Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
- Impression management refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.
- Generally, people undertake impression management to achieve goals that require they have a desired public image. This activity is called self-presentation.
- In sociology and social psychology, self-presentation is the conscious or unconscious process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them.
- The goal is for one to present themselves the way in which they would like to be thought of by the individual or group they are interacting with. This form of management generally applies to the first impression.
- Erving Goffman popularized the concept of perception management in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , where he argues that impression management not only influences how one is treated by other people but is an essential part of social interaction.
![Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory 1 Impression Management](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/Impression-Management.jpg)
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Impression Management in Sociology
Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959).
By conveying particular impressions about their abilities, attitudes, motives, status, emotional reactions, and other characteristics, people can influence others to respond to them in desirable ways.
Impression management is a common way for people to influence one another in order to obtain various goals.
While earlier theorists (e.g., Burke, 1950; Hart & Burk, 1972) offered perspectives on the person as a performer, Goffman (1959) was the first to develop a specific theory concerning self-presentation.
In his well-known work, Goffman created the foundation and the defining principles of what is commonly referred to as impression management.
In explicitly laying out a purpose for his work, Goffman (1959) proposes to “consider the ways in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kind of things he may or may not do while sustaining his performance before them.” (p. xi)
Social Interaction
Goffman viewed impression management not only as a means of influencing how one is treated by other people but also as an essential part of social interaction.
He communicates this view through the conceit of theatre. Actors give different performances in front of different audiences, and the actors and the audience cooperate in negotiating and maintaining the definition of a situation.
To Goffman, the self was not a fixed thing that resides within individuals but a social process. For social interactions to go smoothly, every interactant needs to project a public identity that guides others’ behaviors (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Leary, 2001; Tseelon, 1992).
Goffman defines that when people enter the presence of others, they communicate information by verbal intentional methods and by non-verbal unintentional methods.
According to Goffman, individuals participate in social interactions through performing a “line” or “a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (1967, p. 5).
Such lines are created and maintained by both the performer and the audience. By enacting a line effectively, a person gains positive social value or “face.”
The verbal intentional methods allow us to establish who we are and what we wish to communicate directly. We must use these methods for the majority of the actual communication of data.
Goffman is mostly interested in the non-verbal clues given off which are less easily manipulated. When these clues are manipulated the receiver generally still has the upper hand in determining how realistic the clues that are given off are.
People use these clues to determine how to treat a person and if the intentional verbal responses given off are actually honest. It is also known that most people give off clues that help to represent them in a positive light, which tends to be compensated for by the receiver.
Impression Management Techniques
- Suppressing emotions : Maintaining self-control (which we will identify with such practices as speaking briefly and modestly).
- Conforming to Situational Norms : The performer follows agreed-upon rules for behavior in the organization.
- Flattering Others : The performer compliments the perceiver. This tactic works best when flattery is not extreme and when it involves a dimension important to the perceiver.
- Being Consistent : The performer’s beliefs and behaviors are consistent. There is agreement between the performer’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
Self-Presentation Examples
Self-presentation can affect the emotional experience . For example, people can become socially anxious when they are motivated to make a desired impression on others but doubt that they can do so successfully (Leary, 2001).
In one paper on self-presentation and emotional experience, Schlenker and Leary (1982) argue that, in contrast to the drive models of anxiety, the cognitive state of the individual mediates both arousal and behavior.
The researchers examine the traditional inverted-U anxiety-performance curve (popularly known as the Yerkes-Dodson law) in this light.
The researchers propose that people are interpersonally secure when they do not have the goal of creating a particular impression on others.
They are not immediately concerned about others’ evaluative reactions in a social setting where they are attempting to create a particular impression and believe that they will be successful in doing so.
Meanwhile, people are anxious when they are uncertain about how to go about creating a certain impression (such as when they do not know what sort of attributes the other person is likely to be impressed with), think that they will not be able to project the types of images that will produce preferred reactions from others.
Such people think that they will not be able to project the desired image strongly enough or believe that some event will happen that will repudiate their self-presentations, causing reputational damage (Schlenker and Leary, 1982).
Psychologists have also studied impression management in the context of mental and physical health .
In one such study, Braginsky et al. (1969) showed that those hospitalized with schizophrenia modify the severity of their “disordered” behavior depending on whether making a more or less “disordered” impression would be most beneficial to them (Leary, 2001).
Additional research on university students shows that people may exaggerate or even fabricate reports of psychological distress when doing so for their social goals.
Hypochondria appears to have self-presentational features where people convey impressions of illness and injury, when doing so helps to drive desired outcomes such as eliciting support or avoiding responsibilities (Leary, 2001).
People can also engage in dangerous behaviors for self-presentation reasons such as suntanning, unsafe sex, and fast driving. People may also refuse needed medical treatment if seeking this medical treatment compromises public image (Leary et al., 1994).
Key Components
There are several determinants of impression management, and people have many reasons to monitor and regulate how others perceive them.
For example, social relationships such as friendship, group membership, romantic relationships, desirable jobs, status, and influence rely partly on other people perceiving the individual as being a particular kind of person or having certain traits.
Because people’s goals depend on them making desired impressions over undesired impressions, people are concerned with the impressions other people form of them.
Although people appear to monitor how they come across ongoingly, the degree to which they are motivated to impression manage and the types of impressions they try to foster varies by situation and individuals (Leary, 2001).
Leary and Kowalski (1990) say that there are two processes that constitute impression management, each of which operate according to different principles and are affected by different situations and dispositional aspects. The first of these processes is impression motivation, and the second is impression construction.
Impression Motivation | Impression Construction |
---|---|
Goal-relevance of impressions | Self-concept |
Value of desired goals | Desired and undesired identity images |
Discrepancy between the desired and current image | Role constraints |
Impression Motivation
There are three main factors that affect how much people are motivated to impression-manage in a situation (Leary and Kowalski, 1990):
(1) How much people believe their public images are relevant to them attaining their desired goals.
When people believe that their public image is relevant to them achieving their goals, they are generally more motivated to control how others perceive them (Leary, 2001).
Conversely, when the impressions of other people have few implications on one’s outcomes, that person’s motivation to impression-manage will be lower.
This is why people are more likely to impression manage in their interactions with powerful, high-status people than those who are less powerful and have lower status (Leary, 2001).
(2) How valuable the goals are: people are also more likely to impress and manage the more valuable the goals for which their public impressions are relevant (Leary, 2001).
(3) how much of a discrepancy there is between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them..
People are more highly motivated to impression-manage when there is a difference between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them.
For example, public scandals and embarrassing events that convey undesirable impressions can cause people to make self-presentational efforts to repair what they see as their damaged reputations (Leary, 2001).
Impression Construction
Features of the social situations that people find themselves in, as well as their own personalities, determine the nature of the impressions that they try to convey.
In particular, Leary and Kowalski (1990) name five sets of factors that are especially important in impression construction (Leary, 2001).
Two of these factors include how people’s relationships with themselves (self-concept and desired identity), and three involve how people relate to others (role constraints, target value, and current or potential social image) (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).
Self-concept
The impressions that people try to create are influenced not only by social context but also by one’s own self-concept .
People usually want others to see them as “how they really are” (Leary, 2001), but this is in tension with the fact that people must deliberately manage their impressions in order to be viewed accurately by others (Goffman, 1959).
People’s self-concepts can also constrain the images they try to convey.
People often believe that it is unethical to present impressions of themselves different from how they really are and generally doubt that they would successfully be able to sustain a public image inconsistent with their actual characteristics (Leary, 2001).
This risk of failure in portraying a deceptive image and the accompanying social sanctions deter people from presenting impressions discrepant from how they see themselves (Gergen, 1968; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980).
People can differ in how congruent their self-presentations are with their self-perceptions.
People who are high in public self-consciousness have less congruency between their private and public selves than those lower in public self-consciousness (Tunnell, 1984; Leary and Kowalski, 1990).
Desired identity
People’s desired and undesired selves – how they wish to be and not be on an internal level – also influence the images that they try to project.
Schlenker (1985) defines a desirable identity image as what a person “would like to be and thinks he or she really can be, at least at his or her best.”
People have a tendency to manage their impressions so that their images coincide with their desired selves and stay away from images that coincide with their undesired selves (Ogilivie, 1987; Schlenker, 1985; Leary, 2001).
This happens when people publicly claim attributes consistent with their desired identity and openly reject identities that they do not want to be associated with.
For example, someone who abhors bigots may take every step possible to not appear bigoted, and Gergen and Taylor (1969) showed that high-status navel cadets did not conform to low-status navel cadets because they did not want to see themselves as conformists (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).
Target value
people tailor their self-presentations to the values of the individuals whose perceptions they are concerned with.
This may lead to people sometimes fabricating identities that they think others will value.
However, more commonly, people selectively present truthful aspects of themselves that they believe coincide with the values of the person they are targeting the impression to and withhold information that they think others will value negatively (Leary, 2001).
Role constraints
the content of people’s self-presentations is affected by the roles that they take on and the norms of their social context.
In general, people want to convey impressions consistent with their roles and norms .
Many roles even carry self-presentational requirements around the kinds of impressions that the people who hold the roles should and should not convey (Leary, 2001).
Current or potential social image
People’s public image choices are also influenced by how they think they are perceived by others. As in impression motivation, self-presentational behaviors can often be aimed at dispelling undesired impressions that others hold about an individual.
When people believe that others have or are likely to develop an undesirable impression of them, they will typically try to refute that negative impression by showing that they are different from how others believe them to be.
When they are not able to refute this negative impression, they may project desirable impressions in other aspects of their identity (Leary, 2001).
Implications
In the presence of others, few of the behaviors that people make are unaffected by their desire to maintain certain impressions. Even when not explicitly trying to create a particular impression of themselves, people are constrained by concerns about their public image.
Generally, this manifests with people trying not to create undesired impressions in virtually all areas of social life (Leary, 2001).
Tedeschi et al. (1971) argued that phenomena that psychologists previously attributed to peoples’ need to have cognitive consistency actually reflected efforts to maintain an impression of consistency in others’ eyes.
Studies have supported Tedeschi and their colleagues’ suggestion that phenomena previously attributed to cognitive dissonance were actually affected by self-presentational processes (Schlenker, 1980).
Psychologists have applied self-presentation to their study of phenomena as far-ranging as conformity, aggression, prosocial behavior, leadership, negotiation, social influence, gender, stigmatization, and close relationships (Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981).
Each of these studies shows that people’s efforts to make impressions on others affect these phenomena, and, ultimately, that concerns self-presentation in private social life.
For example, research shows that people are more likely to be pro-socially helpful when their helpfulness is publicized and behave more prosocially when they desire to repair a damaged social image by being helpful (Leary, 2001).
In a similar vein, many instances of aggressive behavior can be explained as self-presentational efforts to show that someone is willing to hurt others in order to get their way.
This can go as far as gender roles, for which evidence shows that men and women behave differently due to the kind of impressions that are socially expected of men and women.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324. Gergen, K. J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley.
Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.
Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.
Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (Vol. 21). London: Harmondsworth.
Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259.
Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165-180.
Jones E E (1964) Ingratiation. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.
Leary M R (1995) Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Leary, M. R.. Impression Management, Psychology of, in Smelser, N. J., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.
Leary M R, Tchvidjian L R, Kraxberger B E 1994 Self-presentation may be hazardous to your health. Health Psychology 13: 461–70.
Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.
- Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.
Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540- 563.
Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, culture & society, 9(2), 115-128.
Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549-555.
Further Information
- Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, organizations and society, 38(3), 195-213.
- Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
- Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking‐Glass self: Goffman as symbolic interactionist. Symbolic interaction, 28(2), 147-166.
![Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory 2 Print Friendly, PDF & Email](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/three-icons-with-text-light-blue.jpg)
![self presentation theory example Psychology Fanatics Logo](https://images.rapidload-cdn.io/spai/ret_img,q_lqip,to_avif,w_200,h_29/https://psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/LogoMakr-3Z7sVV.png)
Self-Presentation Theory
![self presentation theory example Self-Presentation Theory. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://images.rapidload-cdn.io/spai/ret_img,q_lqip,to_avif,w_400,h_225/https://psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Self-Presentation-Theory.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp)
Self-Presentation Theory: Understanding the Art of Impression Management
In the grand theater of life, where every social interaction is a stage and we are both the actors and the audience, self-presentation theory takes center stage. It whispers the secrets of our performances, the subtle art of crafting personas, and the intricate dance between authenticity and impression. As we pull back the curtain on this psychological narrative, we delve into the depths of human behavior, exploring how the masks we wear and the roles we play are not merely acts of deception but profound expressions of our deepest desires to connect, belong, and be understood in the ever-unfolding drama of existence.
Self-presentation theory, originating from the field of social psychology, delves into the intricate ways individuals strategically convey and portray their desired image to others. This theory explores the underlying motivations and cognitive processes governing how people present themselves in social situations, aiming to understand the dynamics of impression management.
Key Definition:
Self-presentation theory refers to the behavior and strategies individuals use to shape the perceptions that others form about them. This theory suggests that individuals strive to convey a favorable impression to others by managing their public image. It encompasses various aspects such as impression management, identity, and social interaction, and is often associated with social psychology and communication studies. According to this theory, individuals may engage in behaviors such as self-disclosure, performance, and conformity to influence how others perceive them.
Origins and Development
The concept of self-presentation theory was initially formulated by sociologist Erving Goffman, in his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , originally published in 1956. Goffman’s was first to create a specific theory concerning self-presentation, laying the foundation for what is now commonly referred to as impression management. His book became widely known after its publication in the United States in 1959.
Goffman’s theory draws from the imagery of theater to portray the importance of human social interaction. He proposed that in social interactions, individuals perform much like actors on a stage, managing the impressions others form of them by controlling information in various ways. This process involves a “front” where the individual presents themselves in a certain manner, and a “back” where they can step out of their role.
His work has been influential in sociology, social psychology, and anthropology, as it was the first to treat face-to-face interaction as a subject of sociological study. Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis observes a connection between the kinds of acts people put on in their daily life and theatrical performances. The theory has had a lasting impact on our understanding of social behavior and continues to be a significant reference point in studies of social interaction.
Impression Management Strategies
Much of Goffman’s early work suggests that “avoidance of shame is an important, indeed a crucial, motive in virtually all social behavior.” Goffman posits that impression management is typically a greater motivation than rational and instrumental goals. Thomas J. Scheff explains that “one tries to control the impression one makes on others, even others who are not significant to one’s life” ( Scheff, 1997. Kindle location: 4,106 ).
Self-presentation theory encompasses a spectrum of strategies employed by individuals to shape others’ perceptions of them. Impression management strategies in social interaction theory are the various techniques individuals use to influence how others perceive them. Individuals employ these strategies to present themselves in a favorable light. The motivation is to achieve specific goals or maintain certain relationships. Here are some key impression management strategies:
- Self-Promotion : Highlighting one’s own positive qualities, achievements, and skills to be seen as competent and capable.
- Ingratiation : Using flattery or praise to make oneself likable to others, often to gain their favor or approval.
- Exemplification : Demonstrating one’s own moral integrity or dedication to elicit respect and admiration from others.
- Intimidation : Projecting a sense of power or threat to influence others to comply with one’s wishes.
- Supplication : Presenting oneself as weak or needy to elicit sympathy or assistance from others.
These strategies can be assertive, involving active attempts to shape one’s image, or defensive, aimed at protecting one’s image. The choice of strategy depends on the individual’s goals, the context of the interaction, and the nature of the relationship.
The Game of Presentation
In many ways, self-presentation opposes other psychology concepts such as authenticity. We adapt to ur environments, and present ourselves accordingly. We act much different at grandma’s house than we do when out drinking with our friends. Perhaps, authenticity is context dependent. However, we can present ourselves differently in different situations without violating core self-values. The presentations may differ but the self remains unchanged.
Carl Jung mused in reflection of his childhood interactions with his friends that, “I found that they alienated me from myself. When I was with them I became different from the way I was at home.” He continues, “it seemed to me that the change in myself was due to the influence of my schoolfellows, who somehow misled me or compelled me to be different from what I thought I was” ( Jung, 2011 ).
Jonathan Haidt suggests that it is merely game. He wrote, “to win at this game you must present your best possible self to others. You must appear virtuous, whether or not you are, and you must gain the benefits of cooperation whether or not you deserve them.” He continues to warn “but everyone else is playing the same game, so you must also play defense—you must be wary of others’ self-presentations, and of their efforts to claim more for themselves than they deserve” ( Haidt, 2003. Kindle location: 1,361 ).
Healthy and Unhealthy Modes of Self-Presentation
We all self-present, creating images that fit the context. While seeking a partner, we self-present a person who is worthy of investing time in. Only in time, do some of these masks begin to fade. Impression management is essential to build new relationships, get the job, and prevent social rejection. Mahzarin R, Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald wrote, “honesty may be an overrated virtue. If you decided to report all of your flaws to friends and to apply a similar standard of total honesty when talking to others about their shortcomings, you might soon find that you no longer have friends.” they continue, “our daily social lives demand, and generally receive, repeated lubrication with a certain amount of untruthfulness, which keeps the gears of social interaction meshing smoothly” ( Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, pp. 28-29 ).
However, this healthy practice morphs into something sinister when the presented self has nothing to do with the real self. Daniel Goleman refers to individuals that engage in unhealthy deceitful presentations as social chameleons. He wrote, “the social chameleon will seem to be whatever those he is with seem to want. The sign that someone falls into this pattern…is that they make an excellent impression, yet have few stable or satisfying intimate relationships” ( Golman, 2011. Kindle location: 2,519 ).
Goleman explains that “a more healthy pattern, of course, is to balance being true to oneself with social skills, using them with integrity.” He adds, “social chameleons, though, don’t mind in the least saying one thing and doing another, if that will win them social approval” ( Goleman, 2011. Kindle location: 2,523 ).
Situational Influences
The application of self-presentation strategies is contingent upon the social context and the specific goals an individual pursues. In professional settings, individuals may engage in self-promotion to advance their careers, while in personal relationships, they might prioritize authenticity and sincerity. The ubiquity of social media further complicates self-presentation, as individuals navigate the curation of online personas and the management of digital identities.
In the professional realm, the strategic presentation of oneself can play a crucial role in career development and success. This may involve showcasing one’s achievements, skills, and expertise to stand out in a competitive environment. However, it’s important to strike a balance between self-promotion and humility to maintain credibility and foster positive professional relationships.
On the other hand, personal relationships often thrive on genuine connections and authenticity. In these contexts, individuals may choose to present themselves in a sincere manner, emphasizing vulnerability and openness to establish meaningful connections with others. While occasional self-promotion may still occur, the emphasis is more on building trust and rapport.
Social Media and Self-Presentation
The rise of social media has introduced a new layer of complexity to self-presentation. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn offer opportunities for individuals to craft their virtual identities. This process involves selective sharing of information, curation of posts and images, and the management of online interactions. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between projecting an aspirational image and staying true to one’s authentic self in the digital sphere.
In Goffman’s lengthy comparison between actors and audience suggests that anyone could perform, presenting a certain image. However, he points out that if the actor is a known criminal the audience would not be able to accept their performance, knowing it is a fraud. The actor may enjoy success by going on the road, performing to audiences that are not aware of the actor’s criminal past ( Goffman, 1956, p. 223 ). The internet allows the individual with a shady past to bring their show on the road to an unsuspecting audience who can buy their deceitful performance.
Navigating these diverse self-presentation strategies requires individuals to be mindful of the specific social contexts and their underlying goals. Whether it’s in the professional arena or personal relationships, the nuanced art of self-presentation continues to evolve in the digital age, shaping how individuals perceive and position themselves in the world.
Self-Presentation and Emotional Labor
The intersection of self-presentation theory with emotional labor is a topic of significant interest. Emotional labor pertains to the management of one’s emotions to meet the demands of a particular role or job. Individuals often engage in self-presentation to display appropriate emotions in various settings, leading to a convergence between impression management and emotional regulation. One of the key aspects of this intersection is the impact it has on employee well-being.
Research has shown that the need to regulate emotions in the workplace can lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout. Additionally, there are important implications for organizations, as they have a vested interest in understanding and managing the emotional labor of their employees. Effective programs may enhance employee well-being and improve the quality of service provided to customers. Moreover, the intersection of self-presentation and emotional labor can also be examined through the lens of gender and cultural differences. These examination may highlight the complexities and nuances of this phenomenon in diverse contexts. Understanding this intersection is crucial for creating supportive work environments and fostering healthy, sustainable emotional practices.
See Emotional Labor for more on this topic
Implications and Future Directions
Understanding self-presentation theory has widespread implications, spanning from interpersonal relationships to organizational dynamics. By acknowledging the nuanced strategies individuals employ to shape perceptions, psychologists and practitioners can better grasp human behavior in diverse contexts. Future research may delve into the interplay between self-presentation and cultural factors. In addition, further research may cast light on the psychological effects of sustained impression management on individuals’ well-being.
As individuals, we can understand that we, as well as others, use impression management. Before investing significant resources, we would be wise to try to unmask the presenter and make a decision based on reality rather than expertely presented deceptions.
A List of Practical Implications
Understanding the concepts related to self-presentation theory, such as impression management, self-concept, and social identity, has several practical implications in everyday life:
- Enhanced Social Interactions : By being aware of how we present ourselves, we can navigate social situations more effectively, tailoring our behavior to suit different contexts and relationships.
- Improved Professional Relationships : In the workplace, understanding self-presentation can help in managing professional personas, leading to better workplace dynamics and career advancement.
- Personal Development : Recognizing the strategies we use for impression management can lead to greater self-awareness and personal growth, as we align our external presentation with our internal values.
- Conflict Resolution : Awareness of self-presentation strategies can aid in resolving conflicts by understanding the motivations behind others’ behaviors and addressing the underlying issues.
- Mental Health : Understanding the effort involved in emotional labor and impression management can help in identifying when these efforts are leading to stress or burnout, prompting us to seek support or make changes.
- Authentic Relationships : By balancing self-presentation with authenticity, we can foster deeper and more genuine connections with others.
- Cultural Competence : Recognizing the role of social identity in self-presentation can enhance our sensitivity to cultural differences and improve cross-cultural communication.
Overall, these concepts can empower us to be more intentional in our interactions, leading to more fulfilling and effective communication in our personal and professional lives.
Associated Psychological Concepts to Self-Presentation Theory
Self-presentation theory is intricately connected to a variety of psychological concepts that help explain the behaviors and motivations behind how individuals present themselves to others. Here are some related concepts:
- Self-Concept : This refers to how people perceive themselves and their awareness of who they are. Self-presentation is often a reflection of one’s self-concept, as individuals attempt to project an image that aligns with their self-perception.
- Impression Management : This is the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them. It involves a variety of strategies to influence others’ perceptions in a way that is favorable to the individual.
- Social Identity : The part of an individual’s self-concept derived from their membership in social groups. Self-presentation can be used to highlight certain aspects of one’s social identity.
- Cognitive Dissonance : This occurs when there is a discrepancy between one’s beliefs and behaviors. Self-presentation strategies may be employed to reduce cognitive dissonance by aligning one’s outward behavior with internal beliefs.
- Role Theory : Suggests that individuals behave in ways that align with the expectations of the social roles they occupy. Self-presentation can be seen as performing the appropriate role in a given context.
- Self-Es teem : The value one places on oneself. Self-presentation can be a means to enhance or protect one’s self-esteem by controlling how others view them.
- Self-Efficacy : One’s belief in their ability to succeed. Through self-presentation, individuals may seek to project confidence and competence to others, thereby reinforcing their own sense of self-efficacy.
These concepts are interrelated and contribute to the understanding of self-presentation theory as a whole, providing insight into the complex nature of social interactions and the motivations behind individuals’ efforts to influence how they are perceived by others.
A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic
In essence, self-presentation theory captures the multifaceted nature of human interaction, shedding light on the conscious and subconscious processes governing how individuals present themselves in the social arena. By unraveling the intricacies of impression management, researchers continue to unveil the complexities of human behavior and the underlying motivations that propel our interactions with others.
Last Update: April 29, 2024
Type your email…
References:
Goffman, Erving (1956/ 2021 ). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor
Goleman, Daniel ( 2005 ). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books . Read on Kindle Books.
Haidt, Jonathan ( 2003 ). The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. Basic Books ; 1st edition.
Jung, Carl Gustav (1961/ 2011 ). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage ; Reissue edition.
Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. ( 2016 ). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Bantam ; Reprint edition.
Scheff, Thomas J. ( 1997 ). Shame in Social Theory. Editors Lansky, M. R. and Morrison, A. P. In The Widening Scope of Shame. Routledge ; 1st edition.
Resources and Articles
Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .
* Many of the quotes from books come books I have read cover to cover. I created an extensive library of notes from these books. I make reference to these books when using them to support or add to an article topic. Most of these books I read on a kindle reader. The Kindle location references seen through Psychology Fanatic is how kindle notes saves my highlights.
The peer reviewed article references mostly come from Deepdyve . This is the periodical database that I have subscribe to for nearly a decade. Over the last couple of years, I have added a DOI reference to cited articles for the reader’s convenience and reference.
Thank-you for visiting Psychology Fanatic. Psychology Fanatic represents nearly two decades of work, research, and passion.
Topic Specific Databases:
PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS
Share this:
About the author.
T. Franklin Murphy
Related posts.
![self presentation theory example Malevolent Creativity. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Malevolent-Creativity.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1)
Malevolent Creativity
Creativity is celebrated, but it also has a darker side referred to as "malevolent creativity." This form of creativity is linked to harmful or unethical…
Read More »
![self presentation theory example Empowerment Theory. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Empowerment-Theory.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1)
Empowerment Theory
Empowerment theory in community psychology emphasizes promoting individual and communal control over their lives, addressing systemic barriers, and fostering collaborative, participatory endeavors to enhance well-being…
![self presentation theory example Emotionally Connected. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Emotionally-Connected.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1)
Emotionally Connected
A emotionally connected partnership requires putting some personal desires on hold to embrace a partner during their times of need.
![self presentation theory example Xenophobia. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Xenophobia.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1)
Xenophobia is a fear and prejudice against the unfamiliar, rooted in biology and upbringing. Overcoming it requires self-reflection, education, empathy, and community leadership. Psychology theories…
![self presentation theory example Negative Sentiment Override. Psychology Fanatic article feature image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Negative-Sentiment-Overide.-Psychology-Fanatic-article-feature-image.webp?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1)
Negative Sentiment Override
Psychologist John Gottman's concept of Negative Sentiment Override explains how perceptions of a partner can transform positively to negatively, affecting the health and durability of…
![self presentation theory example Self Censure. Psychology Fanatic Feature Image](https://i0.wp.com/psychologyfanatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Self-Censure.-Psychology-Fanatic-Feature-Image.webp?fit=1024%2C565&ssl=1)
Self-Censure
Self-censorship involves individuals consciously limiting their self-expression due to fear of potential consequences, thereby balancing societal acceptance with personal impulses. It influences creativity, freedom of…
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Discover more from psychology fanatic.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Continue reading
![self presentation theory example Read more](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/9253440/5797a8ae-e2c6-4789-b995-a8bf67662152.png)
How it works
Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.
Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.
We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.
Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.
Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.
Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.
Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.
Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.
Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.
See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.
Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.
A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.
![self presentation theory example Request a demo](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/9253440/6ac54b8a-cf90-4c95-a7dd-af4a87983811.png)
- What is coaching?
Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.
Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.
Types of Coaching
Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.
Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.
Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.
Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.
![self presentation theory example Find your Coach](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/9253440/21fbace0-fd3a-4c41-ba35-a2067143bdea.png)
Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.
Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.
View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.
The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.
- BetterUp Briefing
The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.
Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.
Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance
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.
![self presentation theory example Find your Coach](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/9253440/5614c4eb-f647-460f-85b3-287a28132d46.png)
For Business
For Individuals
Impression management: Developing your self-presentation skills
![self presentation theory example Find my Coach](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/9253440/ce9ee3b4-0410-44ff-922e-acc5525e7b29.png)
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.
![self presentation theory example impression-management-person-eating-snacks-wearing-pajamas-and-blazer](https://www.betterup.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Blog%20Images/impression%20management/impression-management-person-eating-snacks-wearing-pajamas-and-blazer.jpg?width=1920&name=impression-management-person-eating-snacks-wearing-pajamas-and-blazer.jpg)
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 .
![self presentation theory example impression-management-person-looking-at-multiple-reflections](https://www.betterup.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Blog%20Images/impression%20management/impression-management-person-looking-at-multiple-reflections.jpg?width=1920&name=impression-management-person-looking-at-multiple-reflections.jpg)
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.
![self presentation theory example impression-management-person-talking-to-someone-offscreen](https://www.betterup.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Blog%20Images/impression%20management/impression-management-person-talking-to-someone-offscreen.jpg?width=1920&name=impression-management-person-talking-to-someone-offscreen.jpg)
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.
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Transform your life
Make meaningful changes and become the best version of yourself. BetterUp's professional Coaches are here to support your personal growth journey.
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.
10+ interpersonal skills at work and ways to develop them
The self presentation theory and how to present your best self, 6 ways to leverage ai for hyper-personalized corporate learning, professional development is for everyone (we’re looking at you), introducing betterup, and why everyone needs a coach in their corner, be cool: how to manage your emotions and avoid rage quitting, vocational skills: what they are and how to develop them, i stopped having dead people's goals, show gratitude with “thank you for your leadership and vision” message examples, your work performance will sky-rocket with these 13 tips, 18 effective strategies to improve your communication skills, handle feedback like a boss and make it work for you, 20 marketing skills professionals should have in 2023, 10 essential negotiation skills to help you get what you want, 15 human resources skills to help your resume stand out, how to get permission for taking a sabbatical from work, why cognitive agility matters, 7-38-55 rule of communication: how to use for negotiation, 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
- Why BetterUp?
- About Coaching
- Find your Coach
- Career Coaching
- Communication Coaching
- Personal Coaching
- News and Press
- Leadership Team
- Become a BetterUp Coach
- BetterUp Labs
- Center for Purpose & Performance
- Leadership Training
- Business Coaching
- Contact Support
- Contact Sales
- Privacy Policy
- Acceptable Use Policy
- Trust & Security
- Cookie Preferences
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Theo Wargo / Getty Images
- Recommended Reading
- Key Concepts
- Major Sociologists
- News & Issues
- Research, Samples, and Statistics
- Archaeology
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a book that was published in the U.S. in 1959, written by sociologist Erving Goffman . In it, Goffman uses the imagery of theater in order to portray the nuances and significance of face-to-face social interaction. Goffman puts forth a theory of social interaction that he refers to as the dramaturgical model of social life.
According to Goffman, social interaction may be likened to a theater, and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role-playing and react to the performances. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a 'front stage' region where the actors are on stage before an audience, and their consciousness of that audience and the audience's expectations for the role they should play influence the actor's behavior. There is also a back region, or 'backstage,' where individuals can relax, be themselves, and the role or identity that they play when they are in front of others.
Central to the book and Goffman's theory is the idea that people, as they interact together in social settings, are constantly engaged in the process of "impression management," wherein each tries to present themselves and behave in a way that will prevent the embarrassment of themselves or others. This is primarily done by each person that is part of the interaction working to ensure that all parties have the same "definition of the situation," meaning that all understand what is meant to happen in that situation, what to expect from the others involved, and thus how they themselves should behave.
Though written over half a century ago, The Presentation of Self in Everday Life remains one of the most famous and widely taught sociology books, which was listed as the 10th most important sociology book of the twentieth century by the International Sociological Association in 1998.
Performance
Goffman uses the term ‘performance’ to refer to all the activity of an individual in front of a particular set of observers, or audience. Through this performance, the individual, or actor, gives meaning to themselves, to others, and to their situation. These performances deliver impressions to others, which communicates information that confirms the identity of the actor in that situation. The actor may or may not be aware of their performance or have an objective for their performance, however, the audience is constantly attributing meaning to it and to the actor.
The setting for the performance includes the scenery, props, and location in which the interaction takes place. Different settings will have different audiences and will thus require the actor to alter his performances for each setting.
Appearance functions to portray to the audience the performer’s social statuses. Appearance also tells us of the individual’s temporary social state or role, for example, whether he is engaging in work (by wearing a uniform), informal recreation, or a formal social activity. Here, dress and props serve to communicate things that have socially ascribed meaning, like gender , status, occupation, age, and personal commitments.
Manner refers to how the individual plays the role and functions to warn the audience of how the performer will act or seek to act in a role (for example, dominant, aggressive, receptive, etc.). Inconsistency and contradiction between appearance and manner may occur and will confuse and upset an audience. This can happen, for example, when one does not present himself or behave in accordance with his perceived social status or position.
The actor’s front, as labeled by Goffman, is the part of the individual’s performance which functions to define the situation for the audience. It is the image or impression he or she gives off to the audience. A social front can also be thought of like a script. Certain social scripts tend to become institutionalized in terms of the stereotyped expectations it contains. Certain situations or scenarios have social scripts that suggest how the actor should behave or interact in that situation. If the individual takes on a task or role that is new to him, he or she may find that there are already several well-established fronts among which he must choose. According to Goffman, when a task is given a new front or script, we rarely find that the script itself is completely new. Individuals commonly use pre-established scripts to follow for new situations, even if it is not completely appropriate or desired for that situation.
Front Stage, Back Stage, and Off Stage
In stage drama, as in everyday interactions, according to Goffman, there are three regions, each with different effects on an individual’s performance: front stage, backstage, and off-stage. The front stage is where the actor formally performs and adheres to conventions that have particular meaning for the audience. The actor knows he or she is being watched and acts accordingly.
When in the backstage region, the actor may behave differently than when in front of the audience on the front stage. This is where the individual truly gets to be herself and get rid of the roles that she plays when she is in front of other people.
Finally, the off-stage region is where individual actors meet the audience members independently of the team performance on the front stage. Specific performances may be given when the audience is segmented as such.
- A Biography of Erving Goffman
- What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
- How Our Aligning Behavior Shapes Everyday Life
- So What Is Culture, Exactly?
- Goffman's Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior
- Émile Durkheim: "Suicide: A Study in Sociology"
- The Meaning and Purpose of the Dramaturgical Perspective
- Examples of Chemical Reactions in Everyday Life
- Stage Directions for Actors: The Basics
- Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
- The Origins of Kabuki Theater
- The Concept of Social Structure in Sociology
- Assessing a Situation, in Terms of Sociology
- 'Noises Off': a Comedy About the Theater
- Symbolic Interaction Theory: History, Development, and Examples
![self presentation theory example Home](https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/sites/opentextbooks/themes/otb/logo.png)
Search form
You are here.
![self presentation theory example self presentation theory example](https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/sites/opentextbooks/themes/otb/images/toc-toggle-on.png)
Self-Presentation: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Audiences We Have
![self presentation theory example self presentation theory example](https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/sites/opentextbooks/themes/otb/images/fullscreen-toggle-on.png)
It is interesting to note that each of the social influences on our sense of self that we have discussed can be harnessed as a way of protecting our self-esteem. The final influence we will explore can also be used strategically to elevate not only our own esteem, but the esteem we have in the eyes of others. Positive self-esteem occurs not only when we do well in our own eyes but also when we feel that we are positively perceived by the other people we care about.
Because it is so important to be seen as competent and productive members of society, people naturally attempt to present themselves to others in a positive light. We attempt to convince others that we are good and worthy people by appearing attractive, strong, intelligent, and likable and by saying positive things to others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 2003). The tendency to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status , is known as self-presentation , and it is a basic and natural part of everyday life.
A big question in relation to self-presentation is the extent to which it is an honest versus more strategic, potentially dishonest enterprise. The sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) developed an influential theory of self-presentation and described it as a mainly honest process, where people need to present the parts of themselves required by the social role that they are playing in a given situation. If everyone plays their part according to accepted social scripts and conventions, then the social situation will run smoothly and the participants will avoid embarrassment. Seen in this way, self-presentation is a transparent process, where we are trying to play the part required of us, and we trust that others are doing the same. Other theorists, though, have viewed self-presentation as a more strategic endeavor, which may involve not always portraying ourselves in genuine ways (e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982). As is often the case with two seemingly opposing perspectives, it is quite likely that both are true in certain situations, depending on the social goals of the actors.
Different self-presentation strategies may be used to create different emotions in other people, and the use of these strategies may be evolutionarily selected because they are successful (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). Edward Jones and Thane Pittman (1982) described five self-presentation strategies, each of which is expected to create a resulting emotion in the other person:
- The goal of ingratiation is to create liking by using flattery or charm.
- The goal of intimidation is to create fear by showing that you can be aggressive.
- The goal of exemplification is to create guilt by showing that you are a better person than the other.
- The goal of supplication is to create pity by indicating to others that you are helpless and needy.
- The goal of self-promotion is to create respect by persuading others that you are competent.
No matter who is using it, self-presentation can easily be overdone, and when it is, it backfires. People who overuse the ingratiation technique and who are seen as obviously and strategically trying to get others to like them are often disliked because of this. Have you ever had a slick salesperson obviously try to ingratiate him- or herself with you just so you will buy a particular product, and you end up not liking the person and making a hasty retreat from the premises? People who overuse the exemplification or self-promotion strategies by boasting or bragging, particularly if that boasting does not appear to reflect their true characteristics, may end up being perceived as arrogant and even self-deluded (Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, & Cialdini, 1996). Using intimidation can also often backfire; acting more modestly may be more effective. Again, the point is clear: we may want to self-promote with the goal of getting others to like us, but we must also be careful to consider the point of view of the other person. Being aware of these strategies is not only useful for better understanding how to use them responsibly ourselves, it can also help us to understand that other people’s behaviors may often reflect their self-presentational concerns. This can, in turn, facilitate better empathy for others, particularly when they are exhibiting challenging behaviors (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985). For instance, perhaps someone’s verbally aggressive behavior toward you is more about that person being afraid rather than about his or her desire to do you harm.
Now that we have explored some of the commonly used self-presentation tactics, let’s look at how they manifest in specific social behaviors. One concrete way to self-promote is to display our positive physical characteristics. A reason that many of us spend money on improving our physical appearance is the desire to look good to others so that they will like us. We can also earn status by collecting expensive possessions such as fancy cars and big houses and by trying to associate with high-status others. Additionally, we may attempt to dominate or intimidate others in social interactions. People who talk more and louder and those who initiate more social interactions are afforded higher status. A businessman who greets others with a strong handshake and a smile, and people who speak out strongly for their opinions in group discussions may be attempting to do so as well. In some cases, people may even resort to aggressive behavior, such as bullying, in attempts to improve their status (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).
Self-promotion can also be pursued in our online social behaviors. For example, a study in Taiwan conducted by Wang and Stefanone (2013) used survey methodology to investigate the relationship between personality traits, self-presentation and the use of check-ins on Facebook. Interestingly, narcissism was found to predict scores on a measure of exhibitionistic, self-promoting use of Facebook check-ins, which included items like “I check in so people know that I am with friends,” and “I expect friends to like or leave comments on my check-in status on Facebook.”
Other studies have also found associations between narcissistic traits and self-promotional activity on Facebook. Mehdizadeh (2010), for example, found that narcissistic personality scores were positively correlated with the amount of daily logins on Facebook and the duration of each login. Furthermore, narcissistic traits were related to increased use of self-promotional material in the main photo, view photos, status updates, and notes sections of people’s Facebook pages.
Analysis of the content and language used in Facebook postings has also revealed that they are sometimes used by individuals to self-promote. Bazarova, Taft, Choi, and Cosley (2013) explored self-presentation through language styles used in status updates, wall posts, and private messages from 79 participants. The use of positive emotion words was correlated with self-reported self-presentation concern in status updates. This is consistent with the idea that people share positive experiences with Facebook friends partly as a self-enhancement strategy.
Online self-presentation doesn’t seem to be limited to Facebook usage. There is also evidence that self-promotional concerns are often a part of blogging behaviors, too. Mazur and Kozarian (2010), for example, analyzed the content of adolescents’ blog entries and concluded that a careful concern for self-presentation was more central to their blogging behavior than direct interaction with others. This often seems to apply to micro-blogging sites like Twitter. Marwick and Boyd (2011) found that self-presentational strategies were a consistent part of celebrity tweeting, often deployed by celebrities to maintain their popularity and image.
You might not be surprised to hear that men and women use different approaches to self-presentation. Men are more likely to present themselves in an assertive way, by speaking and interrupting others, by visually focusing on the other person when they are speaking, and by leaning their bodies into the conversation. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to be modest; they tend to create status by laughing and smiling, and by reacting more positively to the statements of others (Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keation, 1988).
These gender differences are probably in large part socially determined as a result of the different reinforcements that men and women receive for using particular self-presentational strategies. For example, self-promoting by speaking out and acting assertively can be more effective for men than it is for women, in part because cross-culturally consistent stereotypes tend to depict assertiveness as more desirable in men than in women. These stereotypes can have very important consequences in the real world. For instance, one of the reasons for the “glass ceiling” existing in some occupations (where women experience discrimination in reaching top positions in organizations) may be attributable to the more negative reactions that their assertive behaviors, necessary for career advancement, receive than those of their male colleagues (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
There are also some cultural differences in the extent to which people use self-presentation strategies in social contexts. For instance, when considering job interviews, Konig, Haftseinsson, Jansen, & Stadelmann (2011) found that individuals from Iceland and Switzerland used less self-presentational behavior than people from the United States. Differences in self-presentation have also been found in job interviews involving individuals from Ghana, Turkey, Norway, and Germany, with the former two groups showing higher impression management scores than the latter two (Bye et al., 2011).
So far we have been talking about self-presentation as it operates in particular situations in the short-term. However, we also engage in longer-term self-presentational projects, where we seek to build particular reputations with particular audiences. Emler & Reicher (1995) describe the unique capacity humans have to know one another by repute and argue that, accordingly, we are often engaged in a process of reputation management , which is a form of long-term self-presentation, where individuals seek to build and sustain specific reputations with important audiences . According to this perspective, our behaviors in current social situations may not only be to serve our self-presentational goals in that moment, but also be based on a consideration of their longer-term repercussions for our reputations. As many politicians, for example, know only too well, a poor decision from their past can come back to haunt them when their reputation is being assessed during a campaign.
The concept of reputation management can be used to help explain a wide variety of social and antisocial behaviors, including corporate branding (Smith, Smith, & Wang, 2010), sociomoral debate (Emler, Tarry, & St. James, 2007), and teenage criminal activity (Lopez-Romero & Romero, 2011). In the last example, it is argued that a lot of teenage antisocial behavior results from a desire to build a reputation for toughness and rebelliousness with like-minded peer audiences (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Similarly, antisocial and self-destructive online actions, like people posting to Facebook their involvement in illegal acts during riots, or individuals engaging in life-threatening activities in Internet crazes like Neknominate, may make more sense if they are considered partly as stemming from a desire to project a particular reputation to specific audiences. Perhaps the perceived social kudos from doing these things outweighs the obvious personal risks in the individuals’ minds at the time.
People often project distinct reputations to different social audiences. For example, adolescents who engage in antisocial activity to build reputations for rebelliousness among their peers will often seek to construct very different reputations when their parents are the audience (Emler & Reicher, 1995). The desire to compartmentalize our reputations and audiences can even spill over into our online behaviors. Wiederhold (2012) found that, with some adolescents’ Facebook friends numbering in the hundreds or thousands, increasing numbers are moving to Twitter in order to reach a more selective audience. One critical trigger for this has been that their parents are now often friends with them on Facebook, creating a need for young people to find a new space where they can build reputations that may not always be parent-friendly (Wiederhold, 2012).
Although the desire to present the self favorably is a natural part of everyday life, both person and situation factors influence the extent to which we do it. For one, we are more likely to self-present in some situations than in others. When we are applying for a job or meeting with others whom we need to impress, we naturally become more attuned to the social aspects of the self, and our self-presentation increases.
There are also individual differences. Some people are naturally better at self-presentation—they enjoy doing it and are good at it—whereas others find self-presentation less desirable or more difficult. An important individual-difference variable known as self-monitoring has been shown in many studies to have a major impact on self-presentation. Self-monitoring refers to the tendency to be both motivated and capable of regulating our behavior to meet the demands of social situations (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors are particularly good at reading the emotions of others and therefore are better at fitting into social situations—they agree with statements such as “In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons,” and “I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.” Low self-monitors, on the other hand, generally act on their own attitudes, even when the social situation suggests that they should behave otherwise. Low self-monitors are more likely to agree with statements such as “At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like,” and “I can only argue for ideas that I already believe.” In short, high self-monitors use self-presentation to try to get other people to like them by behaving in ways that the others find desirable, whereas low self-monitors tend to follow their internal convictions more than the demands of the social situation.
In one experiment that showed the importance of self-monitoring, Cheng and Chartrand (2003) had college students interact individually with another student (actually an experimental confederate) whom they thought they would be working with on an upcoming task. While they were interacting, the confederate subtly touched her own face several times, and the researchers recorded the extent to which the student participant mimicked the confederate by also touching his or her own face.
The situational variable was the status of the confederate. Before the meeting began, and according to random assignment to conditions, the students were told either that they would be the leader and that the other person would be the worker on the upcoming task, or vice versa. The person variable was self-monitoring, and each participant was classified as either high or low on self-monitoring on the basis of his or her responses to the self-monitoring scale.
As you can see in Figure 3.12 , Cheng and Chartrand found an interaction effect: the students who had been classified as high self-monitors were more likely to mimic the behavior of the confederate when she was described as being the leader than when she was described as being the worker, indicating that they were “tuned in” to the social situation and modified their behavior to appear more positively. Although the low self-monitors did mimic the other person, they did not mimic her more when the other was high, versus low, status. This finding is consistent with the idea that the high self-monitors were particularly aware of the other person’s status and attempted to self-present more positively to the high-status leader. The low self-monitors, on the other hand—because they feel less need to impress overall—did not pay much attention to the other person’s status.
High self-monitors imitated more when the person they were interacting with was of higher (versus lower) status. Low self-monitors were not sensitive to the status of the other. Data are from Cheng and Chartrand (2003).
This differential sensitivity to social dynamics between high and low self-monitors suggests that their self-esteem will be affected by different factors. For people who are high in self-monitoring, their self-esteem may be positively impacted when they perceive that their behavior matches the social demands of the situation, and negatively affected when they feel that it does not. In contrast, low self-monitors may experience self-esteem boosts when they see themselves behaving consistently with their internal standards, and feel less self-worth when they feel they are not living up to them (Ickes, Holloway, Stinson, & Hoodenpyle, 2006).
Key Takeaways
- Our self-concepts are affected by others’ appraisals, as demonstrated by concepts including the looking-glass self and self-labeling.
- The self-concept and self-esteem are also often strongly influenced by social comparison. For example, we use social comparison to determine the accuracy and appropriateness of our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
- When we are able to compare ourselves favorably with others through downward social comparison, we feel good about ourselves. Upward social comparison with others who are better off than we are leads to negative emotions.
- Social identity refers to the positive emotions that we experience as a member of an important social group.
- Normally, our group memberships result in positive feelings, which occur because we perceive our own groups, and thus ourselves, in a positive light.
- Which of our many category identities is most accessible for us will vary from day to day as a function of the particular situation we are in.
- In the face of others’ behaviors, we may enhance our self-esteem by “basking in the reflected glory” of our ingroups or of other people we know.
- If other people’s actions threaten our sense of self according to self-evaluation maintenance theory, we may engage in a variety of strategies aimed at redefining our self-concept and rebuilding our self-esteem.
- The tendency to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status, is known as self-presentation, and it is a basic and natural part of everyday life. Different self-presentation strategies may be used to create different emotions in other people.
- We often use self-presentation in the longer term, seeking to build and sustain particular reputations with specific social audiences.
- The individual-difference variable of self-monitoring relates to the ability and desire to self-present.
Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Describe some aspects of your self-concept that have been created through social comparison.
- Describe times when you have engaged in downward and upward social comparison and the effects these comparisons have had on your self-esteem. To what extent do your experiences fit with the research evidence here?
- What are your most salient social identities? How do they create positive feelings for you?
- Outline a situation where someone else’s behavior has threatened your self-concept. Which of the strategies outlined in relation to self-evaluation maintenance theory did you engage in to rebuild your self-concept?
- Identify a situation where you basked in the reflected glory of your ingroup’s behavior or peformance. What effect did this have on your self-esteem and why?
- Describe some situations where people you know have used each of the self-presentation strategies that were listed in this section. Which strategies seem to be more and less effective in helping them to achieve their social goals, and why?
- Consider your own level of self-monitoring. Do you think that you are more of a high or a low self-monitor, and why? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages for you of the level of self-monitoring that you have?
Baldwin, M. W., & Holmes, J. O. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 1087-1098.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103 (1), 5-33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5
Bauer, I., Wrosch, C., & Jobin, J. (2008). I’m better off than most other people: The role of social comparisons for coping with regret in young adulthood and old age. Psychology And Aging, 23 (4), 800-811. doi:10.1037/a0014180
Bazarova, N. N., Taft, J. G., Choi, Y., & Cosley, D. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology, 32 (2), 121-141. doi:10.1177/0261927X12456384
Beach, S. H., Tesser, A., Mendolia, M., Anderson, P., Crelia, R., Whitaker, D., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Self-evaluation maintenance in marriage: Toward a performance ecology of the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 10 (4), 379-396. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.379
Beer, A., Watson, D., & McDade-Montez, E. (2013). Self–other agreement and assumed similarity in neuroticism, extraversion, and trait affect: Distinguishing the effects of form and content. Assessment, 20 (6), 723-737. doi:10.1177/1073191113500521
Blanton, H., Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 420–430.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (1), 3–21.
Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, A. P. (1997). Health, coping and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory . Psychology Press.
Buunk, A. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Visser, A. (2002). The relevance of social comparison processes for prevention and health care. Patient Education and Counseling, 47 , 1–3.
Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Peiró, J. M., Nauta, A., & Gosalvez, I. (2005). Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54 (1), 61-80. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x
Bye, H., Sandal, G., van de Vijver, F. R., Sam, D., Çakar, N., & Franke, G. (2011). Personal values and intended self‐presentation during job interviews: A cross‐cultural comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60 (1), 160-182. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00432.x
Carter, L. (2012). Locus of control, internalized heterosexism, experiences of prejudice, and the psychological adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 73 .
Cheng, C., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-Monitoring Without Awareness: Using Mimicry as a Nonconscious Affiliation Strategy. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1170-1179. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1170
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 , 366–374.
Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison (pp. 159–172). New York, NY: Kulwer Academic/Plenum.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order . New York: Scribner’s.
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (2), 280–291.
Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 55 (4), 580-587. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.580
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders . Boston, MA, US: Harvard Business School Press.
Emler, N. & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency: The collective management of reputation . Malden Blackwell Publishing.
Emler, N., Tarry, H. & St. James, A. (2007). Postconventional moral reasoning and reputation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 , 76-89.
Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology Of Popular Media Culture, 2 (3), 161-170. doi:10.1037/a003311
Festinger, L. U. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 , 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202
Fox, J. D., & Stinnett, T. A. (1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology In The Schools, 33 (2), 143-152.
Friedlander, M. L., & Schwartz, G. S. (1985). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 (4), 483-501. doi: 10.10370022-0167.32.4.483
Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., Whitson, J. A., Anicich, E. M., Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24 (10), 2020-2029. doi:10.1177/0956797613482943
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (4), 530-555. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Oxford, England: Doubleday.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472-482.
Hardin, C., & Higgins, T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Helgeson, V. S., & Mickelson, K. (2000). Coping with chronic illness among the elderly: Maintaining self-esteem. In S. B. Manuck, R. Jennings, B. S. Rabin, & A. Baum (Eds.), Behavior, health, and aging . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, E. T., Loeb, I., & Moretti, M. (Eds.). (1995). Self-discrepancies and developmental shifts in vulnerability: Life transitions in the regulatory significance of others . Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary, J. P. Tangney, M. R. E. Leary, & J. P. E. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ickes, W., Holloway, R., Stinson, L. L., & Hoodenpyle, T. (2006). Self-Monitoring in Social Interaction: The Centrality of Self-Affect. Journal Of Personality, 74 (3), 659-684. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00388.x
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum
König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’ self‐presentational behavior across cultures: Less self‐presentation in Switzerland and Iceland than in the United States. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment,19 (4), 331-339.
Kulik, J. A., Mahler, H. I. M., & Moore, P. J. (1996). Social comparison and affiliation under threat: Effects on recovery from major surgery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (5), 967–979.
López-Romero, L., & Romero, E. (2011). Reputation management of adolescents in relation to antisocial behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research And Theory On Human Development, 172 (4), 440-446. doi:10.1080/00221325.2010.549156
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 , 302–318.
Marsh, H. W., Kong, C.-K., & Hau, K-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 337–349.
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
Mazur, E., & Kozarian, L. (2010). Self-presentation and interaction in blogs of adolescents and young emerging adults. Journal Of Adolescent Research, 25 (1), 124-144. doi:10.1177/0743558409350498
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 13 (4), 357-364. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0257
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (1), 148–156.
Moses, T. (2009). Self-labeling and its effects among adolescents diagnosed with mental disorders. Social Science and Medicine, 68 (3), 570-578.
Nicholls, E., & Stukas, A. A. (2011). Narcissism and the self-evaluation maintenance model: Effects of social comparison threats on relationship closeness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (2), 201-212. doi:10.1080/00224540903510852
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Sterotyping and social reality . Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Perkins, K., Wiley, S., & Deaux, K. (2014). Through which looking glass? Distinct sources of public regard and self-esteem among first- and second-generation immigrants of color. Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20 (2), 213-219. doi:10.1037/a0035435
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary, J. P. Tangney, M. R. E. Leary, & J. P. E. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492–518). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., & van den Berg, M. T. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behavior through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 , 235-246.
Smith, K., Smith, M., & Wang, K. (2010). Does brand management of corporate reputation translate into higher market value?. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18 (3), 201-221. doi:10.1080/09652540903537030
Snyder, C., Cheavens, J., & Sympson, S. (1997). Hope: An individual motive for social commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 , 107–118.
Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56 (4), 685–707.
Szymanski, D. M., & Obiri, O. (2011). Do religious coping styles moderate or mediate the external and internalized racism-distress links? The Counseling Psychologist, 39 (3), 438-462. doi:10.1177/0011000010378895
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, L.M., Hume, I.R., and Welsh, N. (2010) Labelling and Self-esteem: The impact of using specific versus generic labels. Educational Psychology, 1 , 1-12
Tesser, A. (1980) Self–esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, 39 (1),
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21 , 181–227.
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (8), 1023-1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208318067
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Social comparison is basic to social psychology. American Journal of Psychology, 121 (1), 169–172.
Vrugt, A., & Koenis, S. (2002). Perceived self-efficacy, personal goals, social comparison, and scientific productivity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (4), 593–607.
Wang, S., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Showing off? Human mobility and the interplay of traits, self-disclosure, and Facebook check-ins. Social Science Computer Review, 31 (4), 437-457.
White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of self-motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 232-242.
Wiederhold, B. K. (2012). As parents invade Faceboo, teens tweet more. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (8), 385-386.
Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 18 (2), 229-242. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1802_8
Yakushko, O., Davidson, M., & Williams, E.N. (2009). Identity Salience Model: A paradigm for integrating multiple identities in clinical practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 46 , 180-192. doi: 10.1037/a0016080
Yeung, K., & Martin, J. (2003). The Looking Glass Self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81 (3), 843-879. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0048
- 25375 reads
- Authors & Informations
- About the Book
- The History of Social Psychology
- The Person and the Social Situation
- Evolutionary Adaptation and Human Characteristics
- Self-Concern
- Other-Concern
- Social Psychology in the Public Interest
- Social Influence Creates Social Norms
- Different Cultures Have Different Norms Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Social Cognition: Thinking and Learning about Others
- Social Affect: Feelings about Ourselves and Others
- Social Behavior: Interacting with Others Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
- The Importance of Scientific Research
- Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition
- Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain
- Observational Research
- The Research Hypothesis
- Correlational Research
- Experimental Research
- Factorial Research Designs
- Deception in Social Psychology Experiments
- Interpreting Research Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Chapter Summary
- Our Knowledge Accumulates as a Result of Learning
- Operant Learning
- Associational Learning Video
- Observational Learning Video
- Schemas as Social Knowledge
- How Schemas Develop: Accommodation and Assimilation
- How Schemas Maintain Themselves: The Power of Assimilation Research Focus: The Confirmation Bias Research Focus: Schemas as Energy Savers Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Automatic versus Controlled Cognition Research Focus: Behavioral Effects of Priming
- Salience and Accessibility Determine Which Expectations We Use
- Cognitive Accessibility
- The False Consensus Bias Makes Us Think That Others Are More Like Us Than They Really Are
- Perceptions of What “Might Have Been” Lead to Counterfactual Thinking
- Anchoring and Adjustment Lead Us to Accept Ideas That We Should Revise
- Overconfidence
- The Importance of Cognitive Biases in Everyday Life
- Social Psychology in the Public Interest Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Affect Influences Cognition
- The Power of Positive Cognition
- Cognition About Affect: The Case of Affective Forecasting Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Cognition
- Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept
- Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity
- Overestimating How Closely and Accurately Others View Us Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Self-Esteem The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
- Maintaining and Enhancing Self-Esteem Research Focus: Processing Information to Enhance the Self
- The Looking-Glass Self: Our Sense of Self is Influenced by Others’ Views of Us
- Social Comparison Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by Comparisons with Others Research Focus: Affiliation and Social Comparison
- Upward and Downward Comparisons Influence Our Self-Esteem
- Social Identity Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Groups We Belong To A Measure of Social Identity
- Self-Presentation: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Audiences We Have Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about the Self
- Attitudes Are Evaluations
- Some Attitudes Are Stronger Than Others
- When Do Our Attitudes Guide Our Behavior? Research Focus: Attitude-Behavior Consistency Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Choosing Effective Communicators
- Creating Effective Communications
- Spontaneous Message Processing
- Thoughtful Message Processing
- Which Route Do We Take: Thoughtful or Spontaneous?
- Self-Perception Involves Inferring Our Beliefs from Our Behaviors Research Focus: Looking at Our Own Behavior to Determine Our Attitudes
- Creating Insufficient Justification and Overjustification
- The Experience of Cognitive Dissonance Can Create Attitude Change
- We Reduce Dissonance by Decreasing Dissonant or by Increasing Consonant Cognitions
- Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Attitudes, Behavior, and Persuasion
- Nonverbal Behavior
- Detecting Danger by Focusing on Negative Information Social Psychology in the Public Interest: Detecting Deception
- Judging People by Their Traits
- Combining Traits: Information Integration
- The Importance of the Central Traits Warm and Cold
- First Impressions Matter: The Primacy Effect Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Making Inferences about Personality
- Detecting the Covariation between Personality and Behavior
- Attributions for Success and Failure Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Are Our Attributions Accurate?
- The Fundamental Attribution Error
- The Actor-Observer Bias
- Self-Serving Biases
- Group-Serving Biases
- Victim-Blaming Biases Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Perceiver Characteristics Research Focus: How Our Attributions Can Influence Our School Performance
- Attributional Styles and Mental Health Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Person Perception
- Informational Social Influence: Conforming to Be Accurate
- Normative Social Influence: Conforming to Be Liked and to Avoid Rejection
- Majority Influence: Conforming to the Group
- Minority Influence: Resisting Group Pressure
- The Size of the Majority
- The Unanimity of the Majority
- The Importance of the Task Research Focus: How Task Importance and Confidence Influence Conformity Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Reward Power
- Coercive Power
- Legitimate Power
- Referent Power
- Expert Power Research Focus: Does Power Corrupt?
- Personality and Leadership
- Leadership as an Interaction between the Person and the Situation Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Person Differences
- Gender Differences
- Cultural Differences
- Psychological Reactance Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Influence
- Physical Attractiveness
- Why Is Physical Attractiveness So Important?
- Why Does Similarity Matter?
- Status Similarity
- Affect and Attraction Research Focus: Arousal and Attraction Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Closeness and Intimacy
- Communal and Exchange Relationships
- Interdependence and Commitment
- What Is Love? Research Focus: Romantic Love Reduces Our Attention to Attractive Others
- Making Relationships Last
- When Relationships End Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Liking and Loving
- Reciprocity and Social Exchange
- Social Reinforcement and Altruism: The Role of Rewards and Costs
- Social Norms for Helping Research Focus: Moral Hypocrisy Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Positive Moods Increase Helping
- Relieving Negative Emotions: Guilt Increases Helping
- Personal Distress and Empathy as Determinants of Helping Research Focus: Personal Distress versus Empathy as Determinants of Helping Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Latané and Darley’s Model of Helping
- Interpreting
- Taking Responsibility
- Implementing Action Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Some People Are More Helpful Than Others: The Altruistic Personality
- Who Do We Help? Attributions and Helping
- Reactions to Receiving Help
- Cultural Issues in Helping
- Increasing Helping Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Altruism
- Is Aggression Evolutionarily Adaptive?
- The Role of Biology in Aggression
- Hormones Influence Aggression: Testosterone and Serotonin
- Drinking Alcohol Increases Aggression
- Negative Emotions Cause Aggression Research Focus: The Effects of Provocation and Fear of Death on Aggression
- Can We Reduce Negative Emotions by Engaging in Aggressive Behavior? Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Social Learning and Modeling: Is Aggression Learned?
- Violence Creates More Violence: Television, Video Games, and Handguns Research Focus: The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression
- Why Does Viewing Violence Lead to Aggression? Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Individual Differences in Aggression
- Gender Differences in Aggression
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Aggression
- Communication, Interdependence, and Group Structure
- Social Identity
- The Stages of Group Development Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition
- Person Variables: Group Member Characteristics
- The Importance of the Social Situation: Task Characteristics
- Social Loafing Research Focus: Differentiating Coordination Losses from Social Loafing Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Process Gains in Group versus Individual Decision Making
- Process Losses Due to Group Conformity Pressures: Groupthink
- Cognitive Process Losses: Lack of Information Sharing Research Focus: Poor Information Sharing in Groups
- Cognitive Process Losses: Ineffective Brainstorming
- Motivating Groups to Perform Better by Appealing to Self-Interest
- Cognitive Approaches: Improving Communication and Information Sharing
- Setting Appropriate Goals
- Group Member Diversity: Costs and Benefits Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Groups
- Spontaneous Social Categorization
- The Benefits of Social Categorization
- Liking “Us” More Than “Them”: Ingroup Favoritism
- The Outcomes of Ingroup Favoritism
- Ingroup Favoritism Has Many Causes
- When Ingroup Favoritism Does Not Occur
- Personality and Cultural Determinants of Ingroup Favoritism Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms
- Reducing Prejudice through Intergroup Contact Research Focus: The Extended-Contact Hypothesis
- Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination
- Competition and Conflict
- Social Fairness
- How the Social Situation Creates Conflict: The Role of Social Dilemmas Learning Objectives
- Characteristics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma
- Variations on the Prisoner’s Dilemma
- Resource Dilemma Games Research Focus: The Trucking Game
- Who Cooperates and Who Competes? Research Focus: Self- and Other-Orientations in Social Dilemmas
- Gender and Cultural Differences in Cooperation and Competition Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
- Task Characteristics and Perceptions
- Privatization
- The Important Role of Communication
- The Tit-for-Tat Strategy
- Formal Solutions to Conflict: Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
- Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Cooperation and Competition
- Back Matter
This action cannot be undo.
Choose a delete action Empty this page Remove this page and its subpages
Content is out of sync. You must reload the page to continue.
New page type Book Topic Interactive Learning Content
- Config Page
- Add Page Before
- Add Page After
- Delete Page
![self presentation theory example HKMU](https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/sites/opentextbooks/themes/otb/images/acknowledgement/HKMU_253.png)
Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .
Login Alert
![self presentation theory example self presentation theory example](https://www.cambridge.org/core/cambridge-core/public/images/logo_core.png)
- > Social Signal Processing
- > Self-presentation: Signaling Personal and Social Characteristics
![self presentation theory example self presentation theory example](https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/61269/cover/9781107161269.jpg)
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Social Signal Processing
- Part I Conceptual Models of Social Signals
- 2 Biological and Social Signaling Systems
- 3 Universal Dimensions of Social Signals: Warmth and Competence
- 4 The Vertical Dimension of Social Signaling
- 5 Measuring Responses to Nonverbal Social Signals: Research on Affect Receiving Ability
- 6 Computational Analysis of Vocal Expression of Affect: Trends and Challenges
- 7 Self-presentation: Signaling Personal and Social Characteristics
- 8 Interaction Coordination and Adaptation
- 9 Social Signals and Persuasion
- 10 Social Presence in CMC and VR
- Part II Machine Analysis of Social Signals
- Part III Machine Synthesis of Social Signals
- Part IV Applications of Social Signal Processing
7 - Self-presentation: Signaling Personal and Social Characteristics
from Part I - Conceptual Models of Social Signals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017
When people interact, their behaviors are greatly influenced by the impressions they have of one another's personalities, abilities, attitudes, intentions, identities, roles, and other characteristics. In fact, many important outcomes in life – outcomes as diverse as friendships, professional success, income, romantic relationships, influence over others, and social support – depend to a significant extent on the impressions that people make on others. Knowing that others respond to them on the basis of their public impressions, people devote considerable thought and energy to conveying impressions that will lead others to treat them in desired ways. In many instances, the impressions people project of themselves are reasonably accurate attempts to let other people know who they are and what they are like (Murphy, 2007). At other times, people may convey impressions of themselves that they know are not entirely accurate, if not blatantly deceptive, when they believe that fostering such images will result in desired outcomes (Hancock & Toma, 2009).
Social and behavioral scientists refer to people's efforts to manage their public images as self-presentation or impression management (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 2012). Some researchers use different terms for the process of controlling one's public image depending on whether the efforts are honest or deceitful and whether they involve impressions of one's personal characteristics or information about one's social roles and identity. But we will use the terms interchangeably to refer to any intentional effort to convey a particular impression of oneself to another person without respect to the accuracy or content of the effort.
Tactics of Self-presentation
Nearly every aspect of people's behavior provides information from which others can draw inferences about them, but actions are considered self-presentational only if they are enacted, at least in part, with the goal of leading other people to perceive the individual in a particular way. People convey information about their personal and social characteristics using a wide array of tactics.
Verbal Claims
The most direct self-presentational tactics involve verbal statements that make a particular claim regarding one's personal or social characteristics.
Access options
Save book to kindle.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .
- Self-presentation: Signaling Personal and Social Characteristics
- By Mark R. Leary , Duke University, Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno , Duke University
- Edited by Judee K. Burgoon , University of Arizona , Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann , Université de Genève , Maja Pantic , Imperial College London , Alessandro Vinciarelli , University of Glasgow
- Book: Social Signal Processing
- Online publication: 13 July 2017
- Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676202.007
Save book to Dropbox
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .
Save book to Google Drive
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .
Self-Presentation Theory: Self-Construction and Audience Pleasing
Cite this chapter.
- Roy F. Baumeister &
- Debra G. Hutton
Part of the book series: Springer Series in Social Psychology ((SSSOC))
2515 Accesses
59 Citations
59 Altmetric
Self-presentation is behavior that attempts to convey some information about oneself or some image of oneself to other people. It denotes a class of motivations in human behavior. These motivations are in part stable dispositions of individuals but they depend on situational factors to elicit them. Specifically, self-presentational motivations are activated by the evaluative presence of other people and by others’ (even potential) knowledge of one’s behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Self-Determination Theory
Psychologically Flexible Self-Acceptance
Introduction to the self-determination construct.
Adler, A (1921). The neurotic constitution: Outlines of a comparative individualistic psychology and psychotherapy . New York: Moffat Yard.
Google Scholar
Aries, P. (1981). The hour of our death . New York: Knopf.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982a). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91 , 3–26.
Article Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1982b). Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. Journal of Personality, 50 , 29–45.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 610–620.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1985). The championship choke. Psychology Today, 19 (4:April), 48–52.
Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity . New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R F, Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 , 1447–1457.
Baumeister, R. F., & Jones, E. E. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the target’s prior knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , 608–618.
Baumeister, R. F., & Steinhilber, A (1984). Paradoxical effects of supportive audiences on performance under pressure: The home field disadvantage in sports championships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 , 85–93.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1984). Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance: Necessary or sufficient causes? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 5–13.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 53 , 450–467.
Bond, C. F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 , 1042–1050.
Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94 , 265–292.
Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Castaneda, C. (1972). Journey to Ixtlan: The lessons of Don Juan . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Deaux, K, & Major, B. (1977). Sex-related patterns in the unit of perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3 , 297–300.
Emmler, N. (1984). Differential involvement in delinquency: Toward an interpretation in terms of reputation management. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13 , 174–239.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 , 203–210.
Felson, R (1978). Aggression as impression management. Social Psychology Quarterly, 41 , 205–213.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1986). Striving for specific identities: The social reality of self-symbolizing. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self . New York: Springer-Verlag.
Greenberg, J. (1983). Self-image versus impression management in adherence to distributive justice standards: The influence of self-awareness and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 , 5–19.
Hinkle, L. (1957). [Untitled.] In Methods of forceful indoctrination: Observations and interviews . New York.
Hogan, R (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55–89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R, Mankin, D., Conway, J., & Fox, S. (1970). Personality correlates of undergraduate marijuana use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35 , 58–63.
Houghton, W. E. (1957). The Victorian frame of mind: 1830–1870 . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. C. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 , 200–206.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kassin, S. M. (1984) T. V. Cameras, public self-consciousness and mock juror performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20 , 336–349.
Kett, J. F. (1977). Rites of passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the present . New York: Basic.
Kidder, L. H., Bellettirie, G., & Cohn, E. S. (1977). Secret ambitions and public performances: The effects of anonymity on reward allocations made by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 , 70–80.
Kolditz, T. A, & Arkin, R. M. (1982). An impression management interpretation of the self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 , 492–502.
Latané, B., Williams, K, & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 822–832.
Lifton, R. J. (1957). [Untitled.] In Methods of forceful indoctrination: Observations and interviews . New York.
Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 , 598–608.
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 , 1399–1412.
McFarlin, D. B., Baumeister, R. F., & Blascovich, J. (1984). On knowing when to quit: Task failure, self-esteem, advice, and nonproductive persistence. Journal of Personality, 52 , 138–155.
Morris, C. (1972). The discovery of the individual: 1050–1200 . New York: Harper & Row.
Paulhus, D. (1982). Individual differences, self-presentation, and cognitive dissonance: Their concurrent operation in forced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 , 838–852.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1984). Confiding, ruminating, and psychosomatic disease. In J. W. Pennebaker (Chair), New paradigms in psychology . Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 1984.
Pennebaker, J. W. (in press). Traumatic experience and psychosomatic disease: Exploring the roles of behavioral inhibition, obsession, and confiding. Canadian Psychology .
Sacco, W. P., & Hokanson, J. E. (1982). Depression and self-reinforcement in a public and private setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 , 377–385.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Translating actions into attitudes: An identity-analytic approach to the explanation of social conduct. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15 pp. 194–247). New York: Academic Press.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33 , 46–62.
Silverman, I. (1964). Self-esteem and differential responsiveness to success and failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69 , 115–119.
Smith, T. W, Snyder, C. R, & Perkins, S. C. (1983). The self-serving function of hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 , 787–797.
Sweeney, J. (1973). An experimental investigation of the free rider problem. Social Science Research, 2 , 277–292.
Tang, T. L. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance, and task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 , 99–105.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R, & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26 , 685–695.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R F. (1985). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The benefits of not practicing. Unpublished manuscript, Case Western Reserve University.
Toch, H. (1969). Violent men . Chicago: Aldine.
Wicklund, R. A, & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zajonc, R (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149 , 269–274.
Download references
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, 13210, Syracuse, New York, USA
Brian Mullen
Department of Psychology, Williams College, 01267, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA
George R. Goethals
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Baumeister, R.F., Hutton, D.G. (1987). Self-Presentation Theory: Self-Construction and Audience Pleasing. In: Mullen, B., Goethals, G.R. (eds) Theories of Group Behavior. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_4
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_4
Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN : 978-1-4612-9092-6
Online ISBN : 978-1-4612-4634-3
eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive
Share this chapter
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
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
- Self Introduction
- Start Conversation
- Self Introduction Generator
- Introduction in Other Languages
![self presentation theory example My Self Introduction](https://myselfintroduction.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/3.png)
Self Presentation And Self Presentation Theory Explained
What is self presentation.
Self presentation is something that everyone needs to learn, but not many do. If you watch television, movies, read magazines, or even visit social networking websites, you’ll see lots of people talking about who they are. However, very few actually talk about how they feel and why they think the way that they do.
One thing most people struggle with when it comes to self presentation is confidence. People often don’t know what to say or what to ask. They worry about what other people might think of them or what others will think if they start to open up to them. So, instead of taking the plunge and starting to share things about yourself, you just stay quiet. This makes no sense because you never get anywhere in life by keeping silent.
But here’s a little secret – sharing who we are can help us grow personally, professionally and financially.
Self-presentation Definition
When you’re trying to get ahead in life, you need to be able to present yourself in the best possible way. If you don’t know how to do this, you might end up looking like an amateur.
Here is a definition of self presentation.
A person’s self presentation is the way that he or she presents himself to other people. This includes things such as his or her clothing, hairstyle, and makeup.
What Is Self Presentation Theory?
Self-presentation theory is a psychological theory that explains how people present themselves to others. Self-presentation can take many forms, including verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral.
It has two parts: the self-concept and the self-schema. The self-concept is how we see ourselves concerning others; the self-schema is how we see ourselves concerning our thoughts and feelings.
The impact of self-presentation theory on organizations has been significant because it helps us understand why people make some choices over others when they are trying to sell something or position themselves for a job interview or promotion.
The theory was originally developed by anthropologist Sherry Turkle in 1977. In her book Life On The Screen, she wrote about how people use technology to try to create an idealized version of themselves for others, and then try to make their idealized selves real through interactions with other people.
This idea has become more popular in recent years as we have become increasingly connected through technology like social media and smartphones. We see examples all around us: people posting selfies on Instagram with their friends or families who aren’t there; people tweeting updates about their lives while they’re at work, and other examples too numerous to name here.
Drew is the creator of myselfintroduction.com, designed to teach everyone how to introduce themselves to anyone with confidence in any situation.
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.
12.2 Self-presentation
Learning objectives.
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Describe social roles and how they influence behavior
- Explain what social norms are and how they influence behavior
- Define script
- Describe the findings and criticisms of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment
As you’ve learned, social psychology is the study of how people affect one another’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We have discussed situational perspectives and social psychology’s emphasis on the ways in which a person’s environment, including culture and other social influences, affect behavior. In this section, we examine situational forces that have a strong influence on human behavior including social roles, social norms, and scripts. We discuss how humans use the social environment as a source of information, or cues, on how to behave. Situational influences on our behavior have important consequences, such as whether we will help a stranger in an emergency or how we would behave in an unfamiliar environment.
Social Roles
One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. How do these social roles influence your behavior? Social roles are defined by culturally shared knowledge. That is, nearly everyone in a given culture knows what behavior is expected of a person in a given role. For example, what is the social role for a student? If you look around a college classroom you will likely see students engaging in studious behavior, taking notes, listening to the professor, reading the textbook, and sitting quietly at their desks ( Figure 12.8 ). Of course you may see students deviating from the expected studious behavior such as texting on their phones or using Facebook on their laptops, but in all cases, the students that you observe are attending class—a part of the social role of students.
Social roles, and our related behavior, can vary across different settings. How do you behave when you are engaging in the role of a child attending a family function? Now imagine how you behave when you are engaged in the role of employee at your workplace. It is very likely that your behavior will be different. Perhaps you are more relaxed and outgoing with your family, making jokes and doing silly things. But at your workplace you might speak more professionally, and although you may be friendly, you are also serious and focused on getting the work completed. These are examples of how our social roles influence and often dictate our behavior to the extent that identity and personality can vary with context (that is, in different social groups) (Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein & Winquist, 1997).
Social Norms
As discussed previously, social roles are defined by a culture’s shared knowledge of what is expected behavior of an individual in a specific role. This shared knowledge comes from social norms. A social norm is a group’s expectation of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior for its members—how they are supposed to behave and think (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Berkowitz, 2004). How are we expected to act? What are we expected to talk about? What are we expected to wear? In our discussion of social roles we noted that colleges have social norms for students’ behavior in the role of student and workplaces have social norms for employees’ behaviors in the role of employee. Social norms are everywhere including in families, gangs, and on social media outlets. What are some social norms on Instagram?
Connect the Concepts
Tweens, teens, and social norms.
My 11-year-old daughter, Janelle, recently told me she needed shorts and shirts for the summer, and that she wanted me to take her to a store at the mall that is popular with preteens and teens to buy them. I have noticed that many girls have clothes from that store, so I tried teasing her. I said, “All the shirts say ‘Aero’ on the front. If you are wearing a shirt like that and you have a substitute teacher, and the other girls are all wearing that type of shirt, won’t the substitute teacher think you are all named ‘Aero’?”
My daughter replied, in typical 11-year-old fashion, “Mom, you are not funny. Can we please go shopping?”
I tried a different tactic. I asked Janelle if having clothing from that particular store will make her popular. She replied, “No, it will not make me popular. It is what the popular kids wear. It will make me feel happier.” How can a label or name brand make someone feel happier? Think back to what you’ve learned about lifespan development . What is it about pre-teens and young teens that make them want to fit in ( Figure 12.9 )? Does this change over time? Think back to your high school experience, or look around your college campus. What is the main name brand clothing you see? What messages do we get from the media about how to fit in?
Because of social roles, people tend to know what behavior is expected of them in specific, familiar settings. A script is a person’s knowledge about the sequence of events expected in a specific setting (Schank & Abelson, 1977). How do you act on the first day of school, when you walk into an elevator, or are at a restaurant? For example, at a restaurant in the United States, if we want the server’s attention, we try to make eye contact. In Brazil, you would make the sound “psst” to get the server’s attention. You can see the cultural differences in scripts. To an American, saying “psst” to a server might seem rude, yet to a Brazilian, trying to make eye contact might not seem an effective strategy. Scripts are important sources of information to guide behavior in given situations. Can you imagine being in an unfamiliar situation and not having a script for how to behave? This could be uncomfortable and confusing. How could you find out about social norms in an unfamiliar culture?
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
The famous Stanford prison experiment , conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts. In the summer of 1971, an advertisement was placed in a California newspaper asking for male volunteers to participate in a study about the psychological effects of prison life. More than 70 men volunteered, and these volunteers then underwent psychological testing to eliminate candidates who had underlying psychiatric issues, medical issues, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The pool of volunteers was whittled down to 24 healthy male college students. Each student was paid $15 per day (equivalent to about $80 today) and was randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in the study. Based on what you have learned about research methods, why is it important that participants were randomly assigned?
A mock prison was constructed in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Participants assigned to play the role of prisoners were “arrested” at their homes by Palo Alto police officers, booked at a police station, and subsequently taken to the mock prison. The experiment was scheduled to run for several weeks. To the surprise of the researchers, both the “prisoners” and “guards” assumed their roles with zeal. On the second day of the experiment, the guards forced the prisoners to strip, took their beds, and isolated the ringleaders using solitary confinement. In a relatively short time, the guards came to harass the prisoners in an increasingly sadistic manner, through a complete lack of privacy, lack of basic comforts such as mattresses to sleep on, and through degrading chores and late-night counts.
The prisoners, in turn, began to show signs of severe anxiety and hopelessness—they began tolerating the guards’ abuse. Even the Stanford professor who designed the study and was the head researcher, Philip Zimbardo, found himself acting as if the prison was real and his role, as prison supervisor, was real as well. After only six days, the experiment had to be ended due to the participants’ deteriorating behavior. Zimbardo explained,
At this point it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation—a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the “good” guards felt helpless to intervene, and none of the guards quit while the study was in progress. Indeed, it should be noted that no guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work. (Zimbardo, 2013)
The Stanford Prison Experiment has been used as a memorable demonstration of the incredible power that social roles, norms, and scripts have in affecting human behavior. However, multiple aspects of the study have been subject to criticism since its inception. The nature of these criticisms range from ethical concerns to issues of generalizability (Bartels, Milovich, & Moussier, 2016; Griggs, 2014; Le Texier, 2019). One criticism is that the way students were recruited for the experiment may have impacted the outcome (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Another criticism questions the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. Zimbardo appears to have provided specific guidelines of the types of behaviors that were expected of the guards (Zimbardo, 2007). Subsequent research suggests that such guidelines likely created an expectation of the types of behavior that Zimbardo reported observing in the Stanford Prison Experiment (Bartels, 2019), and that given these expectations, the guards simply acted as they thought they were expected to act. It has also been problematic that attempts to replicate aspects of the study have not been successful. For example, when no guidelines were presented to the guards, researchers documented different outcomes than those observed by Zimbardo. (Reicher & Haslam, 2006).
The Stanford Prison Experiment has some parallels with the abuse of prisoners of war by U.S. Army troops and CIA personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004 during the Iraq War. The offenses at Abu Ghraib were documented by photographs of the abuse, some taken by the abusers themselves ( Figure 12.10 ).
Link to Learning
Listen to this NPR interview with Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the parallels between the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to learn more.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.
Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.
Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
- Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
- Publisher/website: OpenStax
- Book title: Psychology 2e
- Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
- Location: Houston, Texas
- Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
- Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-2-self-presentation
© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.
![Phil Reed D.Phil. Phil Reed D.Phil.](https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/styles/profile_teaser_small/public/field_user_blogger_photo/phil_reed.png.jpg?itok=BhiU99b5)
- 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 D.Phil. Phil Reed D.Phil.](https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/styles/thumbnail_115x140/public/field_user_blogger_photo/phil_reed.png.jpg?itok=I16IItWy)
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
![Stand Up For Yourself July 2024 magazine cover](https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/styles/magazine_384x504/public/magazine/2024-06/2024-07.png.jpg?itok=pCeLoQbs)
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
- Emotional Intelligence
- Gaslighting
- Affective Forecasting
- Neuroscience
71 Self-presentation
[latexpage]
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Describe social roles and how they influence behavior
- Explain what social norms are and how they influence behavior
- Define script
- Describe the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment
As you’ve learned, social psychology is the study of how people affect one another’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We have discussed situational perspectives and social psychology’s emphasis on the ways in which a person’s environment, including culture and other social influences, affect behavior. In this section, we examine situational forces that have a strong influence on human behavior including social roles, social norms, and scripts. We discuss how humans use the social environment as a source of information, or cues, on how to behave. Situational influences on our behavior have important consequences, such as whether we will help a stranger in an emergency or how we would behave in an unfamiliar environment.
SOCIAL ROLES
One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. How do these social roles influence your behavior? Social roles are defined by culturally shared knowledge. That is, nearly everyone in a given culture knows what behavior is expected of a person in a given role. For example, what is the social role for a student? If you look around a college classroom you will likely see students engaging in studious behavior, taking notes, listening to the professor, reading the textbook, and sitting quietly at their desks ( [link] ). Of course you may see students deviating from the expected studious behavior such as texting on their phones or using Facebook on their laptops, but in all cases, the students that you observe are attending class—a part of the social role of students.
![self presentation theory example A photograph shows students in a classroom.](https://opentext.wsu.edu/pysch105testimport/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2017/09/CNX_Psych_12_02_classroom.jpg)
Social roles, and our related behavior, can vary across different settings. How do you behave when you are engaging in the role of son or daughter and attending a family function? Now imagine how you behave when you are engaged in the role of employee at your workplace. It is very likely that your behavior will be different. Perhaps you are more relaxed and outgoing with your family, making jokes and doing silly things. But at your workplace you might speak more professionally, and although you may be friendly, you are also serious and focused on getting the work completed. These are examples of how our social roles influence and often dictate our behavior to the extent that identity and personality can vary with context (that is, in different social groups) (Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein & Winquist, 1997).
SOCIAL NORMS
As discussed previously, social roles are defined by a culture’s shared knowledge of what is expected behavior of an individual in a specific role. This shared knowledge comes from social norms. A social norm is a group’s expectation of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior for its members—how they are supposed to behave and think (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Berkowitz, 2004). How are we expected to act? What are we expected to talk about? What are we expected to wear? In our discussion of social roles we noted that colleges have social norms for students’ behavior in the role of student and workplaces have social norms for employees’ behaviors in the role of employee. Social norms are everywhere including in families, gangs, and on social media outlets. What are some social norms on Facebook?
My 11-year-old daughter, Jessica, recently told me she needed shorts and shirts for the summer, and that she wanted me to take her to a store at the mall that is popular with preteens and teens to buy them. I have noticed that many girls have clothes from that store, so I tried teasing her. I said, “All the shirts say ‘Aero’ on the front. If you are wearing a shirt like that and you have a substitute teacher, and the other girls are all wearing that type of shirt, won’t the substitute teacher think you are all named ‘Aero’?”
My daughter replied, in typical 11-year-old fashion, “Mom, you are not funny. Can we please go shopping?”
I tried a different tactic. I asked Jessica if having clothing from that particular store will make her popular. She replied, “No, it will not make me popular. It is what the popular kids wear. It will make me feel happier.” How can a label or name brand make someone feel happier? Think back to what you’ve learned about lifespan development . What is it about pre-teens and young teens that make them want to fit in ( [link] )? Does this change over time? Think back to your high school experience, or look around your college campus. What is the main name brand clothing you see? What messages do we get from the media about how to fit in?
![self presentation theory example A photograph shows a group of young people dressed similarly.](https://opentext.wsu.edu/pysch105testimport/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2017/09/CNX_Psych_12_02_preteens.jpg)
Because of social roles, people tend to know what behavior is expected of them in specific, familiar settings. A script is a person’s knowledge about the sequence of events expected in a specific setting (Schank & Abelson, 1977). How do you act on the first day of school, when you walk into an elevator, or are at a restaurant? For example, at a restaurant in the United States, if we want the server’s attention, we try to make eye contact. In Brazil, you would make the sound “psst” to get the server’s attention. You can see the cultural differences in scripts. To an American, saying “psst” to a server might seem rude, yet to a Brazilian, trying to make eye contact might not seem an effective strategy. Scripts are important sources of information to guide behavior in given situations. Can you imagine being in an unfamiliar situation and not having a script for how to behave? This could be uncomfortable and confusing. How could you find out about social norms in an unfamiliar culture?
ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
The famous Stanford prison experiment , conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts. In the summer of 1971, an advertisement was placed in a California newspaper asking for male volunteers to participate in a study about the psychological effects of prison life. More than 70 men volunteered, and these volunteers then underwent psychological testing to eliminate candidates who had underlying psychiatric issues, medical issues, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The pool of volunteers was whittled down to 24 healthy male college students. Each student was paid $15 per day and was randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in the study. Based on what you have learned about research methods, why is it important that participants were randomly assigned?
A mock prison was constructed in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Participants assigned to play the role of prisoners were “arrested” at their homes by Palo Alto police officers, booked at a police station, and subsequently taken to the mock prison. The experiment was scheduled to run for several weeks. To the surprise of the researchers, both the “prisoners” and “guards” assumed their roles with zeal. In fact, on day 2, some of the prisoners revolted, and the guards quelled the rebellion by threatening the prisoners with night sticks. In a relatively short time, the guards came to harass the prisoners in an increasingly sadistic manner, through a complete lack of privacy, lack of basic comforts such as mattresses to sleep on, and through degrading chores and late-night counts.
The prisoners, in turn, began to show signs of severe anxiety and hopelessness—they began tolerating the guards’ abuse. Even the Stanford professor who designed the study and was the head researcher, Philip Zimbardo, found himself acting as if the prison was real and his role, as prison supervisor, was real as well. After only six days, the experiment had to be ended due to the participants’ deteriorating behavior. Zimbardo explained,
At this point it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation—a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the “good” guards felt helpless to intervene, and none of the guards quit while the study was in progress. Indeed, it should be noted that no guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work. (Zimbardo, 2013)
The Stanford prison experiment demonstrated the power of social roles, norms, and scripts in affecting human behavior. The guards and prisoners enacted their social roles by engaging in behaviors appropriate to the roles: The guards gave orders and the prisoners followed orders. Social norms require guards to be authoritarian and prisoners to be submissive. When prisoners rebelled, they violated these social norms, which led to upheaval. The specific acts engaged by the guards and the prisoners derived from scripts. For example, guards degraded the prisoners by forcing them do push-ups and by removing all privacy. Prisoners rebelled by throwing pillows and trashing their cells. Some prisoners became so immersed in their roles that they exhibited symptoms of mental breakdown; however, according to Zimbardo, none of the participants suffered long term harm (Alexander, 2001).
The Stanford Prison Experiment has some parallels with the abuse of prisoners of war by U.S. Army troops and CIA personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004. The offenses at Abu Ghraib were documented by photographs of the abuse, some taken by the abusers themselves ( [link] ).
![self presentation theory example A photograph shows a person standing on a box with arms held out. The person is covered in shawl-like attire and a full hood that covers the face completely.](https://opentext.wsu.edu/pysch105testimport/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2017/09/CNX_Psych_12_02_AbuGhraib.jpg)
Visit this website to hear an NPR interview with Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the parallels between the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Human behavior is largely influenced by our social roles, norms, and scripts. In order to know how to act in a given situation, we have shared cultural knowledge of how to behave depending on our role in society. Social norms dictate the behavior that is appropriate or inappropriate for each role. Each social role has scripts that help humans learn the sequence of appropriate behaviors in a given setting. The famous Stanford prison experiment is an example of how the power of the situation can dictate the social roles, norms, and scripts we follow in a given situation, even if this behavior is contrary to our typical behavior.
Review Questions
A(n) ________ is a set of group expectations for appropriate thoughts and behaviors of its members.
- social role
- social norm
- attribution
On his first day of soccer practice, Jose suits up in a t-shirt, shorts, and cleats and runs out to the field to join his teammates. Jose’s behavior is reflective of ________.
- social influence
- good athletic behavior
- normative behavior
When it comes to buying clothes, teenagers often follow social norms; this is likely motivated by ________.
- following parents’ rules
- saving money
- looking good
In the Stanford prison experiment, even the lead researcher succumbed to his role as a prison supervisor. This is an example of the power of ________ influencing behavior.
- social norms
- social roles
Critical Thinking Questions
Why didn’t the “good” guards in the Stanford prison experiment object to other guards’ abusive behavior? Were the student prisoners simply weak people? Why didn’t they object to being abused?
The good guards were fulfilling their social roles and they did not object to other guards’ abusive behavior because of the power of the situation. In addition, the prison supervisor’s behavior sanctioned the guards’ negative treatment of prisoners. The prisoners were not weak people; they were recruited because they were healthy, mentally stable adults. The power of their social role influenced them to engage in subservient prisoner behavior. The script for prisoners is to accept abusive behavior from authority figures, especially for punishment, when they do not follow the rules.
Describe how social roles, social norms, and scripts were evident in the Stanford prison experiment. How can this experiment be applied to everyday life? Are there any more recent examples where people started fulfilling a role and became abusive?
Social roles were in play as each participant acted out behaviors appropriate to his role as prisoner, guard, or supervisor. Scripts determined the specific behaviors the guards and prisoners displayed, such as humiliation and passivity. The social norms of a prison environment sanctions abuse of prisoners since they have lost many of their human rights and became the property of the government. This experiment can be applied to other situations in which social norms, roles, and scripts dictate our behavior, such as in mob behavior. A more recent example of similar behavior was the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers who were working as prison guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Personal Application Questions
Try attending a religious service very different from your own and see how you feel and behave without knowing the appropriate script. Or, try attending an important, personal event that you have never attended before, such as a bar mitzvah (a coming-of-age ritual in Jewish culture), a quinceañera (in some Latin American cultures a party is given to a girl who is turning 15 years old), a wedding, a funeral, or a sporting event new to you, such as horse racing or bull riding. Observe and record your feelings and behaviors in this unfamiliar setting for which you lack the appropriate script. Do you silently observe the action, or do you ask another person for help interpreting the behaviors of people at the event? Describe in what ways your behavior would change if you were to attend a similar event in the future?
Name and describe at least three social roles you have adopted for yourself. Why did you adopt these roles? What are some roles that are expected of you, but that you try to resist?
![self presentation theory example Creative Commons License](https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
Share This Book
- Increase Font Size
- Skip to main content
- Skip to primary sidebar
IResearchNet
Exemplification
Exemplification definition.
![self presentation theory example Exemplification](https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Exemplification-300x293.jpg)
Exemplification History and Modern Usage
Like other self-presentation strategies, the goal of exemplification is to gain power over others by controlling the perceptions of the actor’s character. The power of exemplification comes from the guilt or shame that observers experience in the face of the actor’s moral and charitable actions or claims. There are many exemplifiers in history that achieved great political power by engaging in principled and self-sacrificing behavior (e.g., Gandhi and Martin Luther King). Nevertheless, exemplification is also a strategy people use in everyday interactions to win favor with an audience. Parents, for example, can use exemplification to influence their children by extolling their own virtuous behavior, or a celebrity can exemplify a generous and caring image by soliciting donations for a charity during a telethon. In each case, the target audience can be motivated to avoid or reduce their feelings of guilt by performing the target behaviors requested by the exemplifier. And even if they do not, the exemplifier may still benefit if he or she leaves a lasting impression of integrity and moral worthiness on the audience.
Exemplification can also be a risky strategy if not executed properly. For example, exemplification is likely to fail if the audience feels “put down” by the actor; to create a positive impression, the exemplifier needs to exhibit or claim moral integrity without appearing morally superior to the audience. Moreover, research on exemplification suggests that when an exemplifier is caught in a transgression, the audience perceives the actor to be a hypocrite and self-deluded, leading to especially harsh judgments of the actor’s character. Other studies suggest that upon discovering past failures to uphold moral standards, the would-be exemplifier may experience cognitive dissonance and become motivated to change the errant behavior. Thus, the use of exemplification to win favor requires that we practice what we preach, or at least maintain the impression that we do, without explicitly stating that our integrity makes us superior to others.
References:
- Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Exemplification: The self-presentation of moral character. Journal of Personality, 54(3), 593-616.
- Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Freeman.
![](http://rss3.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Ask a trusted friend or mentor to share what you can improve. Asking for feedback about specific experiences, like a recent project or presentation, will make their suggestions more relevant and easier to implement. 2. Study people who have been successful in your role. Look at how they interact with other people.
Impression Management in Sociology. Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959). By conveying particular impressions about their abilities, attitudes, motives, status, emotional reactions, and other characteristics, people can ...
Origins and Development. The concept of self-presentation theory was initially formulated by sociologist Erving Goffman, in his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, originally published in 1956.Goffman's was first to create a specific theory concerning self-presentation, laying the foundation for what is now commonly referred to as impression management.
Self-presentation refers to how people attempt to present themselves to control or shape how others (called the audience) view them. It involves expressing oneself and behaving in ways that create a desired impression. Self-presentation is part of a broader set of behaviors called impression management. Impression management refers to the ...
For example, if your job may have a business-casual dress code, so cut-off jeans would feel out-of-place. 2. Excuses. 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. ... The self presentation theory and ...
Self-presentation is behavior that attempts to convey some information about oneself or some image of oneself to other people. It denotes a class of motivations in human behavior. These motivations are in part stable dispositions of individuals but they depend on situational factors to elicit them. Specifically, self-presentational motivations ...
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a book that was published in the U.S. in 1959, written by sociologist Erving Goffman. In it, Goffman uses the imagery of theater in order to portray the nuances and significance of face-to-face social interaction. Goffman puts forth a theory of social interaction that he refers to as the ...
Self-presentation is the process of strategically concealing or revealing personal information in order to influence others' perceptions. 1 We engage in this process daily and for different reasons. Although people occasionally intentionally deceive others in the process of self-presentation, in general we try to make a good impression while ...
Erving Goffman. Adam D. Barnhart. Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, published in 1959, provides a detailed description and analysis of process and meaning in mundane interaction. Goffman, as a product of the Chicago School, writes from a symbolic interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of the ...
Subsumed within impression management, self-presentation refers to acts aimed at presenting oneself (and not others) in a certain manner. Several tactics and strategies exist to convey certain impressions, and research has explored which of these is most effective in different situations.
For example, a study in Taiwan conducted by Wang and Stefanone (2013) used survey methodology to investigate the relationship between personality traits, self-presentation and the use of check-ins on Facebook. ... Friedlander, M. L., & Schwartz, G. S. (1985). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation in counseling and psychotherapy ...
In this chapter, we present an outline of self-presentation theory: the basic units, the main motives, and the causal processes. We propose, first, that there are two types of self-presentational motive, one aimed at impressing or manipulating the audience, the other aimed at claiming a certain public identity and reputation.
Self-presentation is the process of managing one's own image and impression in social situations. ScienceDirect Topics provides an overview of the theories, research, and applications of self-presentation in various domains, such as psychology, sociology, communication, and health. Learn how self-presentation influences self-esteem, identity, motivation, and interpersonal relationships.
Social and behavioral scientists refer to people's efforts to manage their public images as self-presentation or impression management (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 2012). Some researchers use different terms for the process of controlling one's public image depending on whether the efforts are honest or deceitful and whether they involve ...
tch one's self presentation to the audience's expectations and preferences. The other (sel. construction) is to match one's self-presentation to one's own ideal self. The expression of the audience-pleasing motive varies across situations, especially since different audiences have different preferences; one presents oneself differently when ...
Self-presentation theory is a psychological theory that explains how people present themselves to others. Self-presentation can take many forms, including verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral. It has two parts: the self-concept and the self-schema. The self-concept is how we see ourselves concerning others; the self-schema is how we see ourselves ...
For example, when no guidelines were presented to the guards, researchers documented different outcomes than those observed by Zimbardo. (Reicher & Haslam, 2006). The Stanford Prison Experiment has some parallels with the abuse of prisoners of war by U.S. Army troops and CIA personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004 during the Iraq War.
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 ...
Self-Identification Theory Self-Identification Theory. Expand Foreground Self-Presentation Foreground Self-Presentation. ... Self-presentation is a social influence tactic in which people engage in communicative efforts to influence the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of others as related to the self-presenter. ...
lf-presentational behavior. Self-presentational behavior is any behavior intended to create, modify, or maintain an impression of ourselves in the minds of others.1 According to this definition, whenever we are attempting to lead people to think of us in a particular way, we are e.
One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard.
Exemplification Definition Exemplification is defined as a strategic self-presentational strategy whereby an individual attempts to project an image of integrity and moral worthiness. A person can accomplish exemplification by presenting him- or herself as honest, disciplined, self-sacrificing, generous, or principled. When successful, a person who exemplifies integrity and moral worthiness ...
The Encyclopedia of Social Psychology is designed as a road map to this rapidly growing and important field and provides individuals with a simple, clear, jargon-free introduction. These two volumes include more than 600 entries chosen by a diverse team of experts to comprise an exhaustive list of the most important concepts.