Turner (1999, p. 7) states there are no identity theories that are ‘finished and perfect’ and this discussion highlights the infinite nature of the Identity theory formation. The theories discussed above tend towards the idea that all identities are social to a certain extent. The methods that we use to portray this internal belief are symbols that are recognizable and express the ideas of self.
The symbols and agreed behaviors form and re-enforce the presentation of self. By taking elements of these theories we can establish a way in which to discuss and research Digital Identity. van Kokswijk (2007, p. 24) observes that ‘Identity is a characteristic defining one’s sense of self’ and is linked to the role an individual plays, the hierarchy of identity, the meanings that symbols are given, motivations, impressions as well as the social context.
Identity Theory explains well the internal presentation of self. It is important to not undervalue this part of the identity process. While interactions and social context are essential they are not the only way of developing self. To deny the importance of internal beliefs and representations does not fully comprehend the meaning of self. SIT recognizes identity as it is represented in comparison to another group, and this definition is too limiting for this research. How we present ourselves on Facebook and Twitter is not just about audience but also about internal representation and the impression that the individual seeks to share. While there are elements of SIT that support this research, such as the social element and importance of interaction, fundamentally it is better suited to describe group dynamics (Tajfel 1978). There is opportunity within the discipline to investigate Social Media use in this way but it is not the focus here.
Hogg et al. (1995) sum up the differences between Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.
The very basis is a different way of looking at the world: Identity Theory comes from sociology and explains the role-related behaviors of individuals, while SIT is a psychological theory that explains group development and intergroup relations. SIT research places the social context as the most significant factor of social identity (Crabill 2007; Krane, Barber & McClung 2001; Brown 2000; Hennessy & West 1999; Huddy 2001; Oakes 2002; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel & Turner 1986; Terry, Hogg, & White 1999; Turner 1999). Identity creation is more than which groups the individual joins online, but rather in what ways they project the self. The focus of both theories is very different even though there are similarities in terms of a social context. The focus of this research will be on the individual and their role in projecting the self. It does not explore how the identity has been received or interpreted by an audience.
Role identity is crucial to understanding the presentation of self online as it sets a social context as highlighted by SIT. The hierarchy of salience gives a good basis for discussing the way that Identity is formed. By categorizing the most salient roles that an individual maintains offline we can operate within a social context that is understood and has meaning. The importance of role to individuals sets the context for this study. The roles to be investigated are high on the salience hierarchy and therefore can be used across different environments and are enacted in most days of the individual’s life. There is little written about the influence of role on Digital Identity and many questions are raised about how closely individuals identify with that which they create online. Is the resultant Digital Identity an extension of an already existing role or is it a
completely separate identity that exists in its own part of the hierarchy? This would depend on how individuals develop the self concept online.
Symbols and language are important to the meanings that individuals give to themselves. They also allow for others to understand that meaning. In the previous chapter we discussed the new linga franca and it would be interesting to see to what extent that this is true. And in what ways adapting language impacts the identity that is presented to the world.
Impression Management highlights the importance of presentation of the individual. How Social Media facilitates this presentation has not been explored in the literature. The questions that arise here explore the extent to which individuals attempt to control the impression that others form of them. Much like Identity Theory, the idea is that individuals create a presentation of the self that is then performed to an audience. Adrian (2010, p. 199) concurs that ‘we can think of identity as a streaming picture of life within a particular context’. For this study the streaming pictures appear on Facebook and Twitter. There is little said about the extent to which individuals control the impressions seen by others, how far they change their identity, or how authentic is their representation.
One of the key differences in online identity is the ease with which ‘unknown’ or uninvited audiences can affect the presentation of self. With easy access and the ability to manipulate images and data there are real possibilities of manipulation occurring (Korica et al. 2006). Some studies (Davis 2010) have illustrated the authenticity of the information shared but there are not many investigations into whether people experience the negative side of the information that they share willingly. Gossip has always been prevalent in society but with the resilience of the information age does gossip become part of an individual’s long term identity? There are many questions to be investigated around private information on the social stage. Has the line between back stage and front stage been blurred by the adoption of Social Media? Self awareness of an online identity and self monitoring are interesting by-products of the digital age. We are encouraged to google ourselves to see what is written about us and to see if posts we have made have been changed, which illustrates the concept of self monitoring.
Goffman’s concept of self and front and back stages was used by Benson (2009) in her ethnographical study of Facebook, in which she investigated the offline implications of online
behavior. Backstage – where individuals let their guards down – is where they can construct their onstage persona. Facebook is a public space where we share personal information that may have traditionally been considered ‘backstage’. Benson (2009, p. 6) states that one of the main issues with public backstage online is that ‘people do not understand or know how to set the privacy setting on their accounts and therefore allow audiences such as employers unfettered access to the backstage area, which may damage or ruin the onstage performance’. Whether this really is the case is debatable as different people have different ideas about what is onstage and what is backstage. In Benson’s (2009) work she states that her research shows that students of the University consider Facebook offstage or a private space while the University itself considers it public space. Further research could be done to explore if individuals consider Facebook and Twitter front or back stages and if it differs between roles.
Both Turkle (1995) and Aboujaode (2011) use examples of patients who have created entirely new personas online to deal with perceived or real inadequacies. These examples are often picked up by popular press to underline the issues and problems that can occur when the screen is divided between who an individual is and who they want to be. This is very much in keeping with Goffman’s idea of front and back stages. Perhaps the front stage persona that individuals share on Facebook or Twitter is as authentic as the ‘real life’ individual. Identity is flexible and the different aspects of individual’s lives only enhance who they are, rather than constrict the
‘true’ self. Individuals identify in ‘real life’ the roles that they play – for example, the researcher is a sister, daughter, lecturer, volunteer, researcher, friend, aunt, writer, nerd. Each of these roles is as authentic as the next and all make up the self. Individuals cannot only be defined by the job that they have or by their status in society, they are defined by all of those roles. Each has an important part to play but an individual has different versions of self depending on the social context – they are all real parts of the individual but they are different.
The idea of Impression Management is that individuals decide what impression they would like to make in the world of Social Media. The extent to which individuals consciously decide how these impressions should appear, or whether they are subconsciously presenting their character, should be considered. The way individuals communicate on these platforms is important –and the three goals of impressions (Schlenkler 1980) can be tested in this area. Are people always positive, are they trying to intimidate or do they try to get people to feel sorry for them?
Individuals are defined by self (whether it be ‘the self’, self-categorization, back stage) but no identity is complete without interaction. The three theories agree that there is not one identity for a person, as people belong to a number of different groups or have different roles and therefore have several selves that relate to different contexts (Turner et al. 1987). The way that we express this idea of self and the impressions we make by interacting with others is also an important function of identity. If the world is our stage, what symbols and props do we use to get our ideas across? This research will investigate this idea of identity and roles in a digital context.
The technologies are also at the core of this research. This is not a study about technology acceptance but rather addresses users who are already submerged in the digital world. The user will be well established on Facebook or Twitter and should log into the system at least once a day. Social context has been identified as relating to the roles that an individual holds in society
‘offline’ but also within the structure of Facebook or Twitter. While the study will investigate the Social Media applications it is also relevant to look at the role of hardware in self presentation.
How individuals access information may relate to the frequency and ability to construct identity.
A combination of SIT, IT and IM offers the current investigation theoretical elements to develop understanding of the processes that are employed by individuals to negotiate their identity on Social Media. Therefore this research will look at how individuals present themselves on Facebook or Twitter, the social context of that presentation, and from this identify the salience of the role that the individual holds and how it influences what they share. Also of interest is to what extent individuals use different symbols and languages to get across meaning in the context of Social Media. In what ways does the audience (inferring interaction) influence the method that individuals share personal information and what negative experiences that may have occurred. By sharing information online individuals using Social Media are presenting their personal identity, but we also need to take into consideration the social context. The ownership or specific roles in real life is the basis of this study and guides the elements for understanding the presentation of self online. These roles are derived from membership of different groups. The study of Identity is complex and there were many different interpretations that bring different ideas to the discussion. The next section will identify the
different elements of Identity common to the different theories and how they can be used to form the basis of the study.