Presenting the self

the individual and the environment, and addressed how an individual presents a version of self in a more complete manner than previously achieved. This coherence is reflected in the thesis of the self as both Structure, and Process, although it is acknowledged that Goffman’s work addresses the latter of these more fully. Goffman’s work can be profitably applied to MMOs, principally due to the ease with which his work on regions and frame analysis can be applied to virtual environments.

1.5.2 Presenting the self

Research has shown that the Presentation of self reflects the desire by individuals to create a version of self which will be accepted by the target audience (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007; Jones & Pittman, 1982); and this is supported by evidence to indicate that self-presentation is important as a means of regulating social rewards, maintaining or enhancing esteem, and constructing and maintaining the self-concept (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). As such, there are tangible reasons why people engage in presenting a version of self.

So, dependent on the goal in hand and the context of the situation, there are a multitude of different techniques that can be used, (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Tedeschi &

Melburg, 1984) as illustrated in Table 1.1. In addition, research indicates that when the target audience can influence the realisation of a desired goal, or when that goal is important, people will become more concerned with their performance (Leary &

Kowalski, 1990).

Research indicated that the two most common self-presentation techniques were Ingratiation and Self-Promotion, the latter of which Jones and Pittman (1982) argued is done almost continuously, often with the tactic of denigrating one area of the presentation whilst promoting another. This is required since effective

self-presentation is a balancing act between plausibility and self-enhancement (Schlenker &

Leary, 1982), with the presented self tending to be similar to the internal self, if slightly more positive (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). However, there are risks associated with all impression management techniques, and in the act of self-promoting, the individual must not be seen be not overly self-praising – this can be seen as implausible

(Schlenker, 1980), arrogant (Schlenker & Leary, 1982), or counter-productive if proven wrong (Tice & Wallace, 2003).

29 Table 1.1: Self-presentation techniques

Action Definition References

Apologies⁽¹⁾ Admission of responsibility and expressing remorse

Blasting Enhancing one’s position by derogating another

Cialdini & Richardson (1980)

Disclaimers⁽¹⁾ Providing an explanation before a negative consequence occurs

Hewitt & Stokes (1975)

Enhancements⁽²⁾ Taking verbal responsibility for a positive outcomes of an event

Tedeschi & Melburg (1984)

Excuses⁽¹⁾ Denying responsibility for a situation

Tedeschi & Melburg (1984)

Exemplification⁽²⁾ Desire to be respected Jones & Pittman (1982) Ingratiation⁽²⁾ Desire to appear likeable Jones & Pittman (1982) Intimidation⁽²⁾ Desire to be feared Jones & Pittman (1982) Justification⁽¹⁾ Accepting responsibility for an

action, but denying the negative implications of that action

Tedeschi & Melburg (1984)

Sandbagging Creating low expectations of a future performance

Gibson & Sachau (2000)

Self-handicapping Creating obstacles for a task, so making it harder to achieve

Berglas & Jones (1978)

Self-promotion⁽²⁾ Desire to be seen as competent Jones & Pittman (1982) Supplication⁽²⁾ Desire to be seen as deserving

sympathy

Jones & Pittman (1982)

Note: (1) – Tactical / Defensive & (2) – Tactical / Assertive Strategies (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984)

Moreover, the interplay of psychological and environmental elements has been proven to have an impact (Oyserman & Markus, 1993; Stein & Markus, 1996); in an experimental study looking at the self-promotion techniques amongst students, Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1986) found discrepancies in self-promoting behaviours

30 depending on the situation – with public presentations of self with a powerful authority figure producing the highest degree of self-promotion. In MMOs, the nature of the virtual space, combined with the high level of social interaction, means that there is ample opportunities for presentation. In general interaction, ingratiation and self-promotion would be expected, whereas in PvP one might expect more intimidation other players. In a raiding scenario where 25 players might be fighting at the same monster, a range of strategies might be visible, including blasting, exemplification, and supplication (together with the aforementioned techniques).

Workplace interaction has been extensively researched with respect to the application of self-presentation strategies, with experimental designs being the

methodology of choice. Broadly, evidence suggests that the use of ingratiation and self-promoting tactics can be successful, with Wayne and Ferris (1990) reporting that employees who focused their presentation of self on the supervisor were more likely to have positive performance ratings. This research examined both real life and laboratory interaction – though it is questionable whether a valid ‘working’ relationship could be established in thirty minutes, as used in the latter condition. This result was replicated by Wayne & Kacmar (1991) who found that undergraduates who used ingratiation as part of their impression management received higher ratings than those that did not.

However, as with the earlier research whilst the research used an empirical methodology and looked at face-to-face interaction, the interaction was not based on real life

scenarios, and so it is debatable whether the conclusions drawn have ecological validity.

In addition, the lack of any historical data makes the results somewhat sterile since no baseline was established.

Research has also looked at self-presentation and career progress, with evidence showing that company managers are able to get board promotions through targeted ingratiation of CEOs (Westphal & Stern, 2006), but that when used by women or ethnic minorities such strategies were less successful (Westphal & Stern, 2007). These pieces of research also benefitted from using psychometric designs, with over 5,000 participants drawn from a variety of companies, so allowing for more confidence in the results.

Based in part on the work by Jones and Pittman (1982), a later model classified self-presentation behaviours as being in one of four categories – Tactical / Assertive, Tactical / Defensive, Strategic / Assertive, Strategic / Defensive (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). In terms of these categorisations, Tactical measures were those seen to be

31 achieving short-term objectives looking at specific situations, whereas strategic

measures applied to the construction of long-term versions of self. Assertive tactics involved the proactive presentation of self, whilst the model argued that Defensive tactics were employed when a self-presentation had gone awry and social restitution was required.

A Strategic / defensive strategy might include being assuming the role of a sick individual, and so being unable to engage in daily activities. However, some of the tactics were speculative in nature; indeed the Strategic / Defensive element of their model was the least well developed with many of the tactics appearing to link mental illness or addictions to defensive postures. Strategic / assertive strategies focused on the long term gain of reputation, with Tedeschi and Melburg (1984), drawing on the work of Hovland (1959) and the Yale Attitude Change model, arguing that five characteristics as being important – Attractiveness, Prestige, Esteem, Status and Credibility. In essence, the more attractive, prestigious, esteemed, higher status and higher credibility the actor was, the more likely that that version of self would be effective in influencing other people. These elements can be seen in MMOs, with the aesthetics of characters

providing information about the status of the character, including where they have been and what they have done.

As with Jones and Pittman (1982), the work by Tedeschi and Melburg (1984) offered a micro-level analysis of self-presentation strategies. However, both theories are less models of self-presentation and more models of self-presentation techniques – there is no structure by which to understand how the self is created, maintained and presented. In addition, whilst the motivation to create an impression is acknowledged in the individual, the role of the audience or other is ignored in these formulations, leading to a one-sided appreciation of the presentation of self. As such, this work does not address the structure of the self and only partially the idea of the self as a process.

As will be seen in Chapter Two, there has been relatively little application of self-presentation strategies in virtual spaces. Research has tended to examine the applicability of self-concept theories in such spaces, such as those by Higgins (1987), and Markus and Nurius (1986). As has been discussed however, these theories can add detail to the self as structure, but do not provide any details of the self as being a process and indeed, are primarily theories of motivation. The current work addresses

32 the lack of detail in terms of process, and shows that players use strategies such as ingratiation, self-promotion, and intimidation may be present when playing a MMO.