "About Yourself" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources. You...

Introducing Myself

You never know when a slideshow about yourself could come in handy. Be prepared and use this template to introduce yourself to the audience. Explain your work, your strengths, your personal goals, your values, whatever you can come up with! The slides are cool and contain lots of compositions where...

My Autobiography

Download the "My Autobiography" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. The education sector constantly demands dynamic and effective ways to present information. This template is created with that very purpose in mind. Offering the best resources, it allows educators or students to efficiently manage their presentations and engage audiences. With...

My Personal Story

Download the "My Personal Story" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources....

Scrapbook Style Wrapped Theme

Download the Scrapbook Style Wrapped Theme presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic...

My Favorite Playlists Lo-fi Style

It's raining in the street. You are in your room drinking freshly brewed coffee while working on your computer. You are very focused on what you are doing. You decide to put on some music so you can continue in that mood of maximum concentration. You go into your music...

All About My life Theme for Pre-K

Help your little students present themselves with this set of creative resources! It’s full of cute illustrations, pastel tones, waves and fun ways of helping children getting to know each other. Did you know that building relationships at this stage of life is one of the key components of children’s...

This is My Life Project

Download the This is My Life Project presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different...

Introduce yourself in a new creative way with this design for Google Slides and PowerPoint! The 31 slides of this presentation will let you speak about your hobbies, favourite foods, favourite music and hobbies… presenting yourself in a fun, open way to your students will make them see you as...

Boho Rainbow About Me Slideshow

If you find yourself caught between your love for boho style and your fascination with rainbows, we have some exciting news for you! We've got the perfect template that combines these two. Say hello to your new all-time favorite design, complete with adorable rainbow illustrations scattered throughout. Not only will...

Torn Paper Portfolio

Download the "Torn Paper Portfolio" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. When a potential client or employer flips through the pages of your portfolio, they're not just looking at your work; they're trying to get a sense of who you are as a person. That's why it's crucial to curate...

My Life Minitheme

Quoting a famous rock band, "it's my life!". You have your own way of living, with your own values and philosophy. You might have hobbies that not many people have, or you might have worked in many different places. You might even have been born on a plane mid-flight! Time...

All about me Worksheet

Download the All about me Worksheet presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and easily edit it to fit your own lesson plan! Designed specifically for elementary school education, this eye-catching design features engaging graphics, and age-appropriate fonts; elements that capture the students' attention and make the learning experience more enjoyable...

• Page 1 of 10

Register for free and start editing online

• PRESENTATION SKILLS

Self-Presentation in Presentations

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Presentation Skills:

• A - Z List of Presentation Skills
• Top Tips for Effective Presentations
• General Presentation Skills
• What is a Presentation?
• Preparing for a Presentation
• Organising the Material
• Writing Your Presentation
• Deciding the Presentation Method
• Managing your Presentation Notes
• Working with Visual Aids
• Presenting Data
• Managing the Event
• Coping with Presentation Nerves
• Dealing with Questions
• How to Build Presentations Like a Consultant
• 7 Qualities of Good Speakers That Can Help You Be More Successful
• Specific Presentation Events
• Remote Meetings and Presentations
• Giving a Speech
• Presentations in Interviews
• Presenting to Large Groups and Conferences
• Giving Lectures and Seminars
• Managing a Press Conference
• Attending Public Consultation Meetings
• Managing a Public Consultation Meeting
• Crisis Communications
• Elsewhere on Skills You Need:
• Communication Skills
• Facilitation Skills
• Teams, Groups and Meetings
• Effective Speaking
• Question Types

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

When you give a presentation, it is important to remember the whole package, and that means how you present yourself as well as how you present the material.

It is not good to spend hours and hours preparing a wonderful presentation and neglect the effect of your own appearance.

Whether you like it or not, people make judgements about you based on your appearance.

These judgements may be conscious or subconscious, but they all affect how, and whether, your audience is prepared to take on board your message as presenter.

Our pages on Personal Appearance and Personal Presentation explain the importance of presenting yourself effectively, more generally. This page focuses on the impact of self-presentation in presentations.

The Importance of Expectations

When you stand up to give a presentation, the audience already has certain expectations about how you will behave, and what you will say.

These expectations may be based on the event, the marketing, their knowledge of you, or their previous experience more generally.

Expectations may also be based on societal norms, such as business people are expected to wear suits.

You don’t have to match people’s expectations, of course, but you do need to be aware that, if you don’t, they are going to have to spend time processing that difference. This mismatch will take some of their concentration away from your message.

You also need to be aware that people can only take so much discomfort.

A mismatch between expectations and reality can even lead to a situation called cognitive dissonance , where individuals come into contact with something — whether idea, person, or belief — that causes them to question their own internal beliefs and values.

This can be very uncomfortable, and the normal reaction is to try to avoid it. In a presentation situation, that's going to mean either leaving or just not listening, neither of which is ideal.

This is particularly important if you want to say something that your audience will find difficult to hear.

If you want to say something outrageous, wear a suit.

The late Dr Joe Jaina, Organisational Psychologist at Cranfield School of Management.

Aspects of Personal Presentation

Your personal presentation includes:

• Accessories, which in this context means anything that you’re carrying or wearing, including your notes, although it also includes luggage, bags, phones, jewellery, watches, and scarves;
• Body language; and

Your clothes are probably the most obvious aspect of personal presentation.

In deciding what to wear, there are several things to consider:

What does the audience expect?

It’s not actually as simple as ‘wear a business suit’, because this may not always be appropriate.

It does depend what your audience is expecting. On some occasions, or in some industries, smart casual may be much more appropriate. If you’re not sure, ask the organisers about the dress code. You can also ask someone who has been to the event before, or have a look online.

If it’s a regular event, there will almost certainly be photographs of previous occasions and you can see what other people have worn.

Within the audience’s expectations, what will make you feel comfortable?

You will present best if you are fairly relaxed, so you need to find a balance between the audience’s expectations, and feeling comfortable.

For example, you may have a particular suit that you think makes you look good. For women, it’s also worth thinking about shoes: you’re going to have to stand for the duration of the session, so make sure that you can do that.

If you’re not used to heels, don’t wear them.

Your accessories should be consistent with your clothes.

That doesn’t mean that your bag needs to be the same colour as your jacket.  However, if you’re wearing a suit, your notes should be in a briefcase or smart bag, and you’re not carrying a backpack or plastic carrier bag. Again, it’s about not distracting your audience from your message.

Likewise, your notes should be part of your thinking. Producing a dog-eared sheaf of paper is not going to help you project a good image. Papers tend to flap about, whereas cue cards can be held on your hand, which is why it is worth considering using cue cards, or even memorising most of what you’re going to say and using your visual aids as cues.

See our page: Managing your Presentation Notes for more on this.

The Importance of Self-Presentation

In 2005, the Conservative Party in the UK faced a leadership election as leader Michael Howard announced that he would step down. The actual election was held between October and December that year. In October, at the Conservative Party Conference, each of the announced candidates was given an opportunity to make a 20-minute speech.

Before the speeches, David Davis was very much the front-runner in the competition. However, his conference speech was considered poor. He spoke from notes, and never really came alive. David Cameron, a more junior member of the party and considered by many an outside chance as leader, made a speech that set the hall alight. He spoke without notes, and with passion, presenting himself as the young, upcoming potential leader who could take the party in a new direction.

By the following morning, the bookies had David Cameron as the front-runner and he went on to win the leadership election.

Self-Presentation also Includes Body Language and Voice.

While there are many important elements of body language, perhaps the most important is to project self-confidence .

You need to demonstrate that you believe in what you’re saying. Otherwise, why would anyone else believe it?

For more about this, and other aspects of body language that may help your communication, see our pages on Managing a Presentation Event and Non-Verbal Communication .

Part of projecting self-belief is being able to control your voice, and speak slowly and clearly. You also need to vary your tone and pace to keep people interested.

For more about this, see our page on Effective Speaking .

In conclusion…

When you are making a presentation, you are presenting a package: you and your message. The more you are aware of the impact of every element, the more effective the package will be as a whole.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

The Skills You Need Guide to Getting a Job

Develop the skills you need to get that job.

This eBook is essential reading for potential job-seekers. Not only does it cover identifying your skills but also the mechanics of applying for a job, writing a CV or resume and attending interviews.

Continue to: Presenting to Large Groups Top Tips for Effective Presentations

See also: Coping with Presentation Nerves Giving a Speech Presenting Data Building a Personal Brand

How different online self-presentations relate to life satisfaction differently in college students: The role of positive online feedback and self-esteem

• Published: 24 August 2022
• Volume 42 , pages 25460–25475, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Lumei Tian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1011-600X 2 ,
• Ruonan Zhai 1 ,
• Pengyan Dai 1 &
• Jieling Cui 1  

4207 Accesses

7 Citations

Explore all metrics

In the Internet age, some online factors, such as online self-presentation, related to life satisfaction have received much attention. However, it is unclear whether and how different strategies of online self-presentation are linked to an individual’s life satisfaction differently. Accordingly, the present study examined the possible different relationships between different online self-presentations and life satisfaction with a sample of 460 Chinese college students. Using a series of questionnaires, a moderated mediation model was built in which positive online feedback was a mediator and self-esteem was a moderator. The results indicated that: (1) positive self-presentation was negatively associated with college students’ life satisfaction, whereas honest self-presentation was positively related to it; (2) positive online feedback was a significant mediator in such relationships; (3) the mediation process was moderated by self-esteem. Specifically, positive self-presentation was negatively related to positive online feedback only for high self-esteem college students, but negatively associated with life satisfaction only for low self-esteem ones. By contrast, honest self-presentation was positively associated with positive online feedback despite the level of self-esteem, but positively linked with life satisfaction only for those with low self-esteem. The findings suggest that honest rather than positive online self-presentation should be conducive to college students’ life satisfaction, particularly for those with low self-esteem. The implications were discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

How different online self-presentations relate to different online feedback among adolescents: peer relationship as a mediator

The effect of adolescents’ active social networking site use on life satisfaction: The sequential mediating roles of positive feedback and relational certainty

Online real-self presentation and depression among chinese teens: mediating role of social support and moderating role of dispositional optimism.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Life satisfaction, as a key indicator of well-being, refers to how an individual overall assesses and feels his or her lives during most of the time or a certain period of time (Diener et al., 2002 ; Maddux, 2018 ). It has been shown to be positively related to many personal psychological, behavioral, interpersonal, and social outcomes (Proctor et al., 2009 ). It can mediate the association of adverse life events with suicidal ideation as well (Yang et al., 2020 ), and improving individuals’ life satisfaction helps reduce the risks of mental disorder (Chen et al., 2017 ). Therefore, identifying its contributing factors has long been concerned by scholars.

Traditionally, when an individual has a high quality of social network and perceives much social support from this network, he or she will have a high level of life satisfaction (Lebacq et al., 2019 ) because good interpersonal communication produces positive emotion and affect (Diener et al., 1991 ). In the Internet age, however, online social networking sites (SNSs) have been indispensable mediums for individuals to present themselves and communicate with others (Pew Research Center, 2018 ). They remain an effective way of online socialization for individuals who are capable of maintaining personal relationships with friends from near and far (Brailovskaia et al., 2020 ). Therefore, some online factors related to life satisfaction have attracted much attention. This topic is especially important in certain periods, such as a special time of the COVID-19 pandemic when individuals have fewer face-to-face social contacts and turn to SNSs for happiness.

On SNSs, individuals can post photos and videos, likes, comments, and share their personal stories with others (Aljasir et al., 2017 ; Kuss & Griffiths, 2017 ). When they present this personal information, some individuals may selectively show information that are beneficial to the self in order to actively make themselves look positive in public (Wright et al., 2018 ); In contrast, others would rather express themselves in a real and sincere way, disclosing their personal information deeply. Numerous studies have indicated that the quantity of online self-disclosure is positively linked to subject well-being (SWB) (Bij de Vaate et al., 2019 ; Chan, 2021 ; Jang et al., 2018 ; Kim & Lee, 2011 ; Tyler et al., 2018 ) or life satisfaction (Kereste & Tulhofer, 2019 ; Pang, 2018 ; Wang, 2013 ). However, it is not well answered whether and how different self-presentation strategies are associated with them differently. Accordingly, the current study explored the possible different relationships between different self-presentations on SNSs and life satisfaction and a mediating role of positive online feedback in these associations as well as a moderation role of self-esteem in the mediating process.

Online self-presentation and life satisfaction

In terms of relationship management, the strategies of online self-presentation can be divided into two contrasting categories (Kim & Lee, 2011 ): positive self-presentation and honest self-presentation. The former refers to selectively revealing or highlighting one’s positive aspects in order to create a good impression on SNSs. In contrast, the latter is more strongly associated with one’s honest self that represents one’s real characteristics, reflecting the way users authentically disclose their feelings, thoughts as well as life events on SNSs.

According to the self-discrepancy theory posited by Higgins ( 1987 ), people often copmare their own actual self with the ideal self, while a larger discrepancy between the two will lead to more negative psychological outcomes, such as disappointment and anxiety. Actually, Facebook users usually disclose more positive emotions rather than negative ones on Facebook (Ziegele & Reinecke, 2017 ). This positivity bias on Facebook seems likely to attenuate the willingness to present real, but negative information (e.g., distress). It will lead to a larger difference between the real self and the virtual self, and then produce negative emotions (Grieve et al., 2020 ). In this sense, inauthentic self-presentation on SNSs can be related to many psychological problems of maladjustment (Grieve & Watkinson, 2016 ), such as high social anxiety (Duan et al., 2020 ; Twomey & O'Reilly, 2017 ), low self-esteem (Manago, 2015 ), poor psychosocial well-being (Michikyan et al., 2014 ), and problematic social networks use (Li et al., 2018 ). In other words, concealing one’s self behind positive self-presentation may result in negative emotions and adverse thoughts (D’agata & Holden, 2018 ; Jackson & Luchner, 2017 ).

In contrast, individuals can have higher self-concept clarity regarding social anxiety (Orr & Moscovitch, 2015 ) and improve subjective happiness in honest self-presentation (Jang et al., 2018 ). Sharing honest personal information, thoughts, and feelings enables people to express themselves, buffer negative feelings, and provide psychological benefits (Kim & Dindia, 2011 ). Research has found that people who present their real self on SNSs have more positive affect, less negative affect (Reinecke & Trepte, 2014 ), greater happiness particularly for those high self-esteem individuals (Jang et al., 2018 ), and higher levels of SWB (Lee & Borah, 2020 ).

Social penetration theory (SPT; Taylor, 1968 ) can also explain the association of honest self-presentation with life satisfaction from the aspect of interpersonal relationships. SPT proposes that information disclosed to others has different types and layers, and that the development of relationships depends on how individuals reveal their personal information, such as their attitudes, feelings, and likes, to each other (Taylor & Altman, 1987 ). Honest self-presentation on SNSs is a special way for individuals to present their true self to their friends (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012 ), which can enhance interpersonal trust and the intimate relationship between friends (Lin & Utz, 2017 ), and help individuals accumulate social capital and obtain social support (Sosik & Bazarova, 2014 ). Specifically, honest self-presentation on SNSs helps to construct and maintain good social ties (Lee et al., 2011 ), and contributes to relief of individual depression and loneliness, and to improvement of individual life satisfaction (Chai et al., 2018 ; Grieve & Watkinson, 2016 ). Meanwhile, for all tested demographic groups, interpersonal relationships have been found to be an obvious contributor to life satisfaction (Bermack, 2014 ).

Despite accumulating evidence supporting different relationships between different self-presentations and life satisfaction, empirical evidence of comparing them directly in a same study is very scarce. Thus, by incorporating previous literature, we aimed to fill this gap and hypothesized that positive self-presentation would be negatively linked with life satisfaction, whereas honest self-presentation would be positively related to it (H1).

Positive online feedback as a mediator

When presenting ourselves, we generally imagine and speculate how audience respond to us, and typically search for such feedback from others to evaluate ourselves (Goffman, 1959 ). On SNSs, a unique feature is that audience feedback is available, immediate and quantifiable (Schlosser, 2020 ). As a result, users can often obtain timely feedback after online self-presentation (Metzler & Scheithauer, 2018 ). Among them, positive online feedback is an important type of social support, mainly in the form of positive and timely evaluations during online interactions (Liu & Brown, 2014 ). Specifically, it refers to the supportive responses that individuals receive after they post or update personal information on SNSs, such as likes (Metzler & Scheithauer, 2017 ) and positive comments (Bazarova et al., 2015 ). Previous research has indicated that adults’ different areas of self-presentation on Facebook are related to positive feedback from the online audience (Liu & Brown, 2014 ; Yang & Brown, 2016 ). This perceived positive online feedback also can lead to positive social consequences (Brailovskaia & Margraf, 2019 ). Positive feedback indicates being accepted, concerned, and socially supported, implying that the responder has positive attitude to the individual, and solidifying their relationship (Lee et al., 2014 ; Liu & Brown, 2014 ). Accordingly, positive online feedback should be a key mediator in the relationship between online self-presentation and life satisfaction.

In terms of the relationship between different self-presentation and positive online feedback, positive self-presentation can not contribute to people’s mental health or relationship if people are unable to trust in others on SNSs (Kim & Baek, 2014 ), whereas those who present themselves in a “courageous” and even self-deprecating way acquire much social support (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2016 ). Although we usually regard self-derogation as a problematic behavior which may cause to adverse social outcomes (e.g., social reject) (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013 ), some studies support that self-derogation is not always unfavorable while self-enhancement does not always lead to positive outcomes. For example, research has found that people tend to consider those who like to enhance themselves but fail to show an expected performance actually as boastful and give them low evaluations (Schlenker & Leary, 1982 ), whereas undergraduates who choose to self-derogation when presenting themselves on SNSs receive increased positive feedback from their social network (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2016 ).

As found, the deep and real self-disclosure on SNSs can gain more social support (Hampton & Lu, 2015 ; Ko & Kuo, 2009 ; Seo et al., 2016 ). When individuals present broader, deeper, and more authentic information on SNSs, they will get more online feedback from their friends (Yang, 2014 ). Only when individuals seek support via honest and sincere self-disclosure, can they receive it with a greater likelihood from others (Greene et al., 2006 ; Li et al., 2020 ), which could be beneficial to their SWB (Bij de Vaate et al., 2019 ; Luo & Hancock, 2019 ). While presenting a positive but untrue self, one can not receive helpful social support from their Facebook friends and thereby can not really feel happy (Oh et al., 2014 ).

On the basis of the above literature, we concluded that positive self-presentation would be negatively linked to positive online feedback but honest self-presentation would be positively associated with it.

In terms of the relationship between positive online feedback and life satisfaction, positive online feedback has been consistently found to be positively related to individuals’ social support (Lee et al., 2014 ; Liu & Brown, 2014 ; Wohn et al., 2016 ) and life satisfaction (Satici & Uysal, 2015 ; Wenninger et al., 2014 ). According to uncertainty reduction theory, interactive and verbal strategies are good ways for individuals to solve the relational uncertainty (Jin & Pena, 2010 ; Neuliep, 2012 ). Positive online feedback is very common during online interaction. It helps individuals understand how their friends see them by providing certain information for them (Brashers et al., 2004 ). Previous research has also found that the affirmation and recognition from others can effectively improve the attitude and evaluation towards oneself (Sung et al., 2016 ; Yang, 2014 ), which can improve their life satisfaction and happiness (Scissors et al., 2016 ). Given that social support is a vital source of happiness, and related to improved well-being (Haber et al., 2007 ), positive feedback, a more specific type of social support, provided by one’s online friends such as likes and comments may also positively contribute to the individual’s happiness and SWB (Kim & Lee, 2011 ; Zell & Moeller, 2018 ). In other words, the more social support from positive online feedback individuals perceived, the higher life satisfaction level they had (Nabi et al., 2013 ; Shahyad et al., 2011 ).

Accordingly, by incorporating previous literature, we predicted that positive online feedback would be a key mediator in the associations of different self-presentations with life satisfaction (H2). It has been shown to mediate the relationship between honest self-presentation and life satisfaction (Liu et al., 2016 ). It can mediate the association between self-disclosure on SNSs and bonding social capital as well (D. Liu & Brown, 2014 ). It also plays a mediating role in the link between online self-presentation and individuals’ self-esteem (Meeus et al., 2019 ). However, empirical evidence of its mediating role in the different relationships between different self-presentations and life satisfaction is scanty. Therefore, we aimed to narrow this gap in the current study and tested this hypothesis.

Self-esteem as a moderator

In addition to the mediating role of positive online feedback at an environmental level, self-esteem, one’s positive or negative attitudes towards the self (Rosenberg, 1965 ), may serve as a key moderator in this mediation model at an individual level.

According to previous experimental results, those high self-esteem individuals not only show more defense against negative information, but also accept less negative information (Zhou et al., 2018 ). By contrast, individuals with low self-esteem are not only more likely to perceive external rejection information (Zhou et al., 2018 ), but also more likely to perceive others’ behavior as rejection (Kashdan et al., 2014 ), thus perceiving less positive feedback. This is because low self-esteem individuals can not focus on their own qualities and do not have the ability to overcome negative or rejection information (Tazghini & Siedlecki, 2013 ). Therefore, for people with low self-esteem, in the case of receiving a large amount of feedback after self-presentation on SNSs, those negative rejection messages may attract their attention first. In the study of Cameron et al. ( 2009 ), individuals whose self-esteem is either high or low expressed failure information to their partners and received same positive feedback, but people with low self-esteem could not correctly perceive the positive feedback provided by their partners, and reported less positive feedback than their counterparts.

The “poor get poorer” Internet theory proposes that overuse of SNSs may destroy individuals’ well-being, and this negative effect is even worse particularly for people who lack adequate psychosocial support from others in daily life (Selfhout et al., 2009 ; Snodgrass et al., 2018 ). Thus, individuals with low self-esteem may perceive less positive feedback and life satisfaction than those high self-esteem ones when they present themselves on SNSs. Furthermore, according to the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 ), when individuals present themselves positively on SNSs, the discrepancies between their actual self-state and ideal self-state will be greater for low self-esteem individuals than for high self-esteem ones, signifying more loss of positive outcomes and more dejection-related emotions. In addition, high self-esteem can operate as a buffer which can mitigate the negative effect of using positive self-presentation due to its low vulnerability to loss and strong resilience, in accordance with the buffer hypothesis (Arndt & Goldenberg, 2002 ), but people with low self-esteem would suffer a lot. Consequently, we deduced that positive self-presentation would be related to less positive feedback and life satisfaction, particularly for low self-esteem individuals.

In contrast, individuals with high self-esteem feel better about themselves and are more likely to believe themselves as attractive or popular than do their counterparts (Wood & Forest, 2016 ). They believe they are lovable, deserving of attention, and feel that if they are in trouble, others will respond to their needs and be ready to help them (Palermiti et al., 2017 ). As a result, they are able to feel more loved and accepted by others. In addition, they are more likely to perceive others’ supportive responses when they present themselves on SNSs (Greitemeyer et al., 2014 ; Sun et al., 2017 ). Thus, high self-esteem individuals would be more confident and easeful when showing the self honestly to online friends than low self-esteem ones. By disclosing true oneself on SNSs, they would also reveal more competence and thus perceived more positive online feedback and life satisfaction (Jang et al., 2018 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000 ).

Similarly, from the aspect of “rich get richer” theory, individuals who have good social skills and adequate social support will benefit more from the Internet use (Kraut et al., 2002 ; Reer & Krämer, 2017 ). There is agreement that more sociable people are more capable of making better use of the opportunities offered by SNS to strengthen their social network (Ross et al., 2009 ). For example, individuals not only can get all kinds of valuable support and help from their friends through using SNSs (Indian & Grieve, 2014 ; Wohn & Larose, 2014 ), but also can meet the needs of self-worth and self-integration and have relatively pleasant emotional experience (Wise et al., 2010 ). Therefore, SNSs use can improve their life satisfaction (Pang, 2018 ; Shahyad et al., 2011 ). Accordingly, those high self-esteem individuals may particularly perceive more positive feedback and life satisfaction when they present themselves honestly on SNSs than those low self-esteem individuals.

The possible moderation role of self-esteem, however, has not been fully explored in the previous research, we therefore examined it and hypothesized that positive self-presentation would be related to low sense of positive online feedback and life satisfaction, particularly for those low self-esteem individuals, whereas it would be weaker for those high self-esteem individuals (H3) and that honest self-presentation would be related to heightened sense of positive online feedback and life satisfaction, particularly for high self-esteem individuals, whereas it would be weaker for those low self-esteem individuals (H4).

In sum, as shown in Fig.  1 , we examined a moderated mediation model in which positive online feedback would differently mediate the different associations of different self-presentation with college students’ life satisfaction and self-esteem would differently moderate this mediating process as well.

Hypothesized model

Participants

Participants included 460 Chinese college students from one normal university located in eastern China. A priori power analysis with the G*Power 3 software package (Faul et al., 2009 ) indicated that the sample size that would provide an adequate power (0.95) and a moderate effect size ( f 2  = 0.15) at a 0.05 significance level (α) using a hierarchical regression analysis with 4 tested predictors would be 129 participants, and thus justifying this sample size. Forty students were excluded due to missing data or inaccurately completing the measures. Ultimately, 420 students completed the survey with a response rate of 91%. The final sample consisted of 244 (58.10%) females and 176 (41.90%) males aged from 18–24 ( M  = 20.23, SD  = 4.59). Among these students, 145 (34.52%) were freshman, 106 (25.24%) were sophomore, 80 (19.05%) were junior, and 89 (21.19%) were senior; 276 (65.71%) were from rural areas and 144 (34.29%) were from urban areas.

• Online self-presentation

Online self-presentation was assessed with nine items adapted from positive self-presentation and honest self-presentation scale (Kim & Lee, 2011 ) by Niu et al. ( 2015 ). The positive self-presentation subscale consists of 5 items, which is designed to evaluate how individuals selectively present positive aspects of themselves on SNSs (e.g., ‘‘I post photos that only show the happy side of me’’). The honest self-presentation subscale consists of 4 items that assesses the extent to which individuals honestly present their true selves on SNSs (e.g., ‘‘I don’t mind writing about bad things that happen to me when I update my status’’). All items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’; 7 = ‘‘strongly agree’’). A higher averaged score indicated more positive/honest self-presentation on SNSs. The Chinese version of this scale has demonstrated good psychometric properties among Chinese college students (α = 0.82, 0.74; Niu et al., 2015 ). In the present study, the Cronbach’s αs for the two subscales were 0.85 and 0.79 respectively.

• Positive online feedback

Positive online feedback was measured using the positive online feedback scale adapted from Liu and Brown ( 2014 ). The scale is composed of 5 items (e.g., “When I update my status on SNSs”; “When I post photos on SNSs”) assessing how often participants received positive feedback on SNSs. All items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “never”; 5 = “frequently”). The scale focuses on the overall frequency of positive online feedback rather than its level of positivity, as it is difficult for college students to determine the level of positive feedback (Liu & Brown, 2014 ). The higher the averaged score, the more frequently the participants were to receive positive feedback from friends while using SNSs. The Chinese version of this scale has demonstrated good psychometric properties among Chinese college students (α = 0.90; Jiang et al., 2019 ). The Cronbach’s α was 0.92 in the present study.

• Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured by a revised Chinese version of Rosenberg ( 1965 ) Self-Esteem scale. The scale is composed of 10 items (e.g., “I am able to do things as well as most other people.”). Considering that the 8 th item in the scale is not suitable for measuring Chinese self-esteem due to cultural difference (Tian, 2006 ), only the remaining 9 items were used in the present study. They were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’; 4 = ‘‘strongly agree’’). A higher averaged score indicated a higher self-esteem. The Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.90 in the current study.

• Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured with six items developed by Wang and Shi ( 2003 ). The items (e.g., “How satisfied are you with your current life?”) were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) and then averaged to form an overall score of life satisfaction. The higher the averaged score, the higher of life satisfaction. In the current study the Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.78.

Before the survey began, informed consent was obtained from participants, and the study plan was approved by the Scientific Research Ethic Committee at our university. All participants completed a series of anonymous questionnaires at their classrooms administered by well-trained psychological graduate assistants. The authenticity, independence and completeness of their answers as well as the confidentiality of the information collected were emphasized to all participants. It took approximately 15 min to complete all of the measures.

Data analysis

In the current study, data analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0 and PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013 ). SPSS 22.0 was used to investigate the correlations among the main variables, and PROCESS macro for SPSS 22.0 to estimate the models. Then, four models were constructed. Among them, two models examined the mediation role of online positive feedback in the relationship between different online self-presentation and life satisfaction. Following MacKinnon’s ( 2008 ) four-step procedure, Hayes’ ( 2013 ) PROCESS macro (model 4) was used to estimate the mediating effect. The other two models used Hayes’ ( 2013 ) PROCESS macro (model 8) to tested the moderation role of self-esteem in the two mediation models. Specifically, the current study assessed the effects of moderation of self-esteem on the association of online self-presentation with positive online feedback and on the association of online self-presentation with life satisfaction. In addition, values at two levels of self-esteem ( M  ± 1 SD ) were used to calculate the simple slopes. All the variables involved in the analysis were standardized.

As suggested by Preacher and Hayes ( 2008 ), the present study used a bootstrap approach to decide the significance of the mediation of positive online feedback. Specifically, 5,000 bootstrapped samples and 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were used in this approach. If the CI did not contain zero, the effect was seen as significant.

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients for all study variables. As expected, the variables were all correlated with each other.

Testing the mediation model

Positive self-presentation as a predictor.

By the preliminary examining, all independent variables’ variance inflation factors were less than 2.00, therefore there was no multicollinearity.

The results (see Table 2 ) revealed that positive self-presentation was negatively related to both positive online feedback and life satisfaction, while the latter two were positively associated with each other. Then, the mediation test showed that the path from positive self-presentation to life satisfaction through positive online feedback was significant, ab  = – 0.19, Boot SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [– 0.24, – 0.13]. It indicated that positive online feedback partially mediated the relationship between positive self-presentation and life satisfaction but in the opposite direction. The mediation effect was – 0.19, accounting for 42.61% of the total effect.

Honest self-presentation as a predictor

To test another mediation model, the same procedure was used. As shown in Table 3 , however, we found that honest self-presentation was positively related to both positive online feedback and life satisfaction, while the latter two were positively associated with each other. Then, the mediation test showed that the association of honest self-presentation with life satisfaction through positive online feedback was significant, ab  = 0.22, Boot SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.17, 0.28]. It indicated that positive online feedback also played a partial mediating role in the relationship between honest self-presentation and life satisfaction with a mediating effect of 0.22, which accounted for 44.02% of the total effect.

Testing the moderated mediation models

As Table 4 illustrates, positive self-presentation was negatively correlated with positive online feedback, while self-esteem was positively linked with it, and the interaction between them was significant on positive online feedback as well, indicating a moderating role of self-esteem in the relationship between positive self-presentation and positive online feedback.

To better understand the moderation effect of self-esteem, Fig.  2 shows the plot of the association of positive self-presentation with positive online feedback at two levels of self-esteem ( M  ± 1 SD ). As shown in Fig.  2 , positive self-presentation was only significantly associated with positive online feedback for participants with high self-esteem ( β simple  = – 0.45, p  < 0.001), while not for those with low self-esteem ( β simple  = – 0.002, p  > 0.05). Although college students with high self-esteem received more positive feedback than those with low self-esteem ( t  = – 10.97, p  < 0.001), they would receive significantly decreased positive feedback when in high levels of positive self-presentation.

Moderating role of self-esteem in relationship between positive self-presentation and positive online feedback

On the other hand, positive self-presentation was negatively linked to life satisfaction, and its interaction with self-esteem was significant on life satisfaction as well, indicating that self-esteem also moderated the relationship between positive self-presentation and life satisfaction.

As shown in Fig.  3 , a simple slope test found that positive self-presentation was only significantly related to life satisfaction among college students with low self-esteem ( β simple  = – 0.21, p  < 0.001) while not among their counterparts ( β simple  = – 0.04, p  > 0.05). It indicated that participants with low self-esteem not only perceived less life satisfaction than those with high self-esteem ( t  = – 13.18, p  < 0.001), but also further perceived significantly decreased life satisfaction when in high levels of positive self-presentation.

Moderating role of self-esteem in relationship between positive self-presentation and life satisfaction

To test another conceptual model, the same procedure was used. The results (see Table 5 ) showed that honest self-presentation and self-esteem were both positively associated with positive online feedback and their interaction was significant on positive online feedback as well.

As shown in Fig.  4 , a simple slope test found that honest self-presentation was positively linked with positive online feedback either for college students with low self-esteem ( β simple  = 0.19, p  < 0.001) or for those with high self-esteem, ( β simple  = 0.57, p  < 0.001), but the latter slope was obviously higher. It indicated that college students with high self-esteem would particularly benefit from high levels of honest self-presentation to positive online feedback.

Moderating role of self-esteem in relationship between honest self-presentation and positive online feedback

On the other hand, honest self-presentation was positively linked with life satisfaction, and its interaction with self-esteem was significant on life satisfaction as well.

As shown in Fig.  5 , a simple slope test found that honest self-presentation was only significantly and positively related to life satisfaction among college students with low self-esteem ( β simple  = 0.17, p  < 0.001) while not among those with high self-esteem ( β simple  = 0.001, p  > 0.05). Although college students with low self-esteem perceived less life satisfaction than their counterparts ( t  = – 13.18, p  < 0.001), they would perceive significantly increased life satisfaction when in high levels of honest self-presentation.

Moderating role of self-esteem in relationship between honest self-presentation and life satisfaction

Although the association between online self-presentation and individual life satisfaction has been studied in previous research, it is yet unclear whether and how different strategies of self-presentation are related to life satisfaction differently. The current study answered this question by revealing the direct and indirect relationships between different self-presentation and life satisfaction through positive online feedback and the moderating effect of self-esteem on them.

In accordance with H1, the results showed that positive self-presentation was negatively related to college students’ life satisfaction whereas honest self-presentation was positively linked with it.

Although SNSs offer college students a platform to connect to known and unknown online friends, present their own information, and look for others’ information (Griffiths et al., 2014 ; Kuss & Griffiths, 2017 ), the so-called friends on SNSs not only overlap with the social circle in real life, but also involve some strange net friends. Therefore, some college students will try to create a positive image by presenting positive information selectively. When individuals present themselves positively, they deliberately hide negative information and filter their cognition of themselves, real life and future negative aspects (Wright et al., 2018 ). Such cognitive filtering that cannot reflect the real situation will hinder their self-integration and self-acceptance (Carson & Langer, 2006 ). In line with the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 ), this will lead to a greater self-discrepancy between the actual self and the virtual self, and then produce negative emotions (Grieve et al., 2020 ). Similarly, other studies have also indicated that a larger discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self will cause to greater psychological discomfort (Grieve et al., 2020 ; Heng et al., 2018 ), which further reduces their life satisfaction.

On the contrary, honest self-presentation seems to contribute to college students’ life satisfaction, as found in previous research (Kim & Lee, 2011 ). On the one side, it can be interpreted that individuals can present their real information and status on SNSs to carry out self-affirmation (Toma, 2013 ), thus obtaining social support (Ko & Kuo, 2009 ) and improving SWB (Bij de Vaate et al., 2019 ; Luo & Hancock, 2019 ). On the other side, according to the social penetration theory, honest self-presentation is beneficial for deepening interpersonal relationships, gaining interpersonal trust, and increasing social support (Lin & Utz, 2017 ; Sosik & Bazarova, 2014 ), which helps improve life satisfaction. As a result, when college students present themselves more authentically on SNSs, their life satisfaction is higher.

The mediating role of positive online feedback

Consistent with H2, we found that positive online feedback mediated the different relationships between different self-presentations and college students’ life satisfaction in different directions.

This is possible because when individuals present themselves positively rather than honestly on SNSs, other people may fail to form trust in them which will be unfavorable for their mental health and interpersonal relationship (Kim & Baek, 2014 ), whereas they will receive more positive feedback when they disclose themselves honestly even negatively (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2016 ). While positive self-presentation may maintain a level of positive self-image, it hides the negative side of individuals, which may go against the development of deep intimate relationships and the acquisition of beneficial social support (Oh et al., 2014 ). Only when individuals seek support through disclosing themselves honestly, they can receive it with a great likelihood from online friends (Greene et al., 2006 ), and such support has been consistently shown to be positively linked to their SWB (Bij de Vaate et al., 2019 ; Luo & Hancock, 2019 ). While individuals hide behind a smiling online mask, it is difficult for them to acquire meaningful social support from online friends (Oh et al., 2014 ). Meanwhile, when individuals perceive less social support, their life satisfaction and overall SWB decrease, resulting in fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions (Kong & You, 2013 ). Therefore, when college students used more positive self-presentation on SNSs, they would perceive less positive online feedback, and thereby decrease their life satisfaction.

By contrast, because honest self-presentation is an individual’s real presentation on SNSs, which is sincere and open, it can help an individual reduce negative emotions or attitudes (Grieve & Watkinson, 2016 ), get more social support (Yang, 2014 ) and thereby improve life satisfaction (Chai et al., 2018 ) by showing one’s real side and sharing the current real situation. Although honest self-presentation may present negative information or attitudes about oneself, an individual’s unadorned and authentic presentation of information enables friends to perceive their current real situation, and thus provide their support and help more easily (Greene et al., 2006 ; Kim & Lee, 2011 ). As well, from the perspective of social penetration theory, honest self-presentation on SNSs can increase interpersonal trust and intimacy (Jian & Li, 2018 ), maintain interpersonal relationships and obtain social support (Ko & Kuo, 2009 ), and enable individuals to obtain emotional social support and social identification (Xie, 2014 ). Thus, honest self-presentation can enable college students to know themselves more objectively and clearly, perceive more positive online feedback, and then improve life satisfaction.

The moderating role of self-esteem

Partially consistent with H3, more positive self-presentation was found to be connected with less life satisfaction, only for those low self-esteem individuals, but associated with less positive online feedback only for those high self-esteem ones.

These findings partially supported the “poor get poorer” theory, which believes individuals with inadequate development resources in their real lives might erode their well-being through bad online experience (Selfhout et al., 2009 ; Snodgrass et al., 2018 ). They partially supported Higgins’s ( 1987 ) self-discrepancy theory as well, according to which people with low self-esteem will perceive larger differences between the real self and the ideal self when they present themselves positively but not honestly and thereby experience more dissatisfaction with themselves and their lives.

However, it is not the case for the results about positive online feedback. Several reasons can be considered. First, life satisfaction is a judgmental process that based on self-selected standards, which is greatly affected by the level of individual self-esteem. However, the frequency of positive online feedback is an objective component, which has little to do with individual experience/perception to some extent. Second, high self-esteem may be regarded as ostentation when individuals presenting excessive positive self, which will cause the audience’s disgust (Schlenker, 1980 ) and then lead to a significant decrease in positive feedback. By contrast, the audiences, particularly those who know the low self-esteem individuals, may relatively tolerate and encourage them when they present some positive information of themselves. Certainly, another possible explanation of the result about low self-esteem is that individuals with low self-esteem often look down on their own worth (Forest & Wood, 2012 ), and thus are not only more likely to perceive external rejection information (Zhou et al., 2018 ), but also more likely to perceive others’ behavior as rejection (Kashdan et al., 2014 ). They are also inclined to concentrate on concealing their perceived shortcomings and true feelings (Baumeister et al., 1989 ), which may hinder their social support seek and acquisition and thereby receive less positive feedback (Oh et al., 2014 ). Therefore, whether they have less or more positive self-presentation, the frequency of positive online feedback they received were always lower with no significant change, compared to their counterparts, as indicated in the present study. These results suggest that positive but not real self-presentation should be not good for everyone, but particularly for those low self-esteem individuals in terms of decreased life satisfaction and for those high self-esteem ones in terms of reduced positive feedback.

As well, H4 was partially supported. Honest self-presentation was found to be linked to high sense of positive online feedback despite the levels of self-esteem of participants, particularly for those high self-esteem individuals, but linked with more life satisfaction only for those low self-esteem ones.

These results seemed to partially support the hypothesis of “rich get richer”: because college students who have good social behavior are inclined to present more self-information on SNSs, and receive more positive feedback through honest self-presentation (Kraut et al., 2002 ; Reer & Krämer, 2017 ). Now it is widely believed that people who are more sociable make better use of the opportunities provided by SNSs to strengthen their social ties (Ross et al., 2009 ). In addition, individuals with low self-esteem usually have cognitive bias of rejecting information: they not only show less defense against negative information, but also accept more negative information (Zhou et al., 2018 ), which may discount the positive association of their honest self-presentation with perceived positive feedback to some degree. By contrast, people with high self-esteem play an active part in interpersonal communication (Sampthirao, 2016 ). Therefore, individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to get social feedback after their honest self-presentation on SNSs than their counterparts. Even so, more honest self-presentation on SNSs still brought significantly more positive feedback for those low self-esteem individuals.

However, the result about life satisfaction was not the case in that only low self-esteem college students benefited from their honest self-presentation while their counterparts did not. There may be several reasons. On the one side, according to the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 ), when those low self-esteem individuals honestly present themselves, they will experience small discrepancies between their true self-states and ideal self-states and less negative emotions, which helps improve their life satisfaction. More than that, they can be more clear about their self-concepts regarding social anxiety (Orr & Moscovitch, 2015 ) and honest self-disclosure which enables them to express themselves and buffer negative feelings (Kim & Dindia, 2011 ). On the other side, low self-esteem may be seen as an act of sincerity when low self-esteem individuals presenting more honest self on SNSs, which will help them receive the audience’s likes (Schlenker, 1980 ), which will further result in a noticeable rise in life satisfaction. By contrast, people with high self-esteem are very clear about and believe in themselves and their selves are relatively free of influence of external social appraisal (Wood & Forest, 2016 ). Moreover, because self-esteem acts as a “buffer”, people with high self-esteem do not fluctuate greatly in terms of emotional adaptation (Arndt & Goldenberg, 2002 ). Thus, high self-esteem individuals always perceive more stable and higher life satisfaction than their counterparts, as found in the present study. It is still important to point out that, however, low self-esteem individuals seemed to benefit more from honest self-presentation on SNSs in terms of increased life satisfaction.

Limitations and future directions

There still are some limitations in the current study. First, in line with previous research (An et al., 2020 ; Liu & Brown, 2014 ), we focused on the overall frequency of positive feedback without distinguishing the roles of different specific positive feedback (e.g., likes, positive comments, or caring emojis). Future research could further explore the different associations of more specific types of positive online feedback with people’s well-being. Second, we did not sufficiently address the possible impact of SNS usage time and the number of SNS friends on the current results. Future studies should consider them as control variables to obtain more comprehensive and convincing findings. Third, we used a series of self-report questionnaires which may yield inaccurate measures because participants’ answers on some items are easily affected by social desirability. Therefore, future research should take other methods into account, such as evaluations by others and content analysis of SNSs accounts of participants to better understand the association of different strategies of self-presentation of college students’ life satisfaction and to improve the findings’ ecological validity. Fourth, we used a cross-sectional design which can not draw any causal conclusion. Future designs could benefit by implementing experimental manipulations that directly facilitate participants’ interactions on SNSs to test more causal models between self-presentation and life satisfaction. Finally, we used a small sample coming from only one university in China which limited its representativeness and the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should recruit a more diverse sample to provide new evidence.

Conclusions and implications

The current study provides valuable information by highlighting the positive role of honest self-presentation and the strength of positive online feedback for everyone on perceived life satisfaction, as well as the important moderating effect of self-esteem. We found that different strategies of self-presentation on SNSs was differently linked to college students’ life satisfaction and positive online feedback was a crucial mediator in such relationships. We also found that honest rather than positive self-presentation on SNSs was conducive to life satisfaction, particularly for those low self-esteem ones.

These findings have potential practical implications as well. First, the findings suggest that honest rather than positive self-presentation would be a better choice for anybody on SNSs to improve life satisfaction. They are particularly instructive for individuals in a special period, such as a home isolation period for the prevention of COVID-19, who reduce real-world social connections and turn to Internet for happiness. Second, they may be especially meaningful for individuals who are in low self-esteem because presenting more honest selves will particularly benefit their life satisfaction. Certainly, promoting self-esteem should have more fundamental benefits for happiness.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Aljasir, S., Bajnaid, A., Elyas, T., & Alnawasrah, M. (2017). Themes of Facebook status updates and levels of online disclosure: The case of university students. International Journal of Business Administration, 8 (7), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v8n7p80

Article   Google Scholar  

An, R., Jiang, Y., & Bai, X. (2020). The relationship between adolescent social network use and loneliness: Multiple mediators of online positive feedback and positive emotions (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology , 28 (4), 824–833. https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2020.04.036

Arndt, J., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2002). From threat to sweat: The role of physiological arousal in the motivation to maintain self-esteem. In A. Tesser & D. A. Stapel, & J. V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation : Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 43–69) . American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10448-002

Bareket-Bojmel, L., Moran, S., & Shahar, G. (2016). Strategic self-presentation on Facebook: Personal motives and audience response to online behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 55 , 788–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.033

Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57 (2), 547–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb02384.x

Bazarova, N. N., Choi, Y. H., Schwanda Sosik, V., Cosley, D., & Whitlock, J. (2015). Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. In proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 154–164). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.267529

Bermack, B. (2014). Interpersonal relationships and life satisfaction among information technology professionals (Publication No.3644069) [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Bij de Vaate, A. J. D., Veldhuis, J., & Konijn, E. A. (2019). How online self-presentation affects well-being and body image: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 47 , 101361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101316

Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2019). I present myself and have a lot of Facebook-friends-Am I a happy narcissist!? Personality and Individual Differences, 148 , 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.022

Brailovskaia, J., Bierhoff, H. W., Rohmann, E., Raeder, F., & Margraf, J. (2020). The relationship between narcissism, intensity of Facebook use, Facebook flow and Facebook addiction. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 11 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100265

Brashers, D. E., Neidig, J. L., & Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Social support and the management of uncertainty for people living with HIV or AIDS. Health Communication, 16 (3), 305–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1603_3

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Vorauer, J. D. (2009). When self-disclosure goes awry: Negative consequences of revealing personal failures for lower self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (1), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.009

Carson, S. H., & Langer, E. J. (2006). Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 24 (1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-006-0022-5

Chai, H., Chu, X., Niu, G., Sun, X., Lian, S., & Yao, L. (2018). Self-disclosure on social networking sites and adolescents’ life satisfaction: A moderated mediation model (in Chinese). Journal of Psychological Science, 41 (5), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20180512

Chan, T. K. H. (2021). “Does self-disclosure on social networking sites enhance well-being? The role of social anxiety, online disinhibition, and psychological stress”, In Z. W. Y. Lee, T. K. H. Chan, & C. M. K. Cheung (Eds.), Information Technology in Organisations and Societies: Multidisciplinary Perspectives from AI to Technostress (pp. 175–202) . Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-812-320211007

Chen, L., Gong, T., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Davidson, R. L. (2017). Building a profile of subjective well-being for social media users. PLoS ONE, 12 (11), e0187278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187278

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

D’agata, M. T., & Holden, R. R. (2018). Self-concealment and perfectionistic self-presentation in concealment of psychache and suicide ideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 125 , 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.034

Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., Pavot, W. G., & Allman, A. (1991). The psychic costs of intense positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (3), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.492

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Duan, W., He, C., & Tang, X. (2020). Why do people browse and post on WeChat moments? Relationships among fear of missing out, strategic self-presentation, and online social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23 (10), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0654

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23 (3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429709

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life . Doubleday.

Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-Disclosure in Personal Relationships. In A. L. Vangelist & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 409–428). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606632.023

Greitemeyer, T., Mügge, D. O., & Bollermann, I. (2014). Having responsive Facebook friends affects the satisfaction of psychological needs more than having many Facebook friends. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36 (3), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.900619

Grieve, R., & Watkinson, J. (2016). The psychological benefits of being authentic on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19 (7), 420–425. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0010

Grieve, R., March, E., & Watkinson, J. (2020). Inauthentic self-presentation on Facebook as a function of vulnerable narcissism and lower self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 102 , 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.020

Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Social networking addiction: An overview of preliminary findings. In K. P. Rosenberg & L. Curtiss Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence, and treatment (pp. 119–141). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407724-9.00006-9

Haber, M., Cohen, J., Lucas, T., & Baltes, B. (2007). The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39 , 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9

Hampton, K. N., & Lu, W. (2015). Beyond the power of networks: Differentiating network structure from social media affordances for perceived social support. New Media & Society, 19 (6), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621514

Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis : A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Heng, S., Zhou, Z., Lei, Y., & Niu, G. (2018). The impact of actual-ideal self-discrepancies on adolescents’ game addiction: The serial mediation of avatar identification and flow experience (in Chinese). Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 16 (2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2018.02.016

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Indian, M., & Grieve, R. (2014). When Facebook is easier than face-to-face: Social support derived from Facebook in socially anxious individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 59 , 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.016

Jackson, C. A., & Luchner, A. F. (2017). Self-presentation mediates the relationship between Self-criticism and emotional response to Instagram feedback. Personality and Individual Differences, 133 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.052

Jang, W., Bucy, E. P., & Cho, J. (2018). Self-esteem moderates the influence of self-presentation style on Facebook users’ sense of subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 85 , 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.044

Jian, R. R., & Li, S. (2018). Seeking help from weak ties through mediated channels: Integrating self-presentation and norm violation to compliance. Computers in Human Behavior, 87 , 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.022

Jiang, Y., Bai, X., Qi, S., & Wu, Y. (2019). The effect of adolescents’ social networking on social anxiety: The mediating role of online positive feedback and self-esteem (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Special Education, 8 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2019.08.013

Jin, B., & Pena, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23 (1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934211003598742

Kashdan, T. B., Dewall, C. N., Masten, C. L., Pond, R. S., Jr., Powell, C., Combs, D., Schurtz, D. R., & Farmer, A. S. (2014). Who is most vulnerable to social rejection? The toxic combination of low self-esteem and lack of negative emotion differentiation on neural responses to rejection. PLoS ONE, 9 , e90651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090651

Kereste, G., & Tulhofer, A. (2019). Adolescents’ online social network use and life satisfaction: A latent growth curve modeling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 104 , 106–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106187

Kim, Y., & Baek, Y. M. (2014). When is selective self-presentation effective? An investigation of the moderation effects of “self-esteem” and “social trust.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17 (11), 697–701. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0321

Kim, J., & Dindia, K. (2011). Online self-disclosure: A review of research. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 156–180). Peter Lang Publishing.

Kim, J., & Lee, J. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14 (6), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

Ko, H. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 12 (1), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0163

Kong, F., & You, X. (2013). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators between social support and life satisfaction in late adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 110 , 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9930-6

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00248

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (3), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311

Lebacq, T., Dujeu, M., Méroc, E., Moreau, N., Pedroni, C., Godin, I., & Castetbon, K. (2019). Perceived social support from teachers and classmates does not moderate the inverse association between body mass index and health-related quality of life in adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 28 (4), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2079-x

Lee, D. K. L., & Borah, P. (2020). Self-presentation on Instagram and friendship development among young adults: A moderated mediation model of media richness, perceived functionality, and openness. Computers in Human Behavior, 103 , 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.017

Lee, G., Lee, J., & Kwon, S. (2011). Use of social-networking sites and subjective well-being: A study in South Korea. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 14 (3), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0382

Lee, E., Kim, Y. J., & Ahn, J. (2014). How do people use Facebook features to manage social capital? Computers in Human Behavior, 36 , 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.007

Li, X., Jiang, Y., & Zhang, B. (2018). The influence of loneliness on problematic mobile social networks usage for adolescents: The role of interpersonal distress and positive self presentation (in Chinese). Journal of Psychological Science, 41 (5), 1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20180514

Li, S., Coduto, K. D., & Song, C. (2020). Comments vs. One-click reactions: Seeking and perceiving social support on social network sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 64 (5), 777–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1848181

Lin, R., & Utz, S. (2017). Self-disclosure on SNS: Do disclosure intimacy and narrativity influence interpersonal closeness and social attraction? Computers in Human Behavior, 70 , 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.012

Liu, D., & Brown, B. B. (2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 38 , 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.003

Liu, Q., Sun, X., Zhou, Z., Niu, G., Kong, F., & Lian, S. (2016). The effect of honest self-presentation in online social network sites on life satisfaction: The chain mediating role of online positive feedback and general self-concept (in Chinese). Journal of Psychological Science, 39 (2), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20160223

Luo, M., & Hancock, J. (2019). Self-disclosure and social media: Motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31 , 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.019

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis . Taylor & Francis Group.

Maddux, J. E. (2018). Subjective well-being and life satisfaction: An introduction to conceptions, theories, and measures. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Subjective well-being and life satisfaction (pp. 3–31). Routledge.

Manago, A. M. (2015). Media and the development of identity. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (pp. 1–14). John Wiley & Sons.

Meeus, A., Beullens, K., & Eggermont, S. (2019). Like me (please?): Connecting online self-presentation to pre- and early adolescents’ self-esteem. New Media & Society, 21 (3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819847447

Metzler, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2017). The long-term benefits of positive self-presentation via profile pictures, number of friends and the initiation of relationships on Facebook for adolescents’ self-esteem and the initiation of offline relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01981

Metzler, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2018). Association of self-presentational strategies on Facebook and positive feedback in adolescence - A two-study approach. International Journal of Developmental Sciences, 12 (3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-180246

Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell who I am? Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 33 , 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010

Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16 (10), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521

Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52 (3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Neuliep, J. W. (2012). The relationship among intercultural communication apprehension, ethnocentrism, uncertainty reduction, and communication satisfaction during initial intercultural interaction: An extension of anxiety and uncertainty management (AUM) Theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2011.623239

Niu, G., Bao, N., Zhou, Z., Fan, C., Kong, F., & Sun, X. (2015). The impact of self-presentation in online social network sites on life satisfaction: The effect of positive affect and social support (in Chinese). Psychological Development and Education, 31 (5), 563–570. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.05.07

Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 30 , 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.053

Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & Berg, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38 (4), 645–669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0235

Orr, E. M. J., & Moscovitch, D. A. (2015). Blending in at the cost of losing oneself: Dishonest self-disclosure erodes self-concept clarity in social anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 6 (3), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.044914

Palermiti, A. L., Servidio, R., Bartolo, M. G., & Costabile, A. (2017). Cyberbullying and self-esteem: An Italian study. Computers in Human Behavior, 69 , 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.026

Pang, H. (2018). Microblogging, friendship maintenance, and life satisfaction among university students: The mediatory role of online self-disclosure. Telematics and Informatics, 35 (8), 2232–2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.08.009

Pew Research Center. (2018). Social media use in 2018 . https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 , 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Proctor, C. L., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10 (5), 583–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9

Reer, F., & Krämer, N. C. (2017). The connection between introversion/extroversion and social capital outcomes of playing world of warcraft. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 20 (2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0439

Reinecke, L., & Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30 , 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.030

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Sampthirao, P. (2016). Self-concept and interpersonal communication. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.25215/0303.115

Satici, S. A., & Uysal, R. (2015). Well-being and problematic Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 49 , 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.005

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641–669. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.92.3.641

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations . Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Schlosser, A. E. (2020). Self-disclosure versus self-presentation on social media. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.025

Scissors, L., Burke, M., & Wengrovitz, S. (2016, February). What’s in a Like? Attitudes and behaviors around receiving likes on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing—CSCW’16 (pp. 1499–1508). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820066

Selfhout, M. H., Branje, S. J., Delsing, M., Bogt, T. F., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32 (4), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.011

Seo, M., Kim, J., & Yang, H. (2016). Frequent interaction and fast feedback predict perceived social support: Using crawled and self-reported data of Facebook users. Journal of Computer Communication, 21 , 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12160

Shahyad, S., Besharat, M. A., Asadi, M., Alipour, A. S., & Miri, M. (2011). The relation of attachment and perceived social support with life satisfaction: Structural equation model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 952–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.219

Snodgrass, J. G., Bagwell, A., Patry, J. M., Dengah, H. J. F. I., Smarr-Foster, C., Van Oostenburg, M., & Lacy, M. G. (2018). The partial truths of compensatory and poor-get-poorer internet use theories: More highly involved videogame players experience greater psychosocial benefits. Computers in Human Behavior, 78 , 10–25. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26701.13286

Sosik, V. S., & Bazarova, N. N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044

Sun, X., Chai, H., Niu, H., Cui, X., Lian, S., & Tian, Y. (2017). The effect of self-disclosure on social networking site on adolescents’ loneliness: A moderated mediation model (in Chinese). Psychological Development and Education, 33 (4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2017.04.12

Sung, Y., Lee, J. A., Kim, E., & Choi, S. M. (2016). Why we post selfies: Understanding motivations for posting pictures of oneself. Personality and Individual Differences, 97 , 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.032

Taylor, D. A. (1968). The development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 75 (1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1968.9712476

Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257–277). Sage Publications Inc.

Tazghini, S., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2013). A mixed method approach to examining Facebook use and its relationship to self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 827–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.010

Tian, L. (2006). Shortcoming and merits of Chinese version of Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale (in Chinese). Psychological Exploration, 26 (2), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-5184.2006.02.020

Toma, C. L. (2013). Feeling better but doing worse: Effects of Facebook self-presentation on implicit self-esteem and cognitive task performance. Media Psychology, 16 (2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.762189

Twomey, C., & O’Reilly, G. (2017). Associations of self-presentation on Facebook with mental health and personality variables: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20 (10), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0247

Tyler, J. M., Adams, K. E., & Kearns, P. (2018). Self-presentation and subjective well-being. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Subjective well-being and life satisfaction (pp. 355–391). Routledge.

Wang, S. S. (2013). “I share, therefore I am”: Personality traits, life satisfaction, and Facebook check-ins. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16 (12), 870–877. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0395

Wang, Y., & Shi, S. (2003). Preparation for “life satisfaction scales applicable to college students (CSLSS)” (in Chinese). Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medical Science, 12 , 199–201.

Wenninger, H., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2014, October). Activity matters: Investigating the influence of Facebook on life satisfaction of teenage users [Paper presentation]. ECIS 2014 Proceedings-22nd European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Wise, K., Alhabash, S., & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13 (5), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0365

Wohn, D. Y., & Larose, R. (2014). Effects of loneliness and differential usage of Facebook on college adjustment of first-year students. Computers & Education, 76 (7), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.018

Wohn, D. Y., Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2016). How affective is a “like”?: The effect of paralinguistic digital affordances on perceived social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19 (9), 562–566. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0162

Wood, J. V., & Forest, A. L. (2016). Self-protective yet self-defeating: The paradox of low self-esteem people’s self-disclosures. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology., 53 , 131–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.10.001

Wright, E. J., White, K. M., & Obst, P. L. (2018). Facebook false self-presentation behaviors and negative mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21 (1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0647

Xie, W. (2014). Social network site use, mobile personal talk and social capital among teenagers. Computers in Human Behavior, 41 , 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.042

Yang, C., & Brown, B. B. (2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (2), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y

Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Jiang, Z., Mo, J., & Lin, L. (2020). Negative affect and life satisfaction mediate the association between negative life events and suicidal ideation in college students. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 26 (6), 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1861637

Yang, C. (2014). It makes me feel good: A longitudinal, mixed-methods study on college freshmen’s Facebook self-presentation and self development (Publication No. 3620548) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2018). Are you happy for me… on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78 , 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050

Zhou, J., Li, X., Tian, L., & Scott, H. E. (2018). Longitudinal association between low self-esteem and depression in early adolescents: The role of rejection sensitivity and loneliness. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 93 , 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12207

Ziegele, M., & Reinecke, L. (2017). No place for negative emotions? The effects of message valence, communication channel, and social distance on users’ willingness to respond to SNS status. Computers in Human Behavior, 75 , 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.016

Download references

This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 16BSH103).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China

Ruonan Zhai, Pengyan Dai & Jieling Cui

Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Lumei Tian constructed and designed this study, and substantially modified the manuscript. Pengyan Dai and Ruonan Zhai critically modified the manuscript as well. Jieling Cui collected the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors approved the final version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lumei Tian .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Shandong Normal University. The procedures used in this study conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors consented to the submission of the manuscript to the journal.

Conflicts of Interest/Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tian, L., Zhai, R., Dai, P. et al. How different online self-presentations relate to life satisfaction differently in college students: The role of positive online feedback and self-esteem. Curr Psychol 42 , 25460–25475 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03444-w

Download citation

Accepted : 01 July 2022

Published : 24 August 2022

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03444-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• College students
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Presentation of Self Online

Introduction.

Web users are engaging in computer-mediated self-expression in varying ways. The technology that enables this is developing fast, and how it does so is influenced by many more factors than just the needs of the people it touches. This chapter explores literature about the impact of computer-mediated self-expression on:

• people's everyday lives.
• individual self-expression and exploration.
• interactions and relations with others.
• interactions with and expectations of society and community.

We ground our discussion in established literature about non-digital self-expression and identity from the social sciences. This raises the key theme of individuals desiring control over how others see us, yet wanting to behave in a way that is authentic, or consistent with their internal identities. There is also emphasis on the collaborative and collective nature of identity formation; that is, our self-presentation fluctuates depending on the people we're with, the situation we're in, and norms of the society we're part of. The focus on face-to-face interactions and embodiment leads us to draw contrasts between online and offline experiences, and to look at the substitutes for the body in digital spaces.

The extent to which online and offline identities interact and overlap is hotly debated. Is creating an online identity a chance to reset, to reshape yourself as an ideal? Or are you simply using it to convey true information about what is happening in your daily offline life? Is it a shallow, picture of you, or a forum for deep self-exploration? How does the way one portrays oneself in digital spaces feedback to ones offline self-presentation? We explore these questions in section 3 .

Section 4 examines social media and blog use, including how one's imagined audience affects self-presentation in public, and how context collapse might occur when the actual audience is different to expected. There are several examples of techniques for managing who sees which 'version' of oneself, and the types of 'versions' of self that are commonly seen to be constructed on social media, and with what degree of transparency they are linked together. Most of the longitudinal studies in this space are of teenagers and young people, who have never known a world without social media, and who may incorporate it naturally and seamlessly into their daily practices, thus making it a core part of their identity during formative years. I draw a contrast between the relationship-driven architecture of contemporary social networking sites, and the more personal, customisable blogging platforms which preceded them. Studies of bloggers and blogging communities reveal some different priorities and habits than what is common practice today, and offer insight into how online self-presentation is evolving.

Throughout literature from both social and computer sciences, privacy is a common concern. In section 5 we look further at how tensions between users and the privacy settings of systems they use impact on personal information disclosure. Does self-censorship affect identity formation? How do people weigh up the risks and benefits of exposing themselves online? This is particularly pertinent for future systems development, as more and more people become aware of state surveillance, for-profit data collection, and their diminished rights over their personal data.

Finally we introduce the relatively new Web Science concept of Social Machines in section 6 in order to recapture the circular interdependencies between humans, technologies, and communities. We propose to build on current work of describing and classifying social machines to better account for the individual perspectives of participants.

Ultimately we posit that online is simultaneously a reflection, a distortion, an enhancement, and a diminishment of the offline world. They impact each other in complex ways, particularly with regards to self-presentation and identity formation. The various theories and studies described in this chapter form the basis for which we conduct the investigative and technical work in the remainder of this thesis.

My perspective on this review

I'd like to take a moment to note that whilst reading various studies about young peoples' reactions to and interactions with rapidly evolving digital technologies from the 2000s, it occurred to me that the subject of these studies is in fact my own age group. Some of the results are instinctively familiar to me; I was there, I experienced these things. Some are ridiculous. I don't know how my first-hand experience of growing up with technology (I was born in the same year as the Web, and my parents were early adopters) affects my reading of these studies, or my ability to study others' use of technology, but it is something I ponder.

Performing the self

The obvious place to start when embarking on a discussion about self-presentation is Goffman [ goffman1959 ]. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , Goffman posits several, now well-established, theories using drama as a metaphor:

• Everyone is performing. The front-stage of our performance is what we create for others - the audience - to see, so that they may evaluate and interact appropriately with us.
• We also have a back-stage; how we act when there is no audience, or an audience of our team . Our team participate alongside and collude with us on the front-stage.
• Our performances have both conscious and unconscious aspects. That is, we consciously give information about ourselves to others in order to manage their impression of us, but we also unconsciously give off information that others may pick up on and take into account when deciding how to interact with us.
• Both actors and audiences are complicit in maintaining the cohesion of a situation. Performances break down if actors break character, deliberately or accidentally, or if there is a mismatch between parties' definition of the situation.

These theories emphasise the collaborative or social nature of self-presentation, and apply to face-to-face interaction.

Whilst Goffman's dramaturgy refers mostly to body language, a related theory is Brunswik's lens model [ brunswick56 , lens01 ], part of which suggests that individuals infer things about others based on "generated artifacts", or things left behind. In [ bedrooms02 ] this model is used to study how personal spaces (offices and bedrooms) affect observers' assessments of the characteristics of the owner of the space. This study links individuals to their environments by:

• self-directed identity claims (eg. purposeful decorations like posters or use of colour);
• other-directed identity claims (eg. decorations which communicate shared values that others would recognise);
• interior behavioural residue (ie. "physical traces of activities conducted within an environment");
• exterior behavioural residue (ie. traces of activities conducted outside of the immediate environment which nonetheless provide some cues as to the personality of the environment occupant).

Self-presentation is largely unconscious in the physical realm and comes naturally to most people. People may also use in-crowd markers (like a shirt with a band logo on) consciously to send certain messages to people who will recognise them, whilst not drawing any attention from people who won't [ boydfacid ]. Later in this chapter I look at how our presence in digital spaces fail and succeed to take the place of the physical body when it comes to interactions and identity formation.

https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/01/10/context-collapse-a-literature-review/

Social psychologists argue that we come to know ourselves by seeing what we do and how others react to us, and that through interaction, actors seek to maintain the identity meanings associated with each role (Burke and Stets 2009; Cooley 1902; Mead 1934). Indeed, Mead (1934) contends that for each role the actor plays, there is a separate Generalized Other, or larger moral understanding of who the person is and how the person is expected to be in the world, and that social actors manage their roles by adhering to disparate expectations as is situationally necessary. Similarly, Goffman (1959) demonstrates the skillful ways in which social actors reveal and conceal aspects of themselves for varying audiences, maintaining separate faces within distinct social arenas, while Leary (1995) discusses playing to each audience, their values, and their perceived positive opinion of the actor.

The self in context

By reflexively adjusting one’s perception of self in reaction to society, people construct their individual identity. [ boydfacid ]

Development of personal identity is not only something that happens internally. We are strongly influenced by feedback (conscious and unconscious) from others around us, as well as the particular setting and culture in which we find ourselves. How we react to things outside of our control in part determines our identity construction, and some people adjust their behaviour in response to feedback more than others [ snyder74 ]. Thus identity is socially constructed, and often is dynamically adjusted according to context [ boydfacid ].

(self-awareness is identity situated as in society.) A person's understanding of the context in which they are performing impacts their performance [boydfacid]. boyd argues that online, people find it much more difficult to evaluate this context, and thus run increased risk of performing inappropriately, or experience context collapse when multiple audiences are inadvertently combined. This is explored further in section 4 .

…. political, cultural, racial. stuff about web dissolving these [Turkle], but not really. [Kenny] study about people using identity language (with a corpus of terms that corresponds to culture/society), but in content not wrt themselves or in their profiles.

The project of the self

Giddens [ giddens84 ] looks at the relationship between macro and micro views of the world, acknowledging that broader effects of society impact individual behaviour, and vice versa, with neither one being the primary driving force. This suits well my ideas about online self-presentation, confirming the complex interplay between technological affordances, individual actions, and the place of both in a cultural and social context.

Giddens argues that self-identity is an aggregation of a person's experiences, an ongoing account, and a continuous integration of events. In contrast to Goffman's dramaturgy, Giddens downplays the role of an audience, and in contrast to Brunswik's lens theory, he downplays what we can learn from the traces someone leaves behind. Giddens argues that self-identity cannot be uncovered from a moment, but something which is ongoing, over time. Modern society, according to Giddens, affords us more freedom to create our own narratives to determine our self-identity. In the past, rigid social expectations dictated our roles for us. However, increased choices about what to do with ourselves may also increase stress and prove problematic. Awareness of the body is central to awareness of the self, as the body is directly involved in moments we experience in daily life. As we are now explicitly constructing a narrative about our identities, rather than having one ascribed to us by society, the self is an ongoing project which takes work to maintain [ giddens91 ].

The focus on explicit actions and decision making about self-presentation is pertinent when it comes to digital representations of identity.

Extending the self

Early to mid 20th century philosophers and social scientists complicate notions of the 'self' by combining it and extending it with our physical surroundings, and this view emerged long before the Web. Heidegger expresses technology as coming into being through use by a human; when tools are used the tool and its user do not exist as independent entities, but as the experience of the task at hand (using the example of a carpenter hammering, unaware of himself or his hammer) [ manhammer ]. McLuhan discusses media, literate and electronic, from the printing press and electric light to radio, TV and telephone, and its impact on how we communicate. He places communication technologies as simultaneously extensions of and amputations of our bodies and senses, which continuously and fundamentally re-shape the way we (humans) see and place ourselves the world [ mcluhan ]. More recently, Clark's Extended Mind Theory uses the example of a notebook as a means of externally processing information that would otherwise be carried out by the brain, drawing the external world in as party to our cognitive processes [ clarkmind ].

The next logical step is to consider how the modern digital technologies of Web and social networking can also be considered extensions of the self, and this is addressed in part by Luppicini's notion of Technoself [ technoself ]. Technoself incorporates (amongst other things) extension of the self through physical technology embedded in the body (cyborgology); in our changing understanding of what it is to be , as life is extended and augmented through advancing healthcare; but also in our relationships with our virtual selves. This is not a topic into which I will dive deeply from a philosophical standpoint, but the idea of the Web and online social networks as extensions to the self rather than as separate entities or concepts is worth bearing in mind as this thesis proceeds to explore the complexities of intertwined digital and offline identities.

maybe something to do with hyperreality, Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

Offline to online… and back again

When people use digital technologies to communicate, they are passing a version of themselves through the filter of the platform they use. In this section I discuss the relationships between online and offline selves.

One might assume that the disembodied nature of the interactions lets people have more control over how they are "seen" by others; Turkle claims that it is "easy" to create and tweak a perfect self online [ Turkle2015 ]. In reality this control is affected by a great number of factors. Turkle writes that computer-mediated communication is predictable even in the ways it is unpredictable, and that people seek out this predictability in preference to face-to-face interactions, and in preference to facing emotional vulnerability. Turkle's argument assumes that we have full understanding and control of the digital systems we use and the audiences we are reaching through them. It presumes we know exactly how and where and when the data we input will be output in the short and long term, and how others will interpret it. given off by users as a side effect of scrolling, typing, tapping and clicking in their browser and mobile apps which is collected in the background by a plethora of third-parties. This generates a view of the individual that they may not even realise is being compiled, and over which they certainly have no control. Further, the affordances of the technical platform may dictate how a user is able to actively express themselves, or influence what they want to share on a subconscious level. We will discuss both of these issues in more detail later in this chapter. -->

Turkle's argument neglects that at every crossroad in these 'predictable' systems are stationed unpredictable humans, perhaps with conflicting interests and motivations, from the conception of a social system, to its realisation and use. Turkle has been studying for decades how people explore, experiment and find themselves through technology, and her overriding narrative is of a desire to express an idealised version of the self; one that is not subject to any interpretation other than what the expresser desires. However, as discussed further in the next section numerous studies of social media users find a variety of other types of motivation for participation.

Keen [ digitalvertigo ] on the other hand emphasises the risks that individuals become trapped by technology of which they have neither understanding nor control. Being swept up in cultural technology trends, social media users may unwittingly become "prisoners" of a carefully curated digital "hyperreality", the importance of which supplants their offline lives. Similarly, [ inreallife ] suggests that "fantasy gets in the way of real progress" when it comes to self improvement, but studies only examples of "catfishing", where individuals create exaggerated online profiles in order to deliberately mislead potential romantic interests. The idea that the online self replaces rather than supplements the offline self also misses the nuances of how and why people use social media in the first place. Nonetheless, I agree that online worlds are certainly not just a mirror of the offline.

On the contrary, not only are online identities some form of reflection of offline identities, but the inverse can be true as well. In ethnographic studies of teenagers' use of mobile apps for socialising, it is reported that crafted online personas both reflect and feed back into teenagers' true sense of self [ appgen ]. Numerous studies from the field of psychology, reported in [ infinitereality ], demonstrate various ways in which playing a role online or in a virtual world reflects back and directly changes people's offline behaviour. Avatars can be used to build confidence and reveal suppressed personality traits. Relatedly, study participants who were asked to interact from behind avatars which conveyed different appearances of age, race, and body type expressed affinity with these previously unfamiliar experiences, and responded differently in personality evaluations before and after. A longitudinal study of teenage girls roleplaying online, a process through which they developed their identity through narrative, revealed positive impacts on their confidence, through new friendships [ youth ].

There is a long history of assessments of online interactions which proclaim that the self-centered nature of social media makes people narcissistic, that competition for reputation isolates us [ digitalvertigo ], and that the construction of an ideal self or facade is damaging, especially to young people. However, [ appgen ] argues that narcissism is not created by the Web, but enabled by it, as an existing need for validation is more readily satisfied.

Several studies [ insta17 , Rousseau17 , haferkamp10 ] find that people's self confidence or body image drops after viewing the online profiles of people who appear to be more attractive or more successful than them. [ wellbeing17 ] explains that passive use of social media is what appears to have a negative impact on people, whereas active use has a positive effect on well-being. This is shown in several studies, including [ toma10 ], which explores the beneficial effects of browsing one's own Facebook profile; [ nemer15 ] which discusses how selfies can empower marginalised communities; and [ noland06 ] which finds a positive impact on self-esteem of teenaged girls who engage in "auto-photography".

It is also worth bearing in mind that experience in the virtual world can cause physical reactions - laughter, tears - and the virtual and the physical blur together in the subject stream of experiences, adding to an identity which is made of virtual and physical events blended together [ youth ].

Authenticity and integrity

In an interview, Facebook founder Zuckerberg said that "having two identities for yourself is an example of lack of integrity" [ fbeffect ]. This received public backlash at the time, and on several more occasions as Facebook and other social networking sites imposed real name policies, sometimes linked to an official ID [ boyd2012politics ]. This removes a level of identity control which many people take for granted. A particularly clear example can be seen in the reaction of a community of drag queens who were used to being able to interact online using chosen names. Real name requirements removes a vital aspect of fluidity from their interactions, glossing over the seams which provide poignant performance material and a route towards a group identity [ lingel2015face , barmann14drag ]. Additionally the requirement for real names and the ability to report 'fake names' became a mechanism whereby a marginalised group could be harassed and silenced [ hotmess2015selfies ]. In general, an attitude that people should be happy to connect all of their identities together under a single legal name is an expression of social privilege: a result of having no features or proclivities which are socially censored.

Sandberg, whilst COO of Facebook in 2012, commented that profiles as detailed self portraits is a "shift towards authenticity" [ digitalvertigo ], but her organisation's notion of 'integrity' as a single complete version of oneself that is the same no matter to whom one is presenting is somewhat at odds with authenticity. Neither are people "intraviduals", caught between competing identities as claimed by Conley in 2009 [ conleyintra ], but expressing aspects of themselves appropriately and according to context. This is behaviour which we have already established via Goffman as ordinary offline, and so shouldn't be considered unusual online. One's 'authentic' self-presentation may be partial or moderated and no less genuine for that. Indeed, some individuals find they are more able to express their authentic selves online than they are offline due to oppression or social expectations which are disjoint from their core values.

However, in highly commercialised or competitive online environments, 'authenticity' is a quality to strive for, to maintain an audience. A Web search for 'authenticity on social media' will reveal a plethora of guides on how to craft an 'authentic' persona, how to maintain personal-but-not-too-personal ties with one's audience so that they see that you're just like them. For individuals who set out to explore and express their identity online, this can be a tricky world to navigate [ duffy15b ]. True authenticity in online communities is seen as disjoint with self-promotion and celebrity; popularity implies a reduction in authenticity, perhaps linked to 'selling out' or 'pandering' to an audience [ donathboyd04 , ellison07 ]. Whereas authenticity is often seen from an outside perspective as always something manufactured, an idealized reality [ Marwick2010 ].

The idea that online spaces are under control of their owners suggests others may be suspicious of their authenticity [ tong08 ] but reinforcement of social identity from others can counteract this. Warranting theory describes how information that appears to be outside of the subject's control—for example, a message posted publicly by a friend on someone's profile—can reinforce the trustworthiness of the other profile data to an outside observer [ warrant , warrant1 , warrant2 ].

"strive to be honest and honerable" [inreallife]

Dishonesty and deception

"Some argue that distinct contexts are unnecessary and only encourage people to be deceptive. This is the crux of the belief that only those with something to hide need privacy." - [ boydnp10 ]

Most people like to consider themselves to be quite honest in their communications with friends, family and acquaintances. However, even honest people routinely modulate what they share, omitting and sometimes falsifying information in order to reduce social friction, avoid confrontation, defuse awkward situations, or to save face [ buller1996interpersonal , burgoon1989maintaining ]. Hancock et. al. introduced the term butler lies to refer to a common use of simple lies to manage communications, such as smoothly exiting from an unwanted conversation [ hancock2009butler ]. Online, the notion of who our 'friends' are has become increasingly blurred and difficult to define. In such settings, people commonly navigate different social spaces, projecting and varying self-presentation according to the ways they want to be perceived by each [ marwick2010TweetHonestly ].

Whilst part of tailoring one's presentation to an audience is the ability to carry out some level of deception , with personal communications, there is an implicit expectation of authenticity [ aoki2005Ambiguity ]. However, online, the need to navigate multiple and uncertain audiences means that we may constantly vary our self-presentation. Authenticity becomes a social construct derived from the social context and how we wish to be perceived by a given audience [ boyd2002faceted ]. We may be deceiving, at least to some extent, nearly constantly without even being conscious of it.

Deception has long been studied, both within and outwith the HCI community. Traditionally, deception has been cast in a negative light [ bok1978lying ], to be used only if no other option is available. In the 1980s, however, communications researchers began to investigate the positive aspects of lying, in particular white lies - socially acceptable lies which cause little or no harm to the recipient [ camden1984WhiteLies ].

In 1992, McCornack cast deception as an understandable response to complexity: "[r]esearchers studying deception recently have begun to argue that deceptiveness is a message property that reflects a kind of functional adaptation to the demands of complex communication situations" [ mccornack1009InformationManipulation ]. People then manipulate the information which they share as a necessary part of participation in society. This has led to recent work on the positive aspects of deception in human computer interaction, in particular how butler lies are used to ease social situations [ hancock2009butler ], and how systems can deceive their users for beneficial reasons [ adar2013Benevolent ].

Several different taxonomies of lying and deceptive behaviours have been proposed [ camden1984WhiteLies , depaulo1996lying , lindskold1983categories ]; Anolli et al. examined a family of deceptive miscommunications, including self-deception and white lies [ anolli2001DeceptiveMiscommunication ]. They look at omission of relevant information, concealment using diversionary information, falsifaction and masking with alternative, false information. Of particular interest is their claim that "a deceptive miscommunication theory should be included in a general framework capable of explaining the default communication", that is that deception should not be seen as a psychologically different activity than 'normal' communication. This tallies with the earlier approach of McCornack [ mccornack1009InformationManipulation ] who situates deceptive messages within the spectrum of information manipulation . This, combined with the lens of Gricean conversational maxims, allows for an explanation of deceptions where some of the truth is told, but information which the speaker knows is relevant to the listener is omitted or obscured [ grice1970logic ].

Motivations for lying have also been extensively studied in social psychology. Turner et al.'s taxonomy included saving face ; guiding social interaction; avoiding tension or conflict; affecting interpersonal relationships; and achieving interpersonal power [ turner1975information ]. Camden et. al. [ camden1984WhiteLies ] develop a detailed categorisation of lies to do with basic needs, managing affiliation with others, self-esteem and miscellaneous practices such as humour and exaggeration.

Many malicious or undesirable behaviours are facilitated by the ability to create and alter identities. Astroturfing [ cho2011astroturfing ] has become common online [ zhang2014astroturfing ], with corporations and governments employing sophisticated identity management software to carry out large scale operations. Possibly the most famous of this is the 50 Cent Party , hired by the government of the People's Republic of China to post favourable comments towards party policy [ fiftycent ]. On a smaller scale, sock-puppets — multiple accounts controlled by a single person — are used to skew ideas of consensus and distort discussion in online societies, leading to attempts to automatically identify such accounts [ bu2013sock , solorio2013case ]. Personas can be constructed for the purpose of trolling , whether it is overtly offensive in order to cause outrage or more subtle manipulation to trick people into wasting effort or taking caricatured positions, and correlations have been shown between enjoyment of trolling and everyday sadism [ buckels2014trolls ].

Many of these activities are a form of obfuscation , in some way hiding the truth, polluting the data pool and diminishing trust. The ethical issues here are complex and contextual, with the viewpoints of different actors having considerable divergence [ brunton2011vernacular ].

Another strand of research borrows from information warfare, to look at the possibilities for disinformation. Disinformation tactics are most useful when a channel of information cannot be completely closed, but can be rendered useless by being filled with incorrect, but plausible, assertions in order to lower its overall signal-to-noise ratio [ wiki:disinformation ]. The intended target of the lie may not be the official recipient of the message: lies can be directed at those who are eavesdropping on the communications channel or surveilling the participants [ alexander2010Disinformation ]. Techniques used include redaction to remove parts of the message, airbrushing to blur parts of the message and blending to make the message similar to other plausible messages, as well as other forms of information distortion [ alexander2010Disinformation ].

In chapter 3 I carry out two studies which aim to bring together these general theories of deceptive behaviour with a closer look at how and why people might engage in them online.

Networked publics

Social media technologies blur the boundaries between private and public, and this affects identity performance. Ten years ago, boyd hoped that educators and technologists would succeed in easing the cultural transition for young people into the networked era [ boyd-sns07 ]. She describes social networking sites as a type of "networked publics", technologically-mediated spaces where people can virtually go to interact with their friends, and where they may be subject to observation or interjection by passers-by. Differently to offline public spaces, online publics may be persistent, scalable, searchable, replicable, and/or have invisible audiences. These features of networked publics affect how people express themselves and interact, however they do not directly dictate participants' behaviour [ boydnp10 ]. Networked publics are not only spaces, but collections of people or "imagined community"; different publics can serve different purposes, but can also intersect with each other [ boyd2014s ].

"Networked publics must be understood in terms of “publics,” a contested and messy term with multiple meanings that is used across different disciplines to signal different concepts ... In short, I contend that networked publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies; they are simultaneously a space and a collection of people ... My approach accepts the messiness and, instead, focuses on the ways in which networked technologies extend and complicate publics in all of their forms ... publics that have been transformed by networked media" [boydnp10]

Over subsequent years, boyd and many others proceed to explore the effects of these differences on those who engage with online social media to different degrees. In this section I recount some of these studies and findings.

A benefit of participation in networked publics is that a wider variety of communities are accessible than offline. Niche identities don't have to be set aside to fit in [ appgen ]. Online interactions are "not simply a dialogue between two interlocutors, but a performance of social connection before a broader audience" [ boyd2014s ]. boyd looks specifically at teenagers in networked publics, who she says have sought online spaces in recent years as they are not allowed to 'hang out' any more in physical spaces like malls [ boyd2014s , marwickdrama14 ].

cues by social partners affect observers' impressions of the profile owner. Profiels offer interactive and static features and are complicated by input of others. Less control by initiator.

"Comments are not simply a dialogue between two interlocutors, but a performance of social connection before a broader audience. " [boydnp10]

[modern American] teens create their own publics. Digital spaces because they're not allowed in physical ones (like malls). Being themselves, to see and be seen. "What makes a particular site more or less public is... how it is situated within the broader social ecosystem." [boyd2014s]

performance in public. 'drama' as a defense mechanism for teens. Saving face, get attention, manipulate perceptions of others. Larger audience than school halls. distinguish from adult-defined practices like bullying, so for autonomy and control. elicit support. [marwickdrama14]

reconceptualise audiences as co-present and participatory. misalignment potential increases with SNS. [baym12]

change from bi to unidirectional connects as norm with Twitter. asymmetrical disclosure. reinforces weak ties, lowers barrier to communication. [ellison13]

First I reflect on the digital substitutions for the physical body in online social interactions. Then, in comparing and contrasting 'old school' style blogging with contemporary (circa 2013-2017) social networking sites I look deeper into how differences in technological affordances impact peoples' interactions and self-expression.

Audiences for identity performance as well as the context in which the performance takes place are critical, but online both of these may be unknown or dynamic, or both. I'll introduce work around imagined audience and context collapse, both of which pioneer our understanding of identity behaviours in networked publics. When audiences and contexts are known, we can examine how people connect with others and form communities; in the final section I look at trust, social reinforcement of identity, and studies of what social media participants choose to disclose or conceal.

Unfortunately, networked publics appear to reproduce many of the biases that exist in other publics-social inequalities, including social stratification around race, gender, sexuality, and age, are reproduced online (Chen and Wellman, 2005; Hargittai, 2008). Political divisions are also reproduced (Adamic and Glance, 2005)" [boydnp10]

humans are reduced into packages of information... digital is separate from true humanness [digitalvertigo]

Profiles and embodiment

In Faceted Id/entity [ boydfacid ], boyd highlights several differences between self-representation offline compared to online. Embodiment is a key factor in self-presentation and she claims that there is considerable difference between performing one's identity through appearance, eg. fashion and body language, when walking into a room, compared to explicitly describing oneself by entering attributes and other personal information into an online form to create a profile. The disembodied nature of online interactions means that people must find new ways to express themselves, and manage the impressions other people have of them, or "a new type of body" [ youth ]. A lack of control over one's online self presentation is compounded by the inability to visualise - or perhaps even be aware of - the data that is collected by the systems we use. Online activities are logged over time to an extent that most individuals are not aware of; these activities, an individual's expressions given off (Goffman), are used, largely unknowingly, for the commercial benefits of third parties; this constitutes a kind of implicit or unconscious profile. boyd suggests that visualising all of one's personal information that is available online, as well as visualising one's 'audience' or social network connections, would provide an individual with better awareness of, and so better control over, their online image. In boyd's prototype interfaces, users are explicitly asked for personal data in order to build a profile of themselves, and boyd does point out the problematic nature of this, compared with the unconscious or implicit identity performance one conducts in offline social settings.

Counts in [ counts09 ] explores the impact of profile attribute selection on self presentation, and finds that upon completing the values for 10 attributes, participants converge on their "ideal" representation of themselves. This study also finds that free-form attributes are better than ones with preset choices for participants' satisfaction with how they have portrayed themselves. This study does not take into account that most online profiles are created in a particular context, with a particular purpose in mind. Asking participants to express their ideal self-presentation 'in general' vastly oversimplifies reality. Participants are not told who the consumers of the profile they are creating are expected to be, or how it is to be presented; nor are participants given an opportunity to indicate who their expected audience is or what they think the profile is for.

Since boyd's prototypes were designed, social media gained widespread popularity. Most, if not all, mainstream systems request input of explicit personal data to build an initial profile, despite the discord of this activity compared with offline identity expression. However, unlike in boyd's prototypes, it doesn't stop there. Such systems encourage ongoing engagement through adding and messaging contacts with various degrees of publicness, creating status updates to broadcast a current situation, production of creative media content, and feedback on content and updates created by others. As we will see in chapter 3 , contemporary social media builds one's profile from various combinations of these online activities, and typically use far more than the explicit data entered by the user to generate a representation of a person. This increases the likelihood that individuals may not have an accurate impression of what this representation looks like to others.

Expression through avatars, design, visuals - pull from blogging and sns studies

Recent studies confirm that visuals are a key part of expressing identity online. Many focus on selfies as a modern substitute for the body [ vanhouse11 , lasen15 , senft15 , frosch15 ], but [ bunnies17 ] examines self-presentation through other kinds of photos. Examples include humorous images from popular culture or photographs of other things with an overlayed caption, coupled with a tag (eg. #currentstate) that indicates the poster relates to this concept; as well as photos of items that people carry with them day to day. In [ papatwit12 ], self-expression is performed through use of Twitter hashtags, and [ food15 ] suggests that food photography is a means of self-presentation.

Pointing at something and saying that one has chosen it as self-representative makes the assemblage of tags, text, and image a culturally intelligible self-representation [ bunnies17 ].

A lack of embodiment can also have a distinct advantage. In [ stendal12 ] several studies of people with disabilities who use online social systems are reviewed, and reveal findings about increased control over disclosure of disability (which may not be possible offline) and reduced isolation when people are able to interact online.

Beyond simply visualising all of one's personal information, and the connections between social network contacts to show how personal data may flow through a network, boyd suggests that these visualisations can be used to actively segregate one's contacts along parameters which correspond to one's personal information, permitting an individual to perform identity more appropriately in digital spaces. However in practice, designing user interfaces for this proves to be challenging. For one, people aren't used to explicitly thinking about audience and context, so dividing their contacts up this way is not natural.

Transparency of the collection of any of this data, and control over how it is distributed are key to boyd's thesis of how to empower individuals online. Sadly, the situation here has not improved in the intervening years. Indeed, private corporations are collecting more and more personal data through free social networking sites, and granting the subjects zero rights with regard to access or distribution. Later in this chapter we elaborate on how privacy concerns impact online disclosure and profile creation behaviours; in chapter 3 we build on the existing literature with an empirical study of a community of hackers intent on decentralised and personally-owned data storage as a means to greater control.

Next we look more closely at the behaviour of users of Social Network Sites, of which "profiles" are a key feature [ boydsns07 ].

Social Network Sites

In 2007 boyd and Ellison defined Social Network Sites (SNS) to be Web-based, bounded, public or semi-public, and afford creating and viewing connections with or between other users [ boydsns07 ]. They note that users of these systems tend to connect with others with whom they already have a 'real life' social relationship, and present a fairly thorough history of SNS from 1997 onwards, which I won't recount here. This definition is pertinent to this thesis due to its emphasis on profiles, implying self-presentation, as a core feature of SNS. In 2013 they updated their definition to incorporate different types of content and data into profiles; to de-emphasise the traversal of connections (as this became more important to machines than humans); and to emphasise participants' interaction with streams of user-generated content [ ellison13 ]. I will proceed to focus on case studies and experiments which were carried out since these definitions, and due to the rapid pace of change in this area, prioritise those from the last four years.

SNS have: profiles, friends lists, public communication, stream-based updates." [boydnp10]

Many studies of identity formation on social media focus on young people and teenagers. One reason is because this is a crucial point in life for understanding oneself and asserting a personal identity. Other studies approach teenagers as somewhat alien "digital natives", born into a world of social technology which is expected to fundamentally change how they interact with the world compared with older generations, who don't or can't distinguish between online and offline [ borndigi ]. I will relate the results of these studies, but note that I disagree with the notion of a "digital native" because being born in a particular year or even raised around modern technology does not automatically give one a natural instinct for identity expression in digital spaces, and not even necessarily more opportunity to experiment and reflect than older SNS users [ boyd2014s ].

Digital communication technologies can help or hinder identity formation. The App Generation [ appgen ] provides a balanced argument between the pros and cons of teenagers socialising through mobile applications. They find that some applications provide a "prepackaged identity" for users to adopt rather than encouraging experimentation. The affordances of applications shape the forms of expression that are available, and so identity formation is in a way controlled by the application designer. Born Digital [ borndigi ] suggests that teenagers experiment with identity online, but aren't fully aware, or don't care about, the traces that are left behind when they do so.

In some cases, for example fan communities, self-presentation shifts between a more playful fictional identity performance, and an identity which is closer to 'real life' [ baker09 ]. In others, such as professional self-presentation, individuals lean on automatically generated metrics by the system they use to convey a positive image, with gamification or commodification of the self becoming commonplace [ academicqs16 ]. When SNS provide a platform for professionalising passions such as content creation, [ duffy15 ] notes that participants may be even more vulnerable to the consequences of performing and maintaining one's self-presentation in an exposed online space, as well as the "labour of visibility" that goes into it.

Most people occupy multiple roles offline, find ways to establish and maintain boundaries between them, and continue to do so to different degrees when taking representations of these roles to online spaces. SNS increase the permeability of boundaries, but users employ various tactics to manage their identity when a one-identity-per-person model is imposed on them [ quinn15 ].

[ singh15 ] describes how Twitter users subvert features of the system to express themselves in new ways, as well as reflecting on how changes to the functionality of they system affect how people use it. This supports [ papatwit12 ] which, through content analysis of trending hashtags, also describes how people work around technical constraints of Twitter to meet their self-presentation needs.

Even in the early days of SNS (specifically Facebook) beginning to rise to popularity when use was overflowing into the workplace, the access control settings offered by Facebook were considered too complicated to enable most people to realistically manage connections with both professional and personal contacts from a single profile, despite the potential advantages of connecting with colleagues through the platform [ DiMicco07 ]. More recently, we see that SNS users manage tensions between their multiple roles and the affordances of systems by segregating their audience across multiple platforms. The interview study in [ Zhao16 ] found that sharing decisions across multiple sites are made primarily based on the known audiences of the different sites, and the content being shared. This study also recounts previous work on motivations for using different SNS, including to connect with old friends, and share pictures, which feed into decisions taking regarding content sharing. A similar study found that family was a crucial audience to whom more private sharing was desired [ Farnham11 ], and findings in [ Vitak14 ] indicate that Facebook users desire to re-asssert their offline boundaries when online, and concurs that managing this through the tools that Facebook provides is cost-intensive. Facebook itself compounds this issue by using identity information as a "social lubricant" which encourages people to make new connections [ ellison11fb ].

In Alone Together, she says people are reduced to profiles

is definition from [ellison13] still good?

A social network site is a networked communication platform in which participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and/or system-provided data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of user-generated content provided by their connections on the site.

Blogging and personal homepages

Personal homepages and blogs have been around for considerably longer than SNS, though remain a comparatively specialist practice. It is widely accepted that blog or website owners have more control over their online space than do users of SNS, [ intlblog , markus06 ], including freedom to innovate with the site's appearance and thus explore more individualistic aspects of the online self [ alist05 ]. Relatedly, communities of bloggers are not owned or controlled by a single entity [ dennen09 ].

Through observations of over 200 blogs within a particular community and semi-structured interviews with 40 bloggers, [ dennen09 ] identifies five aspects which affect how bloggers build their identity: name and blog title; descriptive attributes; post content; voice; affiliations; and visual design. All of these are subject to change over time, and sometimes major offline transitions can cause a shift to a new pseudonym or blog altogether; often the audience is invited along however. Blogs are often designed to reinforce community norms, to enhance a sense of belonging; as a result, the community develops and evolves its own identity, which in turn influences how newcomers choose to present themselves. Bloggers' contributions are fragmented across different domains, and where their writing style and topics constitute a part of their identity, so it fragments their identity.

Blogging communities are traditionally more accepting of pseudonyms but [ dennen09 ] notes that distrust is not of other community members, but rather of personally-known community outsiders who may accidentally stumble across blog entries.

"homepages became an important site of identification, as early web users posted biographies, photos, and entertaining links for viewers who surfed to their page (Döring, 2002) [ellison13]"

Earlier in this chapter I mentioned Brunswik's lens model which describes a way in which identity can be constituted through physical traces left behind. This model has also been used to understand how observers make personality judgments about people based on the traces left in their digital space , ie. personal homepages [ gosling08 , markus06 , vazire04 , papacharissi02 ].

The importance of themes and designs of blogs and homepages is emphasised by [ dennen09 ], who mentions that whilst some blog consumers use a feed reader to receive new content from the blogs they are interested in, they often click through to the original post to view it in the context of the author's own space.

On the other hand, [ blogdesign ] takes a snapshot of a random sample of blogs in 2003 and maps the state of the blogosphere through analysing visual elements in depth and tracking commonalities. The conclusion is that significant customisation of blog templates was in fact relatively rare, with most people only slightly tweaking colours or adding custom images. A likely explanation for this is that bloggers lacked the technical expertise to do so.

Studies of blogging communities outside of the US demonstrate that blogging is not a uniform practice that can be understood as a whole [ intlblog ]. Certain communities (in this case, Muslim ones) which are seen by outsiders as homogeneous use blogging to highlight their uniqueness and individuality. Others (for example in China) emphasise their ethnicity and culture as a key part of their identity. Blogs from the Paris Banlieues in fact had a direct impact on how the mainstream media portrayed their plight; an example of how personal identity expression in networked publics was able to affect a broader social understanding of that identity. The overriding message from these studies is cultural taboos and offline societal context affect narrative about identity, and this is reflected online.

[papa04blog] is a content analysis of blogs, and suggests that self expression through blogging is spontaneous

Imagined audience

The audience to whom one performs is critical in forming the context in which one is performing [ boydnp10 ]. On SNS, people are often expressing themselves to multiple audiences simultaneously. When people are aware of this, they take different strategies when it comes to navigating what they share; individuals with many followers on Twitter practiced self-censorship (only posting things they are happy for the worst-case audience to read) and practicing coded communication (strategically targeting some posts at some audience members, and others at others, to maintain overall interest) [ Marwick2010 ].

However, given the many possible ways in which Tweets can be discovered and consumed ([ Marwick2010 ] questioned people who post publicly) it is virtually impossible to determine the actual audience for one's content. Thus, people imagine who their audience is likely to be, and express themselves accordingly. Obviously these imaginings, which may stem from understanding of the affordances of a particular platform, or a particular community or topic of discussion, impact how people express themselves online.

[ litt12 ] theorises about how the imagined audience is synthesised, and draws in Giddens' structurational framework, noting a combination of macro- (social roles, technical affordances) and micro-level (individual motivations, technical skills) factors. [ litt12 ] ultimately concludes that asking people about their imagined audience is prone to errors or misinterpretations, as imagined audience is a concept which is both difficult to measure and difficult to express.

Relatedly, as people perform in networked publics, they must contend with a "networked audience," who are not connected only with the performer, but also with each other [ Marwick2010 ].

Context collapse

I have so far discussed how people attempt to map boundaries from their offline lives into their online interaction spaces, and the notion of imagined audience. Context collapse occurs when boundaries come down and personas intended for different audiences are merged [ Marwick2010 ]. The consequences of this may range from slight social awkwardness, to direct breaches of privacy and potential danger, and have been examined in a variety of different circumstances, such as [ daviscontext , contextwesch , duguay14 , duguay13 ].

Thanks to the properties of networked publics such as searchability and persistence, contexts may also collapse when information is consumed later, or through a different systems, whereby it may be interpreted differently by the consumer than how it was originally intended [ boydnp10 ].

As we look forward to how SNS and online self-presentation in general will evolve, we must consider how the lines people have drawn around their contexts are tethered to particular (versions of) systems. What happens when these systems change, merge, or disappear? As designers of new systems, we must be cognisant of the role technical affordances play in creating, enabling, and destroying social boundaries.

Everybody knows I’m a dog

"While once viewed as a set of technologies built in resistance to the ugliness of the dot-com era, social media is now intertwined with neoliberal capitalism and data surveillance" - [ boyd15 ]

We are rapidly moving into a world where information about nearly every aspect of our lives is becoming sensed, recorded, captured and made available in digital form. Data is captured and shared voluntarily, as tools invite ever more intimate participatory surveillance [ albrechtslund2008Participatory ]. While the abundance of information traces has unlocked a wide range of new kinds of applications (eg. [ Akker:2014:TRP:2684563.2684638 , Consolvo:2008:ASW:1357054.1357335 ]), the creation and potential for disclosure poses new threats to individual privacy and autonomy. The overall lack of transparency by manufacturers regarding how they are capturing and handling personal information has created a heightened sense of unease among many, in addition to the potential threats dealing with their unintentional disclosure or misuse [ fife2012privacy , metzger2004privacy , featherman2010reducing ].

Various data and surveillance scandals involving private companies and governments [ dcent , crit12 ] that gained media attention mean that awareness of surveillance and personal data collection is growing amongst the general public. There are many studies examining peoples' awareness of and attitudes towards privacy and surveillance on SNS, but I will not detail them here. During studies in the 1990s, Westin defined three categories to describe how ordinary people feel about privacy: "pragmatists", "fundamentalists" and "unconcerned." Privacy pragmatists accept that there may be tradeoffs between benefits to information sharing and the intrusiveness of requests for information. Fundamentalists distrust organisations which request personal data. The unconcerned are comfortable with sharing personal data with organisations in exchange for services [ krane2002privacy ]. Westin found, prior to the Web becoming mainstream, that approximately half of the general public are pragmatists; just over half of the remainder are fundamentalists, and a minority are unconcerned. Suffice it to say that people do care about privacy, and are just finding new ways to manage it [ boydnp10 ], contrary to what certain tech executives might claim [ zuckpriv , googpriv ]. My main concern in terms of this thesis is how privacy infringement might impact presentation of self. We have already seen that online identity performance may alter a general understanding of oneself, which reflects in the offline world. So I must ask: when people self-censor online due to privacy concerns, how does this stifle self-expression, and in turn impact internal identity construction?

Furthermore, implications of our online sharing decisions affect more than just ourselves; "interpreted selves" are created by recognising patterns across millions of people [ boydpriv12 ].

There is often an asymmetry about the collection and use of data. To take a relatively prosaic example, Facebook introduced 'read receipts' on messaging, which indicate when a user has seen a message. This feature has been shown to cause anxiety when present in email systems, as users seek to maintain their responsiveness image , the impression which they project to others about how they respond to input and partition their attention [ tyler2003can ]. Once ambiguity about attention has been removed, a whole class of white lies - 'The internet was bad, I couldn't check my messages' - are no longer possible, and people develop alternative strategies, such as not opening messages until they feel prepared to respond. The key difference in the context of SNS is that the user does not have the same degree of control over the channel - email receipts can be switched off, but SNS offer different levels of control.

The social aspects of privacy relate to what DeCew terms expressive privacy - a freedom from peer pressure and an ability to express one's own identity [ decew1997pursuit ]. Nissenbaum's contextual integrity [ nissenbaum2004privacy , nissenbaum2009privacy ] seeks to understand "appropriate sharing", looking at the ways in which flows of information are governed by norms, which may be easily violated as technological systems repurpose and share data.

"I argue that privacy is simply in a state of transition as people try to make sense of how to negotiate the structural transformations resulting from networked media. ... just because people are adopting tools that radically reshape their relationship to privacy does not mean they are interested in giving up their privacy. " [boydnp10]

From licloud paper background:

Deception in the age of pervasive surveillance

We are rapidly moving into a world where information about nearly every aspect of our lives is becoming sensed, recorded, captured and made available in digital form. Increasingly, every app on our smartphones, wirelessly connected devices in our homes, and on-body worn sensing devices are capturing what we do in unprecedented detail. Dodge and Kitchin \cite{dodge2005codes} introduced the term \emph{capta} to cover the data about us which are selected and captured as we go about our lives. In addition, vast amounts of data are captured and shared voluntarily, as tools invite ever more intimate \emph{participatory surveillance} \cite{albrechtslund2008Participatory}. While the abundance of information traces has unlocked a wide range of new kinds of applications~(eg. \cite{Akker:2014:TRP:2684563.2684638} \cite{Consolvo:2008:ASW:1357054.1357335}), the creation and potential for disclosure poses new threats to individual privacy and autonomy. The overall lack of transparency by manufacturers regarding how they are capturing and handling personal information has created a heightened sense of unease among many, in addition to the potential threats dealing with their unintentional disclosure or misuse\cite{fife2012privacy, metzger2004privacy, featherman2010reducing}.

There is often an asysmmetry about the collection and use of data. To take a relatively prosaic example, Facebook introduced `read receipts' on messaging, which indicate when a user has seen a message. This feature has been shown to cause anxiety when present in email systems, as users seek to maintain their \emph{responsiveness image}, the impression which they project to others about how they respond to input and partition their attention~\cite{tyler2003can}. Once ambiguity about attention has been removed, a whole class of white lies---`The internet was bad, I couldn't check my messages'---are no longer possible, and people develop alternative strategies, such as not opening messages until they feel prepared to respond.

The key difference in the context of social networks is that the user does not have the same degree of control over the channel---email receipts can be switched off, while social networks offer different levels of control. In response, a spectrum of tools and practises have emerged to re-introduce attentional privacy in messaging systems (see Section \ref{sec:existing-tools}).

Beyond sensing and storing this information, these apps and devices often disclose it, such as to the app or product's manufacturer's cloud data services, or to third-party companies and services for marketing and other purposes.

For those wanting to not be tracked, the two primary options available: try to suppress the amount of information being shared, or discontinue their use altogether. In practice, however, neither option is feasible or effective; first, the ever-increasing and varied ways people are now being tracked means that people are hardly aware of how they are being tracked to begin with. For example, most end-users have little awareness of the information being captured about them by their smartphone apps~\cite{mylonas2013delegate, wetherall2011privacy}. Second, many of the tools that track people are so vital to their everyday work or social activities that discontinuing their use is simply not practical~\cite{} . Finally, suppressing or falsifying information given to services only works insofar as that information is both manually supplied and inessential to delivering the provided services. Since people's greatest concerns surround information automatically sensed and captured, such as a person's physical location or activities, suppression may simply be impossible. With the promise of further Internet-connected `smart' sensors becoming increasingly invisible, the problem of even knowing where embedded in the environment these devices are may simply become impossible.

In contrast, a different strategy to suppressing information is the use of \emph{disinformation}, in which false information is strategically added to an information channel to discredit and draw attention away from true information that could not be suppressed~\cite{}. Such strategies have been used heavily in wartime by various counterintelligence agencies in order to reduce the damage of leaked sensitive information~\cite{alexander2010Disinformation} \ToCite{CVDazzle? Similar stuff?}. While such measures may seem extreme, they are, the concept of disinformation is quite simple. In this paper, we hypothesise that that, when applied selectively and appropriately in contexts, the use of disinformation, like other forms of deception, can be made to benefit end-users, system designers, and even those who are disinformation targets.

We are rapidly moving into a world where information about nearly every aspect of our lives is becoming sensed, recorded, captured and made available in digital form. Data is captured and shared voluntarily, as tools invite ever more intimate participatory surveillance \cite{albrechtslund2008Participatory}. While the abundance of information traces has unlocked a wide range of new kinds of applications~(eg. \cite{Akker:2014:TRP:2684563.2684638} \cite{Consolvo:2008:ASW:1357054.1357335}), the creation and potential for disclosure poses new threats to individual privacy and autonomy. The overall lack of transparency by manufacturers regarding how they are capturing and handling personal information has created a heightened sense of unease among many, in addition to the potential threats dealing with their unintentional disclosure or misuse~\cite{fife2012privacy, metzger2004privacy, featherman2010reducing}.

Many tools have been dedicated to helping people carry out various kinds of digital deception for the purpose of protecting their privacy. Without aspirations of comprehensiveness, we mention some here. Tools for masking identity are currently available for all levels of the software stack, from tools like \emph{tor} for masking the origin and destination at the network level~\cite{dingledine2004tor}, to privacy-enhancing features at the browser level. Such browser features include \emph{Do Not Track}~\cite{tene2012track}, user-agent spoofing, and tracker and cookie-blocking capabilities~\cite{eckersley2010unique}. At the application level, anonymous e-mail re-mailers~\cite{gulcu1996mixing}, anonymous e-Cash and cryptocurrencies~\cite{casale2015cryptocurrencies}, and anonymous secure file sharing systems~\cite{scarlata2001responder} have started to support certain activities offering guarantees of privacy under specified conditions.

The commoditised self

Social systems which involve content creation (like YouTube) or knowledge generation (like Wikipedia) are commonly seen as cooperative communities, whose participants generate value both for each other and also for the organisation behind the system. In [ vand09 ], van Dijck et. al. contest several uncritical manifestos for the business and communal interests of revolutionary Web 2.0 peer-production. They point out that seemingly open co-creation platforms are still profit-driven commercial entities. These entities do not provide tools out of benevolence, but in order to harvest metadata about their users, which they can process and resell. The balance of power between individuals and corporations is not swinging back towards the individual, as proponents of user-generated content sites claim, but the illusion is created that it is.

Users of systems often have little understanding of how their activities are being exploited - or nudged [ vand09b ]. Even as users are empowered by technology to create media, products, or services they desire, [ vand09b ] calls into question their agency when participants are being used and manipulated by commercial entities under the guise of community formation or participatory culture. [ dbeer08 ] describes SNS profiles as "commodities, both produced and consumed." In more recent years, awareness of this fact has spread. A popular refrain from advocates of less commercial alternatives is that "if you're not paying for it, you're the product." 1 , 2 , 3

In a similar vein to the previous section, we must also wonder about the impact of external commercial and economic forces which shape the tools and systems people are using to express themselves online. As a contrast, in the second half of this thesis, I focus on decentralised systems, which are potentially much less likely to exploit user metadata for profit.

The ghost in the (social) machine

Social Machines are systems for which the human and computational aspects are equally critical. In most cases, humans do the creative work whilst machines do the administrative tasks [ Timbl1999 ]. Up to now, systems have not been designed to be Social Machines; rather, the concept and definition of a Social Machine is derived from observations of existing (usually Web-based) systems. Many are products of the contemporary social web, on many different scales and in many different domains, often evolving, responding to technological and social developments, and interacting with each other [ Hendler2010 , ByrneEvans2013 , DeRoure2013 , Strohmaier2013 ]. Social Machines can be identified within and across social media networks, within and across online communities, and within and across technological spaces.

Social Machines are pertinent to our work here as they provide a lens through which we can examine sociotechnical phenomena which emphasises the interdependence between humans and technology. In studies of social networks discussed previously in this chapter, humans are considered as users of systems, and discussions focus around how people react to technology, how people behave in the context of particular technical or social constraints, or how people's lives are changed in response to their interactions with and through digital environments. It is important to also reflect upon the ways in which technology evolves or is reconceptualised as a result of passive (mis)use and active (mis)appropriation by humans. We similarly must recognise technical systems in the wider context of society, and include in our dialogue the developers who design and build technical systems, the organisations and legal entities which finance and drive them, and the cultural and economic climate in which they are situated.

Social Machines which have been studied so far have been described and categorised in terms of purpose [ DeRoure2013 ], motivations and incentives, technology used, goals and processes, quality assessment of outputs, and user participation and interaction [ Smart2014 ]. The emphasis in this work is on discussing Social Machines in collective terms; that is, 'a' Social Machine - wherever its boundaries happen to have been drawn (so far these boundaries are typically drawn around the edge of a "service" [ Smart2014 ]) - is considered as a coherent whole. The circumstances of the individual human participants not been given extensive consideration. For any given Social Machine, individual participants are diverse and participate in different ways, with varying goals, motivations and outcomes. As we have seen through studies of social media mentioned previously, they manipulate their online presence(s) so that they may behave in different ways according to different contexts, or may work together to construct a single image controlled by multiple people [ Dalton2013 ]. Such behaviour impacts our understanding of roles, autonomy and awareness, incentives and attribution, and accountability and trustworthiness of participants. Overlooking unique individual perspectives when observing a Social Machine as a whole can cause incorrect assumptions, for example: believing that participants who lie about who they are have negative intentions in a Social Machine whose overall "purpose" is to strengthen social ties. We must also bear this in mind when designing systems, so that a system may grow in response to unexpected actions of participants rather than hampering their explorations.

I argue that due to the complex nature of online identity, understanding nuanced individual behaviours of participants in a more granular way is crucial for Social Machine observation. I advance this argument in the next chapter through an empirical study of a Social Machine centered around creative media production.

Conclusions

Present day social media has dramatically increased participation in publishing and sharing online content. Easy-to-use services lower the barrier to entry for connecting with and pushing thoughts out to an audience. Identities expressed through social media are inherently collaborative; every interaction is pushed to a network, and part of a dynamic cycle of consumption and creation feedback. Commenting on someone else's post automatically links the post to your own profile, and often it appears there as well, accessible from two different contexts. Yet SNS permit little customisation, providing preset options for content or reaction templates, and consistent inflexible designs for profile pages. This tips the balance away from the individual aspect of identity construction performed by bloggers in the earlier years of the Web. Yet blogs and personal homepages are left wanting for a dynamically constructed and low barrier to entry network, which impedes the collaborative aspects of identity construction.

People manage shortcomings with the affordances of both blogging platforms and SNS in different ways—contending with invisible audiences and collapsed contexts, as well as reduced expectations of privacy—through carefully crafted personas, strategically omitting or amending the information they post online, or simply using different platforms for different purposes. We see that there are a multitude of factors which affect people's presentation of self online, which vary according to broader cultural or technological contexts, as well as personal motivations and abilities.

Along with their updated definition of SNS mentioned earlier, [ ellison13 ] calls for social media scholars who are studying individuals or communities online to systematically describe the technology in which their participants are situated, and the practices of the users. Technologies are changing rapidly still, so studies which are a snapshot in time can be linked to a broader discourse or overview, and remain relevant as time progresses, if they situate themselves appropriately. One way of accessing this bigger picture is through an organising framework that helps to record the background state of the environment being studied, and so surfaces connections between work that is otherwise perhaps not directly comparable [ vand09b ]. In chapter 3 I use several studies of my own on diverse identity behaviours across various social network sites in order to propose such a framework.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, literature review, acknowledgments, about the authors.

• < Previous

Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, Jennifer Gibbs, Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 January 2006, Pages 415–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This study investigates self-presentation strategies among online dating participants, exploring how participants manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner. Thirty-four individuals active on a large online dating site participated in telephone interviews about their online dating experiences and perceptions. Qualitative data analysis suggests that participants attended to small cues online, mediated the tension between impression management pressures and the desire to present an authentic sense of self through tactics such as creating a profile that reflected their “ideal self,” and attempted to establish the veracity of their identity claims. This study provides empirical support for Social Information Processing theory in a naturalistic context while offering insight into the complicated way in which “honesty” is enacted online.

The online dating arena represents an opportunity to document changing cultural norms surrounding technology-mediated relationship formation and to gain insight into important aspects of online behavior, such as impression formation and self-presentation strategies. Mixed-mode relationships, wherein people first meet online and then move offline, challenge established theories that focus on exclusively online relationships and provide opportunities for new theory development ( Walther & Parks, 2002 ). Although previous research has explored relationship development and self-presentation online ( Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002; McLaughlin, Osbourne, & Ellison, 1997; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Roberts & Parks, 1999; Utz, 2000 ), the online dating forum is qualitatively different from many other online settings due to the anticipation of face-to-face interaction inherent in this context ( Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006 ) and the fact that social practices are still nascent.

In recent years, the use of online dating or online personals services has evolved from a marginal to a mainstream social practice. In 2003, at least 29 million Americans (two out of five singles) used an online dating service ( Gershberg, 2004 ); in 2004, on average, there were 40 million unique visitors to online dating sites each month in the U.S. ( CBC News, 2004 ). In fact, the online personals category is one of the most lucrative forms of paid content on the web in the United States ( Egan, 2003 ) and the online dating market is expected to reach $642 million in 2008 ( Greenspan, 2003 ). Ubiquitous access to the Internet, the diminished social stigma associated with online dating, and the affordable cost of Internet matchmaking services contribute to the increasingly common perception that online dating is a viable, efficient way to meet dating or long-term relationship partners ( St. John, 2002 ). Mediated matchmaking is certainly not a new phenomenon: Newspaper personal advertisements have existed since the mid-19th century ( Schaefer, 2003 ) and video dating was popular in the 1980s ( Woll & Cosby, 1987; Woll & Young, 1989 ). Although scholars working in a variety of academic disciplines have studied these earlier forms of mediated matchmaking (e.g., Ahuvia & Adelman, 1992; Lynn & Bolig, 1985; Woll, 1986; Woll & Cosby, 1987 ), current Internet dating services are substantively different from these incarnations due to their larger user base and more sophisticated self-presentation options.

Contemporary theoretical perspectives allow us to advance our understanding of how the age-old process of mate-finding is transformed through online strategies and behaviors. For instance, Social Information Processing (SIP) theory and other frameworks help illuminate computer-mediated communication (CMC), interpersonal communication, and impression management processes. This article focuses on the ways in which CMC interactants manage their online self-presentation and contributes to our knowledge of these processes by examining these issues in the naturalistic context of online dating, using qualitative data gathered from in-depth interviews with online dating participants.

In contrast to a technologically deterministic perspective that focuses on the characteristics of the technologies themselves, or a socially deterministic approach that privileges user behavior, this article reflects a social shaping perspective. Social shaping of technology approaches ( Dutton, 1996; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Woolgar, 1996 ) acknowledge the ways in which information and communication technologies (ICTs) both shape and are shaped by social practices. As Dutton points out, “technologies can open, close, and otherwise shape social choices, although not always in the ways expected on the basis of rationally extrapolating from the perceived properties of technology” (1996, p. 9). One specific framework that reflects this approach is Howard’s (2004) embedded media perspective, which acknowledges both the capacities and the constraints of ICTs. Capacities are those aspects of technology that enhance our ability to connect with one another, enact change, and so forth; constraints are those aspects of technology that hinder our ability to achieve these goals. An important aspect of technology use, which is mentioned but not explicitly highlighted in Howard’s framework, is the notion of circumvention , which describes the specific strategies employed by individuals to exploit the capacities and minimize the constraints associated with their use of ICTs. Although the notion of circumvention is certainly not new to CMC researchers, this article seeks to highlight the importance of circumvention practices when studying the social aspects of technology use. 1

Self-Presentation and Self-Disclosure in Online and Offline Contexts

Self-presentation and self-disclosure processes are important aspects of relational development in offline settings ( Taylor & Altman, 1987 ), especially in early stages. Goffman’s work on self-presentation explicates the ways in which an individual may engage in strategic activities “to convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey” (1959, p. 4). These impression-management behaviors consist of expressions given (communication in the traditional sense, e.g., spoken communication) and expressions given off (presumably unintentional communication, such as nonverbal communication cues). Self-presentation strategies are especially important during relationship initiation, as others will use this information to decide whether to pursue a relationship ( Derlega, Winstead, Wong, & Greenspan, 1987 ). Research suggests that when individuals expect to meet a potential dating partner for the first time, they will alter their self-presentational behavior in accordance with the values desired by the prospective date ( Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998 ). Even when interacting with strangers, individuals tend to engage in self-enhancement ( Schlenker & Pontari, 2000 ).

However, research suggests that pressures to highlight one’s positive attributes are experienced in tandem with the need to present one’s true (or authentic) self to others, especially in significant relationships. Intimacy in relationships is linked to feeling understood by one’s partner ( Reis & Shaver, 1988 ) and develops “through a dynamic process whereby an individual discloses personal information, thoughts, and feelings to a partner; receives a response from the partner; and interprets that response as understanding, validating, and caring” ( Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998 , p. 1238). Therefore, if participants aspire to an intimate relationship, their desire to feel understood by their interaction partners will motivate self-disclosures that are open and honest as opposed to deceptive. This tension between authenticity and impression management is inherent in many aspects of self-disclosure. In making decisions about what and when to self-disclose, individuals often struggle to reconcile opposing needs such as openness and autonomy ( Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006 ).

Interactants in online environments experience these same pressures and desires, but the greater control over self-presentational behavior in CMC allows individuals to manage their online interactions more strategically. Due to the asynchronous nature of CMC, and the fact that CMC emphasizes verbal and linguistic cues over less controllable nonverbal communication cues, online self-presentation is more malleable and subject to self-censorship than face-to-face self-presentation ( Walther, 1996 ). In Goffman’s (1959) terms, more expressions of self are “given” rather than “given off.” This greater control over self-presentation does not necessarily lead to misrepresentation online. Due to the “passing stranger” effect ( Rubin, 1975 ) and the visual anonymity present in CMC ( Joinson, 2001 ), under certain conditions the online medium may enable participants to express themselves more openly and honestly than in face-to-face contexts.

A commonly accepted understanding of identity presumes that there are multiple aspects of the self which are expressed or made salient in different contexts. Higgins (1987) argues there are three domains of the self: the actual self (attributes an individual possesses), the ideal self (attributes an individual would ideally possess), and the ought self (attributes an individual ought to possess); discrepancies between one’s actual and ideal self are linked to feelings of dejection. Klohnen and Mendelsohn (1998) determined that individuals’ descriptions of their “ideal self” influenced perceptions of their romantic partners in the direction of their ideal self-conceptions. Bargh et al. (2002) found that in comparison to face-to-face interactions, Internet interactions allowed individuals to better express aspects of their true selves—aspects of themselves that they wanted to express but felt unable to. The relative anonymity of online interactions and the lack of a shared social network online may allow individuals to reveal potentially negative aspects of the self online ( Bargh et al., 2002 ).

Although self-presentation in personal web sites has been examined ( Dominick, 1999; Schau & Gilly, 2003 ), the realm of online dating has not been studied as extensively (for exceptions, see Baker, 2002; Fiore & Donath, 2004 ), and this constitutes a gap in the current research on online self-presentation and disclosure. The online dating realm differs from other CMC environments in crucial ways that may affect self-presentational strategies. For instance, the anticipated future face-to-face interaction inherent in most online dating interactions may diminish participants’ sense of visual anonymity, an important variable in many online self-disclosure studies. An empirical study of online dating participants found that those who anticipated greater face-to-face interaction did feel that they were more open in their disclosures, and did not suppress negative aspects of the self ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). In addition, because the goal of many online dating participants is an intimate relationship, these individuals may be more motivated to engage in authentic self-disclosures.

Credibility Assessment and Demonstration in Online Self-Presentation

Misrepresentation in online environments.

As discussed, online environments offer individuals an increased ability to control their self-presentation, and therefore greater opportunities to engage in misrepresentation ( Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001 ). Concerns about the prospect of online deception are common ( Bowker & Tuffin, 2003; Donath, 1999; Donn & Sherman, 2002 ), and narratives about identity deception have been reproduced in both academic and popular outlets ( Joinson & Dietz-Uhler, 2002; Stone, 1996; Van Gelder, 1996 ). Some theorists argue that CMC gives participants more freedom to explore playful, fantastical online personae that differ from their “real life” identities ( Stone, 1996 ; Turkle, 1995 ). In certain online settings, such as online role-playing games, a schism between one’s online representation and one’s offline identity are inconsequential, even expected. For instance, MacKinnon (1995) notes that among Usenet participants it is common practice to “forget” about the relationship between actual identities and online personae.

The online dating environment is different, however, because participants are typically seeking an intimate relationship and therefore desire agreement between others’ online identity claims and offline identities. Online dating participants report that deception is the “main perceived disadvantage of online dating” ( Brym & Lenton, 2001 , p. 3) and see it as commonplace: A survey of one online dating site’s participants found that 86% felt others misrepresented their physical appearance ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). A 2001 research study found that over a quarter of online dating participants reported misrepresenting some aspect of their identity, most commonly age (14%), marital status (10%), and appearance (10%) ( Brym & Lenton, 2001 ). Perceptions that others are lying may encourage reciprocal deception, because users will exaggerate to the extent that they feel others are exaggerating or deceiving ( Fiore & Donath, 2004 ). Concerns about deception in this setting have spawned related services that help online daters uncover inaccuracies in others’ representations and run background checks on would-be suitors ( Baertlein, 2004 ; Fernandez, 2005 ). One site, True.com , conducts background checks on their users and has worked to introduce legislation that would force other online dating sites to either conduct background checks on their users or display a disclaimer ( Lee, 2004 ).

The majority of online dating participants claim they are truthful ( Gibbs et al., 2006; Brym & Lenton, 2001 ), and research suggests that some of the technical and social aspects of online dating may discourage deceptive communication. For instance, anticipation of face-to-face communication influences self-representation choices ( Walther, 1994 ) and self-disclosures because individuals will more closely monitor their disclosures as the perceived probability of future face-to-face interaction increases ( Berger, 1979 ) and will engage in more intentional or deliberate self-disclosure ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). Additionally, Hancock, Thom-Santelli, and Ritchie (2004) note that the design features of a medium may affect lying behaviors, and that the use of recorded media (in which messages are archived in some fashion, such as an online dating profile) will discourage lying. Also, online dating participants are typically seeking a romantic partner, which may lower their motivation for misrepresentation compared to other online relationships. Further, Cornwell and Lundgren (2001) found that individuals involved in online romantic relationships were more likely to engage in misrepresentation than those involved in face-to-face romantic relationships, but that this was directly related to the level of involvement. That is, respondents were less involved in their cyberspace relationships and therefore more likely to engage in misrepresentation. This lack of involvement is less likely in relationships started in an online dating forum, especially sites that promote marriage as a goal.

Public perceptions about the higher incidence of deception online are also contradicted by research that suggests that lying is a typical occurrence in everyday offline life ( DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996 ), including situations in which people are trying to impress prospective dates ( Rowatt et al., 1998 ). Additionally, empirical data about the true extent of misrepresentation in this context is lacking. The current literature relies on self-reported data, and therefore offers only limited insight into the extent to which misrepresentation may be occurring. Hitsch, Hortacsu, and Ariely (2004) use creative techniques to address this issue, such as comparing participants’ self-reported characteristics to patterns found in national survey data, but no research to date has attempted to validate participants’ self-reported assessments of the honesty of their self-descriptions.

Assessing and Demonstrating Credibility in CMC

The potential for misrepresentation online, combined with the time and effort invested in face-to-face dates, make assessment strategies critical for online daters. These assessment strategies may then influence participants’ self-presentational strategies as they seek to prove their trustworthiness while simultaneously assessing the credibility of others.

Online dating participants operate in an environment in which assessing the identity of others is a complex and evolving process of reading signals and deconstructing cues, using both active and passive strategies ( Berger, 1979; Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002; Tidwell & Walther, 2002 ). SIP considers how Internet users develop impressions of others, even with the limited cues available online, and suggests that interactants will adapt to the remaining cues in order to make decisions about others ( Walther, 1992; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994 ). Online users look to small cues in order to develop impressions of others, such as a poster’s email address ( Donath, 1999 ), the links on a person’s homepage ( Kibby, 1997 ), even the timing of email messages ( Walther & Tidwell, 1995 ). In expressing affinity, CMC users are adept at using language ( Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005 ) and CMC-specific conventions, especially as they become more experienced online ( Utz, 2000 ). In short, online users become cognitive misers, forming impressions of others while conserving mental energy ( Wallace, 1999 ).

Walther and Parks (2002) propose the concept of “warranting” as a useful conceptual tool for understanding how users validate others’ online identity cues (see also Stone, 1996 ). The connection, or warrant, between one’s self-reported online persona and one’s offline aspects of self is less certain and more mutable than in face-to-face settings ( Walther & Parks, 2002 ). In online settings, users will look for signals that are difficult to mimic or govern in order to assess others’ identity claims ( Donath, 1999 ). For instance, individuals might use search engines to locate newsgroup postings by the person under scrutiny, knowing that this searching is covert and that the newsgroup postings most likely were authored without the realization that they would be archived ( Ramirez et al., 2002 ). In the context of online dating, because of the perceptions of deception that characterize this sphere and the self-reported nature of individuals’ profiles, participants may adopt specific presentation strategies geared towards providing warrants for their identity claims.

In light of the above, our research question is thus:

RQ: How do online dating participants manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner?

In order to gain insight into this question, we interviewed online dating participants about their experiences, thoughts, and behaviors. The qualitative data reported in this article were collected as part of a larger research project which surveyed a national random sample of users of a large online dating site (N = 349) about relational goals, honesty and self-disclosure, and perceived success in online dating. The survey findings are reported in Gibbs et al. (2006) .

Research Site

Our study addresses contemporary CMC theory using naturalistic observations. Participants were members of a large online dating service, “ Connect.com ” (a pseudonym). Connect.com currently has 15 million active members in more than 200 countries around the world and shares structural characteristics with many other online dating services, offering users the ability to create profiles, search others’ profiles, and communicate via a manufactured email address. In their profiles, participants may include one or more photographs and a written (open-ended) description of themselves and their desired mate. They also answer a battery of closed-ended questions, with preset category-based answers, about descriptors such as income, body type, religion, marital status, and alcohol usage. Users can conduct database searches that generate a list of profiles that match their desired parameters (usually gender, sexual orientation, age, and location). Initial communication occurs through a double-blind email system, in which both email addresses are masked, and participants usually move from this medium to others as the relationship progresses.

Data Collection

Given the relative lack of prior research on the phenomenon of online dating, we used qualitative methods to explore the diverse ways in which participants understood and made sense of their experience ( Berger & Luckman, 1980 ) through their own rich descriptions and explanations ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). We took an inductive approach based on general research questions informed by literature on online self-presentation and relationship formation rather than preset hypotheses. In addition to asking about participants’ backgrounds, the interview protocol included open-ended questions about their online dating history and goals, profile construction, honesty and self-disclosure online, criteria used to assess others online, and relationship development. Interviews were semistructured to ensure that all participants were asked certain questions and to encourage participants to raise other issues they felt were relevant to the research. The protocol included questions such as: “How did you decide what to say about yourself in your profile? Are you trying to convey a certain impression of yourself with your profile? If you showed your profile to one of your close friends, what do you think their response would be? Are there any personal characteristics that you avoided mentioning or tried to deemphasize?” (The full protocol is available from the authors.)

As recommended for qualitative research ( Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we employed theoretical sampling rather than random sampling. In theoretical sampling, cases are chosen based on theoretical (developed a priori) categories to provide examples of polar types, rather than for statistical generalizability to a larger population ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ). The Director of Market Research at Connect.com initially contacted a subsample of members in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas, inviting them to participate in an interview and offering them a free one-month subscription to Connect.com in return. Those members who did not respond within a week received a reminder email. Of those contacted, 76 people volunteered to participate in an interview. Out of these 76 volunteers, we selected and scheduled interviews with 36 (although two were unable to participate due to scheduling issues). We chose interview participants to ensure a good mix on each of our theoretical categories: gender, age, urban/rural, income, and ethnicity. We focused exclusively on those seeking relationships with the opposite sex, as this group constitutes the majority of Connect.com users. We also confirmed that they were active participants in the site by ensuring that their last login date was within the past week and checking that each had a profile.

Fifty percent of our participants were female and 50% were male, with 76% from an urban location in Los Angeles and 24% from a more rural area surrounding the town of Modesto in the central valley of California. Participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 70, with most being in their 30s and 40s. Their online dating experience varied from 1 month to 5 years. Although our goal was to sample a mix of participants who varied on key demographic criteria rather than generalizing to a larger population, our sample is in fact reflective of the demographic characteristics of the larger population of Connect.com ’s subscribers. Thirty-four interviews were conducted in June and July 2003. Interviews were conducted by telephone, averaging 45 minutes and ranging from 30 to 90 minutes in length. The interview database consisted of 551 pages, including 223,001 words, with an average of 6559 words per interview.

Data Analysis

All of the phone interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy by the researcher who conducted the interview. Atlas.ti, a software program used for qualitative content analysis, was used to analyze interview transcripts. Data analysis was conducted in an iterative process, in which data from one informant were confirmed or contradicted by data from others in order to refine theoretical categories, propositions, and conclusions as they emerged from the data ( Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). We used microanalysis of the text ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) to look for common themes among participants. The data analysis process consisted of systematic line-by-line coding of each transcript by the first two authors. Following grounded theory ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we used an iterative process of coding. Coding consisted of both factual codes (e.g., “age,”“female,”“Los Angeles”) and referential codes (e.g., “filter,”“rejection,”“honesty”) and served both to simplify and reduce data as well as to complicate data by expanding, transforming, and reconceptualizing concepts ( Coffey & Atkinson, 1996 ). New codes were added throughout the process, and then earlier transcripts were recoded to include these new conceptual categories. All of the data were coded twice to ensure thoroughness and accuracy of codes. The researchers had frequent discussions in which they compared and refined coding categories and schemes to ensure consistency. During the coding process, some codes were collapsed or removed when they appeared to be conceptually identical, while others were broken out into separate codes when further nuances among them became apparent.

A total of 98 codes were generated by the first two authors as they coded the interviews. Unitization was flexible in order to capture complete thought units. Codes were allowed to overlap ( Krippendorff, 1980 ); this method of assigning multiple codes to the same thought unit facilitated the process of identifying relationships between codes. See Appendixes A and B for more information on codes.

These interview data offer insight into the self-presentation strategies utilized by participants in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of online dating. Many of these strategies revolved around the profile, which is a crucial self-presentation tool because it is the first and primary means of expressing one’s self during the early stages of a correspondence and can therefore foreclose or create relationship opportunities. These strategies are intimately connected to the specific characteristics of the online dating context: fewer cues, an increased ability to manage self-presentation, and the need to establish credibility.

The Importance of Small Cues

When discussing their self-presentational strategies, many participants directly or indirectly referred to the fact that they carefully attended to subtle, almost minute cues in others’ presentational messages, and often seemed to take the same degree of care when crafting their own messages. As suggested by SIP ( Walther, 1992 ), subtle cues such as misspellings in the online environment are important clues to identity for CMC interactants. For instance, one participant said she looked for profiles that were well-written, because “I just think if they can’t spell or … formulate sentences, I would imagine that they’re not that educated.” Because writing ability was perceived to be a cue that was “given off” or not as controllable, participants noticed misspelled words in profiles, interpreting them as evidence of lack of interest or education. As one female participant put it, “If I am getting email from someone that obviously can’t spell or put a full sentence together, I’m thinking what other parts of his life suffer from the same lack of attentiveness?” These individuals often created their own profiles with these concerns in mind. For instance, one participant who found spelling errors “unattractive” composed his emails in a word processing program to check spelling and grammar.

Many of the individuals we interviewed explicitly considered how others might interpret their profiles and carefully assessed the signals each small action or comment might send:

I really analyzed the way I was going to present myself. I’m not one of these [people who write] all cutesy type things, but I wanted to be cute enough, smart enough, funny enough, and not sexual at all, because I didn’t want to invite someone who thought I was going to go to bed with them [as soon as] I shook their hand. (PaliToWW, Los Angeles Female) 2

In this case, the participant “really analyzed” her self-presentation cues and avoided any mention of sexuality, which she felt might indicate promiscuity in the exaggerated context of the profile. This same understanding of the signals “sexual” references would send was reflected in the profile of another participant, who purposefully included sexually explicit terminology in his profile to “weed out” poor matches based on his past experience:

The reason I put [the language] in there is because I had some experiences where I got together [with someone], we both really liked each other, and then it turned out that I was somebody who really liked sex and she was somebody that could take it or leave it. So I put that in there to sort of weed those people out. (imdannyboy, Los Angeles Male)

Participants spoke of the ways in which they incorporated feedback from others in order to shape their self-presentational messages. In some cases, they seemed genuinely surprised by the ways in which the digital medium allowed information to leak out. For instance, one male participant who typically wrote emails late at night discussed his reaction to a message that said, “Wow, it’s 1:18 in the morning, what are you doing writing me?” This email helped him realize how much of a “night owl” he was, and “how not attractive that may be for women I’m writing because it’s very clear the time I send the email.” Over time, he also realized that the length of his emails was shaping impressions of him, and he therefore regulated their length. He said:

In the course of [corresponding with others on the site] I became aware of how I had to present myself. Also, I became quite aware that I had to be very brief. … More often than not when I would write a long response, I wouldn’t get a response. … I think it implied. … that I was too desperate for conversation, [that] I was a hermit. (joet8, Los Angeles Male)

The site displayed the last time a user was active on the site, and this small cue was interpreted as a reliable indicator of availability. As one male participant said, “I’m not going to email somebody who hasn’t been on there for at least a week max. If it’s been two weeks since she’s logged on, forget her, she’s either dating or there’s a problem.”

Overall, the mediated nature of these initial interactions meant that fewer cues were available, therefore amplifying the importance of those that remained. Participants carefully attended to small cues, such as spelling ability or last login date, in others’ profiles in order to form impressions. In a self-reflexive fashion, they applied these techniques to their own presentational messages, carefully scrutinizing both cues given (such as photograph) and, when possible, those perceived to be given off (such as grammar).

Balancing Accuracy and Desirability in Self-Presentation

Almost all of our participants reported that they attempted to represent themselves accurately in their profiles and interactions. Many expressed incomprehension as to why others with a shared goal of an offline romantic relationship would intentionally misrepresent themselves. As one participant explained, “They polish it up some, like we all probably do a little bit, but for the most part I would say people are fairly straightforward.” However, as suggested by previous research on self-disclosure and relationship development, participants reported competing desires. At times, their need to portray a truthful, accurate self-representation was in tension with their natural inclination to project a version of self that was attractive, successful, and desirable. Speaking about this tendency towards impression management, one participant noted that she could see why “people would be dishonest at some point because they are still trying to be attractive … in the sense they would want this other person to like them.”

One way in which participants reconciled their conflicting needs for positive self-presentation and accuracy was to create profiles that described a potential, future version of self. In some cases, participants described how they or others created profiles that reflected an ideal as opposed to actual self: “Many people describe themselves the way they want [to be] … their ideal themselves.” For example, individuals might identify themselves as active in various activities (e.g., hiking, surfing) in which they rarely participated, prompting one participant to proclaim sarcastically, “I’ve never known so many incredibly athletic women in my life!” One participant explained,

For instance, I am also an avid hiker and [scuba diver] and sometimes I have communicated with someone that has presented themselves the same way, but then it turns out they like scuba diving but they haven’t done it for 10 years, they like hiking but they do it once every second year … I think they may not have tried to lie; they just have perceived themselves differently because they write about the person they want to be … In their profile they write about their dreams as if they are reality. (Christo1, Los Angeles Male)

In two cases, individuals admitted to representing themselves as less heavy than they actually were. This thinner persona represented a (desired) future state for these individuals: “The only thing I kind of feel bad about is that the picture I have of myself is a very good picture from maybe five years ago. I’ve gained a little bit of weight and I feel kind of bad about that. I’m going to, you know, lose it again.” In another case, a woman who misrepresented her weight online used an upcoming meeting as incentive to minimize the discrepancy between her actual self and the ideal self articulated in her profile:

I’ve lost 44 pounds since I’ve started [online dating], and I mean, that’s one of the reasons I lost the weight so I can thank online dating for that. [Because] the first guy that hit on me, I checked my profile and I had lied a little bit about the pounds, so I thought I had better start losing some weight so that it would be more honest. That was in December, and I’ve lost every week since then. (MaryMoon, Los Angeles Female)

In this case, a later physical change neutralized the initial discursive deception. For another participant, the profile served as an opportunity to envision and ideate a version of self that was future-focused and goal-oriented:

I sort of thought about what is my ideal self. Because when you date, you present your best foot forward. I thought about all the qualities that I have, you know, even if I sometimes make mistakes and stuff. … And also got together the best picture I had, and kind of came up with what I thought my goals were at the time, because I thought that was an important thing to stress. (Marty7, Los Angeles Male)

Overall, participants did not see this as engaging in deceptive communication per se, but rather as presenting an idealized self or portraying personal qualities they intended to develop or enhance.

Circumventing Constraints

In addition to impression management pressures, participants’ expressed desires for accurate representation were stymied by various constraints, including the technical interface of the website. In order to activate an online profile, participants had to complete a questionnaire with many closed-ended responses for descriptors such as age, body type, zip code, and income. These answers became very important because they were the variables that others used to construct searches in order to narrow the vast pool of profiles. In fact, the front page of Connect.com includes a “quick” search on those descriptors believed to be most important: age, geographical location, inclusion of photograph, and gender/sexual orientation.

The structure of the search parameters encouraged some to alter information to fit into a wider range of search parameters, a circumvention behavior that guaranteed a wider audience for their profile. For example, participants tended to misrepresent their age for fear of being “filtered out.” It was not unusual for users who were one or two years older than a natural breakpoint (i.e., 35 or 50) to adjust their age so they would still show up in search results. This behavior, especially if one’s actual age was revealed during subsequent email or telephone exchanges, seemed to be socially acceptable. Many of our participants recounted cases in which others freely and without embarrassment admitted that they had slightly misrepresented something in their profile, typically very early in the correspondence:

They don’t seem to be embarrassed about [misrepresenting their age] … in their first reply they say, “oh by the way, I am not so many years, I am that many years.” And then if I ask them, they say, well, they tend to be attracted to a little bit younger crowd and they are afraid that guys may surf for a certain age group of women, because you use those filters. I mean, I may choose to list only those that are between X and Y years old and they don’t want to be filtered away. … They are trying to be sort of clever so that people they tend to be attracted to will actually find them. (Christo1, Los Angeles Male)

If lying about one’s age was perceived to be the norm, those who didn’t engage in this practice felt themselves to be at a disadvantage (see Fiore & Donath, 2004 ). For instance, one participant who misrepresented his age on his profile noted:

I’m such an honest guy, why should I have to lie about my age? On the other hand, if I put X number of years, that is unattractive to certain people. They’re never going to search that group and they’re never going to have an opportunity to meet me, because they have a number in their mind just like I do. … Everybody lies about their age or a lot of people do. … So I have to cheat too in order to be on the same page as everybody else that cheats. If I don’t cheat that makes me seem twice as old. So if I say I am 44, people think that I am 48. It blows. (RealSweetheart, Bay Area Male)

In the above cases, users engaged in misrepresentation triggered by the social norms of the environment and the structure of the search filters. The technical constraints of the site may have initiated a more subtle form of misrepresentation when participants were required to choose among a limited set of options, none of which described them sufficiently. For instance, when creating their profiles, participants had to designate their “perfect date” by selecting one from a dozen or so generic descriptions, which was frustrating for those who did not see any that were particularly appealing. In another case, one participant complained that there was not an option to check “plastic surgery” as one of his “turn-offs” and thus he felt forced to try to discern this from the photos; yet another participant expressed his desire for a “shaved” option under the description of hair type (“I resent having to check ‘bald’”).

Foggy Mirror

In addition to the cases in which misrepresentation was triggered by technical constraints or the tendency to present an idealized self, participants described a third branch of unintentional misrepresentation triggered by the limits of self-knowledge. We call this phenomenon “foggy mirror” based on this participant’s explanation:

People like to write about themselves. Sometimes it’s not truthful, but it’s how they see themselves and that gives you a different slant on an individual. This is how they really see themselves. Sometimes you will see a person who weighs 900 pounds and—this is just an exaggeration—and they will have on spandex, you’ll think, “God, I wish I had their mirror, because obviously their mirror tells them they look great.” It’s the same thing with online. (KarieK, Bay Area Female)

This user acknowledges that sometimes others weren’t lying per se, but the fact that their self-image differed from others’ perceptions meant that their textual self-descriptions would diverge from a third party’s description. In explaining this phenomenon, KarieK used the metaphor of a mirror to emphasize the self-reflexive nature of the profile. She also refers to the importance of subtle cues when she notes that a user’s self-presentation choices give one a “different slant on an individual.” The term “foggy mirror” thus describes the gap between self-perceptions and the assessments made by others. The difference might be overly positive (which was typically the case) or negative, as the below example illustrates. A male participant explained:

There was one gal who said that she had an “average” body shape. … When I met her she was thin, and she said she was “average,” but I think she has a different concept of what “average” is. So I then widened my scope [in terms of search parameters] and would go off the photographs. What a woman thinks is an “average” body and what I think is an “average” body are two different things. (joet8, Los Angeles Male)

In this case, the participant acknowledged the semantic problems that accompany textual self-descriptions and adopted a strategy of relying on photographs as visual, objective evidence, instead of subjective, ambiguous terms like “average.” To counter the “foggy mirror” syndrome in their own profiles, some individuals asked friends or family members to read their profiles in order to validate them.

In regards to self-presentation, the most significant tension experienced by participants was one not unique to the online medium: mediating between the pressures to present an enhanced or desired self ( Goffman, 1959 ) and the need to present one’s true self to a partner in order to achieve intimacy ( Reis & Shaver, 1988 ). In their profiles and online interactions, they attempted to present a vision of self that was attractive, engaging, and worthy of pursuit, but realistic and honest enough that subsequent face-to-face meetings were not unpleasant or surprising. Constructing a profile that reflected one’s “ideal self” ( Higgins, 1987 ) was one tactic by which participants reconciled these pressures. In general, although all of our participants claimed they attempted to be honest in their self-presentation, misrepresentations occurred when participants felt pressure to fudge in order to circumvent the search filters, felt the closed-ended options provided by the site didn’t describe them accurately, or were limited by their self-knowledge.

Establishing Credibility

The increased ability to engage in selective self-presentation, and the absence of visual cues in the online environment, meant that accuracy of self-presentation was a salient issue for our interviewees. The twin concerns that resulted from these factors—the challenge of establishing the credibility of one’s own self-descriptions while assessing the credibility of others’ identity claims—affected one another in a recursive fashion. In an environment in which there were limited outside confirmatory resources to draw upon, participants developed a set of rules for assessing others while incorporating these codes into their own self-presentational messages. For example, one participant made sure that her profile photograph showed her standing up because she felt that sitting or leaning poses were a camouflage technique used by heavier people. This illustrates the recursive way in which participants developed rules for assessing others (e.g., avoid people in sitting poses) while also applying these rubrics to their own self-presentational messages (e.g., don’t show self in sitting pose).

Participants adopted specific tactics in order to compensate for the fact that traditional methods of information seeking were limited and that self-reported descriptions were subject to intentional or unintentional misrepresentation when others took advantage of the “selective self-presentation” ( Walther & Burgoon, 1992 ) available in CMC. As one participant noted, “You’re just kind of blind, you don’t know if what they’re saying in their profile online is true.” Acknowledging the potential for misrepresentation, participants also sought to “show” aspects of their personality in their profiles versus just “telling” others about themselves. They created their profiles with an eye towards stories or content that confirmed specific personality traits rather than including a ‘laundry list’ of attributes. As one Los Angeles male participant explained, “I attempted to have stories in my profile somewhat to attempt to demonstrate my character, as opposed to, you know, [just writing] ‘I’m trustworthy,’ and all that bit.” This emphasis on demonstration as opposed to description was a tactic designed to circumvent the lack of a shared social context that would have warranted identity claims and hedged against blatant deception.

Another aspect of “showing” included the use of photographs, which served to warrant or support claims made in textual descriptions. Profile photographs communicated not only what people looked like (or claimed to look like), but also indicated the qualities they felt were important. For instance, one man with a doctorate included one photo of himself standing against a wall displaying his diplomas and another of him shirtless. When asked about his choice of photos, he explained that he selected the shirtless photo because he was proud of being in shape and wanted to show it off. He picked the combination of the two photos because “one is sort of [my] intellectual side and one is sort of the athletic side.” In this case, the photos functioned on multiple levels: To communicate physical characteristics, but also self-concept (the aspects of self he was most proud of), and as an attempt to provide evidence for his discursive claims (his profile listed an advanced degree and an athletic physique).

To summarize, our data suggest that participants were cognizant of the online setting and its association with deceptive communication practices, and therefore worked to present themselves as credible. In doing so, they drew upon the rules they had developed for assessing others and turned these practices into guidelines for their own self-presentational messages.

The primary goal of the online dating participants interviewed for this study was to find someone with whom they could establish a dating relationship (although desired commitment level and type of relationship varied across participants). Given this, they attempted to achieve their goals while contending with the unique characteristics of the online environment, engaging in strategies designed to circumvent the constraints of the online dating environment while exploiting its capacities. One constraint—the lack of nonverbal cues—meant that the task of interpreting the remaining cues became paramount in regards to both assessment of others and presentation of self. Since the goal of most online dating participants was to identify and interact with potential romantic partners, individuals strove to highlight their positive attributes and capitalize on the greater perceived control over self-presentation inherent in the medium. However, the future face-to-face interaction they anticipated meant that individuals had to balance their desire for self-promotion with their need for accurate self-presentation. In response to the risk of misrepresentation online, made possible by the selective self-presentation affordances of CMC, participants adopted various strategies to demonstrate the credibility of their identity claims, recursively applying the same techniques they employed to uncover representational ruses in others. Our findings suggest that participants consistently engaged in creative workarounds (circumvention strategies) as they went through the process of posting a profile, selecting individuals to contact, and communicating with potential romantic partners. Our data also highlight the recursive process by which some participants constructed rules of thumb for assessing others (e.g., an inactive account indicates a lack of availability or interest) while simultaneously incorporating these rules in their own messages (e.g., frequently making slight adjustments to the profile).

Theoretical Implications

As individuals make initial decisions about potential partners, they form impressions that help reduce uncertainty about the other ( Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ). For this to happen in the context of CMC, SIP argues, individuals will adapt their behaviors to the cues that are available ( Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther, 1992 ) to convey information to one another. While empirical support for SIP has been demonstrated (see Walther & Parks, 2002 for a review), this article is among the few to provide evidence for SIP in a naturalistic setting. Our data show that in the initial interactions of online dating participants, stylistic aspects of messages such as timing, length, and grammar appear equally as important as the content of the message itself; this is consistent with SIP’s formulation that when nonverbal cues are decreased, the remaining cues become more salient to users. Previous laboratory studies of SIP have tended to focus on the manipulation of a subset of cues. A unique contribution of this study’s extension of SIP is its demonstration of the organic interplay of these alternative sources of social information online.

Although much of the public debate about online dating has centered on the medium’s inability to ensure participants’ truthful self-descriptions, our interview data suggest that the notion that people frequently, explicitly, and intentionally “lie” online is simplistic and inaccurate. Exploring the question of whether participants created a playful or fantastical identity online ( Stone, 1996 ; Turkle, 1995 ) or were more open and honest ( Rubin, 1975 ), we found that the online dating participants we spoke with claimed that they attempted to present an accurate self-representation online, a finding echoed in our survey data ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). This study highlights the fact that creating an accurate online representation of self in this context is a complex and evolving process in which participants attempt to attract desirable partners while contending with constraints such as those posed by technological design and the limits of self-knowledge.

In some cases, the technical constraints of the site may have unintentionally enabled acts of misrepresentation, for instance when participants slightly altered information in situations in which they felt an arbitrary data point (in age, for example) would significantly harm their chances of being discovered by a potential mate. Additionally, self-reported descriptions that use subjective terms (e.g., “pretty” or “average”) could also result in unintentional misrepresentation due to different interpretations of these terms. Additionally, as Shah and Kesan point out, “Defaults have a legitimating effect, because they carry information about what most people are expected to do” (2003, p. 7). In the case of online dating, it may be that the default settings in the search field (i.e., an age range, whether searches are limited to profiles with photographs) influence user perceptions of the desirability or appropriateness of certain responses.

Additionally, our interview data suggest that online representations of one’s ideal self—when combined with the increased accountability engendered by an anticipated face-to-face interaction—may serve as a tool to enable individuals to minimize the discrepancy between their actual and their ideal selves. The ideal self refers to qualities or achievements one strives to possess in the future ( Bargh et al., 2002 ). In the realm of online dating, it is interesting that participants reported using the profile to ideate a version of self they desired to experience in the future. For some, the act of constructing an online profile may begin a process of self-growth as they strive to close the gap between actual and ideal self, such as the woman who misrepresented her weight but then was able to achieve her goal of weight loss over time. Future research is needed to assess the extent to which this phenomenon exists and its long-term consequences for processes of self-growth.

More research is also needed to understand fully whether strategies designed to circumvent constraints (technical or other) are perceived to be deceptive by users and, if so, which norms govern their use. The literature on deception explores a wide range of deceptive acts, ranging from the more mundane “diversionary responses” to outright “lies” ( Buller & Burgoon, 1994 ). Future research could work to develop a taxonomy of online deception and acceptability, which takes into account the nuances of social norms and the fact that some misrepresentation may be unintentional or socially accepted. For instance, if a profile includes incorrect information that is rectified immediately over email, is it a “lie?” More importantly, is it acceptable? Also, more research is needed to understand more clearly the extent and substance of participants’ actual concerns regarding online dating (i.e., misrepresentation, effectiveness, safety) and how they overlap with the often sensationalized discourse about online deception as represented in media accounts and social narratives.

Practical Implications

Given that deceptive practices are a concern for online dating participants, future research should explore the ways in which online dating sites could implement design features aimed at addressing these issues. For instance, they could acknowledge and incorporate aspects of a shared social context, similar to social networking sites like Friendster ( Donath & boyd, 2004 ), through the use of testimonials or social network visualizations. Online dating sites could adopt some of the design features used in e-commerce sites, such as testimonials, user rating systems, or social network visualizations, where participants also must operate in an uncertain environment in which warranting is difficult and deception can be costly ( Resnick & Zeckhauser, 2002 ).

A second design consideration is the possibility that the technical characteristics of some online dating sites may privilege objective characteristics (such as demographic features) and de-emphasize the process of seeing others as individuals rather than as amalgams of various traits. The benefit, or capacity, of online dating is that participants can use specific search parameters to cull a subset of profiles from a larger database. Participants acknowledged that the online dating environment placed more emphasis on certain kinds of information—information that might not be very important in a face-to-face setting when chemistry was already established. To compensate for or to circumvent these constraints, participants tried to create profiles that stood out or evidenced aspects of self that they were particularly proud of rather than a laundry list of features. They struggled to present themselves as unique individuals within the constraints of a technical system that encouraged homogeneity, negotiating a desire to stand out with the need to blend in. Future research might examine the potential for developing self-presentation tools that allow individuals more nuanced ways of expressing themselves in the online environment, such as video presentations, more sophisticated communication tools, or triangulated information from others on the site. Online dating sites may need to reconsider the ways in which profiles are structured and the characteristics they include; as Fiore and Donath argue, “the features of a person that Match.com presents as salient to romance will begin to have some psychological and cultural influences if 40 million Americans view them every month” (2004, p. 1395). If we accept this claim, then it stands to reason that participants’ visions of self may be impacted by their online self-presentations, especially if these presentations are constrained.

Limitations

We chose to conduct interviews with online dating participants in order to gain insight into how they perceived their experiences and the processes through which they learned to avoid the pitfalls and exploit the possibilities of online dating. However, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged in our method and sample. Limitations of this study include the sampling of only participants located on the West Coast. While Connect.com members are worldwide, we cannot assess if regional or national differences affect the online dating experience. A major limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participants volunteered for the study. While demographically diverse, those that chose to volunteer might be biased toward a more positive outlook on online dating or potentially more honest in their online dating practices.

In addition, the self-reported nature of the data may have resulted in a social desirability bias, making participants less likely to admit to intentional misrepresentation. Finally, many of our findings may be specific to Connect.com ’s model of online dating, in which participants post profiles and select with whom they want to communicate. Other online dating sites, such as eHarmony, utilize a very different model, acting as online matchmakers where individuals who are found to be compatible are paired based on personality tests developed by “expert” psychologists. Future research could assess whether variables like self-efficacy predict which model users choose to utilize. Although our observations in this article were based on the sample as a whole, we acknowledge that there may be differences (for instance, along gender lines) which are beyond the scope of this article but which could be explored in future research.

Although self-presentation and relationship formation have been studied in other online contexts, tracing how these processes take place in the online dating realm offers researchers unique insights into the crucial role of circumvention techniques, the complicated nature of “honesty” in online environments, and the social and psychological implications of the design and structure of these sites. From a historical perspective, the goals of online dating participants are not that different from those described by poets throughout the ages. What is different is the tools in their repertoire and the constraints and opportunities they present. As O’Sullivan writes, “From a functional perspective, it appears new technologies may be providing nothing terribly new— just new ways of doing things that people have been doing throughout the history of social interaction” (2000, p. 428). This study has attempted to elucidate and explain some of these social practices as a window into the ways in which new communication technologies are shaping us—and we are shaping them—in the ongoing pursuit of romantic relationships.

The authors thank Karen Aroian, Ulla Bunz, Annika Hylmo, Edythe Hough, Patrick O’Sullivan, Charles Steinfield, Joe Walther, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions regarding this manuscript.

Similar to the concept of “workaround” employed by designers and software engineers, users engage in circumvention strategies to neutralize constraints—or turn them into capabilities. Prior CMC research has identified similar processes in interpersonal contexts. For instance, O’Sullivan (2000) found that users chose mediated channels over face-to-face communication in situations where a preferred impression was expected to be violated in order to capitalize on the face-saving capabilities of mediated interaction. Similarly, CMC researchers working in other contexts have noted the process by which individuals adapt their behavior to compensate for the limitations imposed by the medium in order to pursue their communication goals ( Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005 ).

All identifying information about our participants has been changed to protect their confidentiality, although we have attempted to use pseudonyms that reflect the tone and spirit of their chosen screen names. Additionally, at the request of our research site, we have used a pseudonym in place of the site’s actual name.

Ahuvia , A. C. , & Adelman , M. B . ( 1992 ). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review . Journal of Marriage & the Family , 54 ( 2 ), 452 – 463 .

Google Scholar

Baertlein , L . ( 2004 ). Demand for advice to online lovelorn is booming . BizReport . Retrieved August 14, 2004, from http://www.bizreport.com/news/6516/

Baker , A . ( 2002 ). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from couples who met in cyberspace . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 5 ( 4 ), 363 – 375 .

Bargh , J. A. , McKenna , K. Y. , & Fitzsimons , G. M . ( 2002 ). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 33 – 48 .

Berger , C. R . ( 1979 ). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding and development of interpersonal relationships . In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology (pp. 122 – 144 ). Baltimore: University Park Press .

Google Preview

Berger , C. , & Calabrese , R . ( 1975 ). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication . Human Communication Research , 1 ( 2 ), 99 – 112 .

Berger , P. L. , & Luckman , T . ( 1980 ). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . New York: Irvington Publishers .

Bowker , N. , & Tuffin , K . ( 2003 ). Dicing with deception: People with disabilities’ strategies for managing safety and identity online . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 8 ( 2 ). Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue2/bowker.html

Brym , R. J. , & Lenton , R. L . ( 2001 ). Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada . Retrieved July 2, 2003, from http://www.nelson.com/nelson/harcourt/sociology/newsociety3e/loveonline.pdf

Buller , D. B. , & Burgoon , J. K . ( 1994 ). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication . In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic Interpersonal Communication (pp. 191 – 223 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .

CBC News . ( 2004 ). Online Dating Facts and Figures . Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/services/onlinedating/facts.html

Coffey , A. , & Atkinson , P . ( 1996 ). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Cornwell , B. , & Lundgren , D. C . ( 2001 ). Love on the Internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace . Computers in Human Behavior , 17 ( 2 ), 197 – 211 .

DePaulo , B. , Kashy , D. , Kirkendol , S. , Wyer , M. , & Epstein , J . ( 1996 ). Lying in everyday life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 5 ), 979 – 995 .

Derlega , V. , Winstead , B. , Wong , P. , & Greenspan , M . ( 1987 ). Self-disclosure and relationship development: An attributional analysis . In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (pp. 172 – 187 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Dominick , J. R . ( 1999 ). Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web . Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 76 ( 4 ), 646 – 658 .

Donath , J. S . ( 1999 ). Identity and deception in the virtual community . In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29 – 59 ). New York: Routledge .

Donath , J. , & Boyd , D . ( 2004 ). Public displays of connection . BT Technology Journal , 22 ( 4 ), 71 – 82 .

Donn , J. , & Sherman , R . ( 2002 ). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the Internet . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 5 ( 2 ), 107 – 123 .

Dutton , W. E . ( 1996 ). Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities . Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Egan , J . ( 2003, November 23 ). Love in the time of no time . The New York Times . Retrieved November 25, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/magazine/23ONLINE.html?ex=1070719885&ei=1&en=fcd72235b67ffb79

Eisenhardt , K. M . ( 1989 ). Building theories from case study research . Academy of Management Review , 14 ( 4 ), 532 – 550 .

Fernandez , S . ( 2005, May 30 ). Getting to know you: Tell-all sites put online dater profiles to truth test . The Washington Post . Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052901071_pf.html

Fiore , A. T. , & Donath , J . ( 2004 ). Online Personals: An Overview . Paper presented at the meeting of ACM Computer-Human Interaction 2004, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved October, 1, 2004, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/atf/chi2004_personals_short.pdf

Gershberg , M . ( 2004, June 10 ). Funny odds of online dating . BizReport . Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.bizreport.com/news/7383/

Gibbs , J. L. , Ellison , N. B. , & Heino , R. D . ( 2006 ). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating . Communication Research , 33 ( 2 ), 1 – 26 .

Glaser , B. G. , & Strauss , A. L . ( 1967 ). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine Publishing .

Goffman , E . ( 1959 ). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . New York: Anchor .

Greene , K. , Derlega , V. L. , & Mathews , A . ( 2006 ). Self-disclosure in personal relationships . In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Greenspan , R . ( 2003 ). Socializing surfers shop for friends, dates . Clickz . Retrieved April 3, 2004, from http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3114251

Hancock , J. , Thom-Santelli , J. , & Ritchie , T . ( 2004 ). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior . In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129 – 134 ). New York: ACM .

Higgins , E. T . ( 1987 ). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect . Psychological Review , 94 ( 3 ), 319 – 340 .

Hitsch , G. J. , Hortacsu , A. , & Ariely , D . ( 2004 ). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating (Working Paper) . Retrieved June 22, 2005, from http://rover.cs.northwestern.edu/~surana/blog/extras/online_dating.pdf

Howard , P. N . ( 2004 ). Embedded media: Who we know, what we know and society online . In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online: The Internet in Context (pp. 1 – 28 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Joinson , A. N . ( 2001 ). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity . European Journal of Social Psychology , 31 ( 2 ), 177 – 192 .

Joinson , A. N. , & Dietz-Uhler , B . ( 2002 ). Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community . Social Science Computer Review , 20 ( 3 ), 275 – 289 .

Kibby , M . ( 1997 ). Babes on the Web: Sex, identity and the home page . Media International Australia , 84 , 39 – 45 .

Krippendorff , K . ( 1980 ). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

Klohnen , E. C. , & Mendelsohn , G. A . ( 1998 ). Partner selection for personality characteristics: A couple-centered approach . Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 3 ), 268 .

Laurenceau , J. P. , Barrett , L. F. , & Pietromonaco , P. R . ( 1998 ). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 ( 5 ), 1238 – 1251 .

Lee , A . ( 2004, November 1 ). Online love may come with safety warning . Detroit News , pp. 1A – 2A .

Lincoln , Y. S. , & Guba , E. G . ( 1985 ). Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

Lynn , M. , & Bolig , R . ( 1985 ). Personal advertisements: Source of data for research on interpersonal relations . Journal of Social and Personal Relationship , 2 , 337 – 383 .

MacKenzie , D. A. , & Wajcman , J . ( 1985 ). The Social Shaping of Technology . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press .

MacKinnon , R. C . ( 1995 ). Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet . In S. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

McLaughlin , M. , Osbourne , K. , & Ellison , N . ( 1997 ). Virtual community in a telepresence environment . In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety (pp. 146 – 168 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Miles , M. B. , & Huberman , A. M . ( 1994 ). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

O’Sullivan , P. B . ( 2000 ). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships . Human Communication Research , 26 ( 3 ), 403 – 431 .

Parks , M. R. , & Floyd , K . ( 1996 ). Making friends in cyberspace . Journal of Communication , 46 ( 1 ), 80 – 97 .

Ramirez , A. , Walther , J. B. , Burgoon , J. K. , & Sunnafrank , M . ( 2002 ). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model . Human Communication Research , 28 ( 2 ), 213 – 228 .

Reis , H. T. , & Shaver , P . ( 1988 ). Intimacy as an interpersonal process . In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (pp. 376 – 389 ). Chichester, England: Wiley .

Resnick , P. , & Zeckhauser , R . ( 2002 ). Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system . In M. R . Baye (Ed.), Advances in Applied Microeconomics: The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce . (Vol. 11 , pp. 127 – 157 ). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science .

Roberts , L. D. , & Parks , M. R . ( 1999 ). The social geography of gender-switching in virtual environments on the Internet . Information, Communication & Society , 2 ( 4 ), 521 – 540 .

Rowatt , W. C. , Cunningham , M. R. , & Druen , P. B . ( 1998 ). Deception to get a date . Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 11 ), 1228 – 1242 .

Rubin , Z . ( 1975 ). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 11 ( 3 ), 233 – 260 .

Schaefer , L. J . ( 2003, February 14 ). Looking for love, online or on paper . The New York Times , p. A31 .

Schau , H. J. , & Gilly , M. C . ( 2003 ). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space . Journal of Consumer Research , 30 ( 3 ), 385 – 404 .

Schlenker , B. R. , & Pontari , B. A . ( 2000 ). The strategic control of information: Impression management and self-presentation in daily life . In A. Tesser , R. B. Felson , & J. M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Self and Identity (pp. 199 – 232 ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .

Shah , R. C. , & Kesan , J. P . ( 2003 ). Manipulating the governance characteristics of code . Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media , 5 ( 4 ), 3 – 9 .

St. John , W . ( 2002, April 21 ). Young, single and dating at hyperspeed . The New York Times . Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.springstreetnetworks.com/press/pdf/springst_youngandsingle.pdf

Stone , A. R . ( 1996 ). The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Strauss , A. , & Corbin , J . ( 1998 ). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Taylor , D. , & Altman , I . ( 1987 ). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes . In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (pp. 257 – 277 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Tidwell , L. C. , & Walther , J. B . ( 2002 ). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time . Human Communication Research , 28 ( 3 ), 317 – 348 .

Turkle , S . ( 1995 ). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet . New York: Simon and Schuster .

Utz , S . ( 2000 ). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds . Journal of Online Behavior , 1 ( 1 ). Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html

Van Gelder , L . ( 1996 ). The strange case of the electronic lover: A real-life story of deception, seduction, and technology . In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd ed., pp. 533 – 546 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press .

Wallace , P . ( 1999 ). The Psychology of the Internet . New York: Cambridge University Press .

Walther , J. B . ( 1992 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective . Communication Research , 19 ( 1 ), 52 – 91 .

Walther , J. B . ( 1994 ). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer mediated interaction . Human Communication Research , 20 ( 4 ), 473 – 501 .

Walther , J. B . ( 1996 ). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction . Communication Research , 23 ( 1 ), 3 – 44 .

Walther , J. B. , Anderson , J. F. , & Park , D. D . ( 1994 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication . Communication Research , 21 ( 4 ), 460 – 487 .

Walther , J. B. , & Burgoon , J. K . ( 1992 ). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction . Human Communication Research , 19 ( 1 ), 50 – 88 .

Walther , J. B. , Loh , T. , & Granka , L . ( 2005 ). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 24 ( 1 ), 36 – 65 .

Walther , J. B. , & Parks , M. R . ( 2002 ). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships . In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed., pp. 529 – 563 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Walther , J. B. , & Tidwell , L. C . ( 1995 ). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication . Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce , 5 ( 4 ), 355 – 378 .

Woll , S . ( 1986 ). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in videodating . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 3 ( 1 ), 43 – 52 .

Woll , S. B. , & Cosby , P. C . ( 1987 ). Videodating and other alternatives to traditional methods of relationship initiation . In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 1 , pp. 69 – 108 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .

Woll , S. B. , & Young , P . ( 1989 ). Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right: Self-presentation in videodating . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 51 ( 2 ), 483 – 488 .

Woolgar , S . ( 1996 ). Technologies as cultural artifacts . In W. Dutton (Ed.), Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities . Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Sample Codes and Quotes

Most Important Codes with Frequencies *

All codes with more than 100 occurrences.

Nicole Ellison is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Telecommunications, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. Her research explores issues of self-presentation, relationship development, and identity in online environments such as weblogs, online dating sites, and social networking services.

Address: Dept. of Telecommunications, Information Studies, and Media, Michigan State University, 403 Communication Arts and Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA

Rebecca Heino is an Assistant Professor in the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. She has centered her research on the use of communication technologies—such as intranets and email—in organizations, specifically focusing on organizational adoption, implementation, and privacy.

Address: Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, 37th & O St. NW, Old North G-04, Washington, DC 20057 USA

Jennifer Gibbs is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Rutgers University. Her research interests center around how individuals connect, collaborate, and negotiate identity and differences in global, multicultural, and mediated contexts.

Address: Department of Communication, SCILS, 4 Huntington Street, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071 USA

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1083-6101
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Access through  your organization
• Purchase PDF

Article preview

Introduction, section snippets, references (56), cited by (35).

Telematics and Informatics

How online self-presentation affects well-being and body image: a systematic review ☆.

• • How active self-presentation and lurking impact well-being and body image: A review.
• • Results indicate categorizing types of self-presentation, lurking, and well-being.
• • Both self-presentation and lurking can enhance or diminish well-being and body image.
• • Various mechanisms explained differences for self-presentation and lurking types.
• • The social context is important in studying self-presentation and lurking.
• RQ1: To what extent are various types of self-presentation versus lurking related to (a) well-being and (b) body image?
• RQ2: What is the role of cultural variability (i.e., individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance) in the relationships between self-presentation versus lurking, and (a) well-being and (b) body image?
• RQ3: What are important moderators and mediators in the relationships between self-presentation versus lurking, and (a) well-being and (b) body image?

Disclosure statement

Social media use and social connectedness in adolescents: the positives and the potential pitfalls, austr. educ. develop. psychol., emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties, am. psychol., the relationship between online social networking and depression: a systematic review of quantitative studies, cyberpsychol., behavior soc. networking, hofstede never studied culture, acc. organ. soc., online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review, children youth serv. rev., social network sites – a typology of users, int. j. web-based commun., what makes us accept lookism in the selfie era a three-way interaction among the present, the constant, and the past, comput. hum. behav., predictors and social consequences of online interactive self-disclosure: a literature review from 2002 to 2014, subjective well-being, psychol. bull., subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index, a theory of objective self awareness, social exchange theory, ann. rev. sociol., a theory of social comparison processes, human relations, effect of private self-awareness on negative affect and self-referent attribution: a quantitative review, personality soc. psychol. rev., objectification theory: toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks, psychol. women q., identity shift in computer-mediated environments, media psychol., mirror, mirror on my facebook wall: effects of exposure to facebook on self-esteem, cultural variability in communication: an introduction, commun. res., culture consequences: international differences in work-related values, cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations.

• Hofstede Insights, 2018. Country Comparison tool [online tool]. Retrieved from...

Cultural influences on Facebook photographs

Int. j. psychol., cross-cultural differences in online self-presentation: a content analysis of personal korean and us home pages, asian j. commun., i wish i were a warrior: the role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys, dev. psychol., content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions, sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability samples for nominal content categories, journalism mass commun. q., effects of witnessing fat talk on body satisfaction and psychological well-being: a cross-cultural comparison of korea and the united states, soc. behavior personality, scholarship on well-being and social media: a sociotechnical perspective.

In the following sections, we describe three scholarly domains—self-presentation, social capital, and social support—and explore what a sociotechnical perspective would offer in terms of increased understanding and theoretical contribution. These domains have been directly linked to well-being in the online context [37–39] and remain vibrant and vital research foci. Self-presentation speaks to how we “perform” differently to different audiences in order to manage others’ impressions [40].

The relationship between Instagram use and indicators of mental health: A systematic review

Logically, this form of optimized self-presentation seems to have beneficial effects on users’ well-being (e.g. Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). However, passively consuming this selectively presented content of others may induce more detrimental effects, resulting in decreased mental well-being (de Vaate et al., 2020). Indeed, previous reviews suggest that passive SNS use could induce upward social comparison (e.g., Verduyn et al., 2017), which happens when users compare themselves with others who seem to be better off (Chou & Edge, 2012).

Social media use and the not-so-imaginary audience: Behavioral and neural mechanisms underlying the influence on self-concept

A country’s national culture affects virtual learning environment adoption in higher education: a systematic review (2001–2020), the impact of sharing physical activity experience on social network sites on residents’ social connectedness:a cross-sectional survey during covid-19 social quarantine, plurality in the measurement of social media use and mental health: an exploratory study among adolescents and young adults.