value of self presentation

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.

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

• What is coaching?

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.

Find your coach

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.

For Business

For Individuals

The self presentation theory and how to present your best self

Jump to section

What does self presentation mean?

What are self presentation goals, individual differences and self presentation.

How can you make the most of the self presentation theory at work?  

We all want others to see us as confident, competent, and likeable — even if we don’t necessarily feel that way all the time. In fact, we make dozens of decisions every day — whether consciously or unconsciously — to get people to see us as we want to be seen. But is this kind of self presentation dishonest? Shouldn’t we just be ourselves?

Success requires interacting with other people. We can’t control the other side of those interactions. But we can think about how the other person might see us and make choices about what we want to convey. 

Self presentation is any behavior or action made with the intention to influence or change how other people see you. Anytime we're trying to get people to think of us a certain way, it's an act of self presentation. Generally speaking, we work to present ourselves as favorably as possible. What that means can vary depending on the situation and the other person.

Although at first glance this may seem disingenuous, we all engage in self-presentation. We want to make sure that we show up in a way that not only makes us look good, but makes us feel good about ourselves.

Early research on self presentation focused on narcissism and sociopathy, and how people might use the impression others have of them to manipulate others for their benefit. However, self presentation and manipulation are distinct. After all, managing the way others see us works for their benefit as well as ours.

Imagine, for example, a friend was complaining to you about   a tough time they were having at work . You may want to show up as a compassionate person. However, it also benefits your friend — they feel heard and able to express what is bothering them when you appear to be present, attentive, and considerate of their feelings. In this case, you’d be conscious of projecting a caring image, even if your mind was elsewhere, because you value the relationship and your friend’s experience.

To some extent, every aspect of our lives depends on successful self-presentation. We want our families to feel that we are worthy of attention and love. We present ourselves as studious and responsible to our teachers. We want to seem fun and interesting at a party, and confident at networking events. Even landing a job depends on you convincing the interviewer that you are the best person for the role.

There are three main reasons why people engage in self presentation:

Tangible or social benefits:

In order to achieve the results we want, it often requires that we behave a certain way. In other words, certain behaviors are desirable in certain situations. Matching our behavior to the circumstances can help us connect to others,   develop a sense of belonging , and attune to the needs and feelings of others.

Example:   Michelle is   a new manager . At her first leadership meeting, someone makes a joke that she doesn’t quite get. When everyone else laughs, she smiles, even though she’s not sure why.

By laughing along with the joke, Michelle is trying to fit in and appear “in the know.” Perhaps more importantly, she avoids feeling (or at least appearing) left out, humorless, or revealing that she didn’t get it — which may hurt her confidence and how she interacts with the group in the future.

To facilitate social interaction:

As mentioned, certain circumstances and roles call for certain behaviors. Imagine a defense attorney. Do you think of them a certain way? Do you have expectations for what they do — or don’t — do? If you saw them frantically searching for their car keys, would you feel confident with them defending your case?

If the answer is no, then you have a good idea of why self presentation is critical to social functioning. We’re surprised when people don’t present themselves in a way that we feel is consistent with the demands of their role. Having an understanding of what is expected of you — whether at home, work, or in relationships — may help you succeed by inspiring confidence in others.

Example:   Christopher has always been called a “know-it-all.” He reads frequently and across a variety of topics, but gets nervous and tends to talk over people. When attending a networking event, he is uncharacteristically quiet. Even though he would love to speak up, he’s afraid of being seen as someone who “dominates” the conversation. 

Identity Construction:

It’s not enough for us to declare who we are or what we want to be — we have to take actions consistent with that identity. In many cases, we also have to get others to buy into this image of ourselves as well. Whether it’s a personality trait or a promotion, it can be said that we’re not who   we   think we are, but who others see.

Example:   Jordan is interested in moving to a client-facing role. However, in their last performance review, their manager commented that Jordan seemed “more comfortable working independently.” 

Declaring themselves a “people person” won’t make Jordan’s manager see them any differently. In order to gain their manager’s confidence, Jordan will have to show up as someone who can comfortably engage with clients and thrive in their new role.

We may also use self presentation to reinforce a desired identity for ourselves. If we want to accomplish something, make a change, or   learn a new skill , making it public is a powerful strategy. There's a reason why people who share their goals are more likely to be successful. The positive pressure can help us stay accountable to our commitments in a way that would be hard to accomplish alone.

Example:   Fatima wants to run a 5K. She’s signed up for a couple before, but her perfectionist tendencies lead her to skip race day because she feels she hasn’t trained enough. However, when her friend asks her to run a 5K with her, she shows up without a second thought.

In Fatima’s case, the positive pressure — along with the desire to serve a more important value (friendship) — makes showing up easy.

Because we spend so much time with other people (and our success largely depends on what they think of us), we all curate our appearance in one way or another. However, we don’t all desire to have people see us in the same way or to achieve the same goals. Our experiences and outcomes may vary based on a variety of factors.

One important factor is our level of self-monitoring when we interact with others. Some people are particularly concerned about creating a good impression, while others are uninterested. This can vary not only in individuals, but by circumstances.   A person may feel very confident at work , but nervous about making a good impression on a first date.

Another factor is self-consciousness — that is, how aware people are of themselves in a given circumstance. People that score high on scales of public self-consciousness are aware of how they come across socially. This tends to make it easier for them to align their behavior with the perception that they want others to have of them.

Finally, it's not enough to simply want other people to see you differently. In order to successfully change how other people perceive you, need to have three main skills: 

1. Perception and empathy

Successful self-presentation depends on being able to correctly perceive   how people are feeling , what's important to them, and which traits you need to project in order to achieve your intended outcomes.

2. Motivation

If we don’t have a compelling reason to change the perception that others have of us, we are not likely to try to change our behavior. Your desire for a particular outcome, whether it's social or material, creates a sense of urgency.

3.  A matching skill set

You’ve got to be able to walk the talk. Your actions will convince others more than anything you say. In other words, you have to provide evidence that you are the person you say you are. You may run into challenges if you're trying to portray yourself as skilled in an area where you actually lack experience.

How can you make the most of the self presentation theory at work?

At its heart, self presentation requires a high-level of self awareness and empathy. In order to make sure that we're showing up as our best in every circumstance — and with each person — we have to be aware of our own motivation as well as what would make the biggest difference to the person in front of us.

Here are 6 strategies to learn to make the most of the self-presentation theory in your career:

1. Get feedback from people around you

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. How do you perceive them? Have they had to cultivate particular skills or ways of interacting with others that may not have come easily to them?

3. Be yourself

Look for areas where you naturally excel and stand out. If you feel comfortable, confident, and happy, you’ll have an easier time projecting that to others. It’s much harder to present yourself as confident when you’re uncomfortable.

4. Be aware that you may mess up

As you work to master new skills and ways of interacting with others,   keep asking for feedback . Talk to your manager, team, or a trusted friend about how you came across. If you sense that you’ve missed the mark, address it candidly. People will understand, and you’ll learn more quickly.

Try saying, “I hope that didn’t come across as _______. I want you to know that…”

5. Work with a coach

Coaches are skilled in interpersonal communication and committed to your success. Roleplay conversations to see how they land, and practice what you’ll say and do in upcoming encounters. Over time, a coach will also begin to know you well enough to notice patterns and suggest areas for improvement.

6. The identity is in the details

Don’t forget about the other aspects of your presentation. Take a moment to visualize yourself being the way that you want to be seen. Are there certain details that would make you feel more like that person? Getting organized, refreshing your wardrobe, rewriting your resume, and even cleaning your home office can all serve as powerful affirmations of your next-level self.

Self presentation is defined as the way we try to control how others see us, but it’s just as much about how we see ourselves. It is a skill to achieve a level of comfort with who we are   and   feel confident to choose how we self-present. Consciously working to make sure others get to see the very best of you is a wonderful way to develop into the person you want to be.

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

Allaya Cooks-Campbell

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

Impression management: Developing your self-presentation skills

6 presentation skills and how to improve them, how to make a presentation interactive and exciting, how to give a good presentation that captivates any audience, what is self-preservation 5 skills for achieving it, how to not be nervous for a presentation — 13 tips that work (really), how self-knowledge builds success: self-awareness in the workplace, self-promotion: how to showcase your skills and experience, 80 affirmations for confidence: combatting self-doubt with self-love, how self-compassion strengthens resilience, how self-efficacy can boost your personal success, what is self-awareness and how to develop it, what i didn't know before working with a coach: the power of reflection, self-advocacy: improve your life by speaking up, building resilience part 6: what is self-efficacy, why learning from failure is your key to success, 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 Art of Self Presentation: Impression Management and Self-Identity

Table of Contents

Have you ever considered how the simple act of introducing yourself at a party, or the way you dress for a job interview, can be a strategic move? Behind these seemingly mundane actions lies a complex process we all engage in, known as self-presentation . Self-presentation, or impression management , is not just about vanity or a superficial attempt to be liked. It’s a fundamental aspect of human interaction, deeply rooted in psychology and sociology. Let’s dive into the nuances of how we present ourselves to the world and the motives that drive us to manage impressions.

Understanding self-presentation

Self-presentation is the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them. It’s a performance where the stage is everyday life, and the audience is the people around us. We employ a variety of verbal, nonverbal, and stylistic cues to craft an image that serves our goals. Whether it’s the confidence in our voice during a presentation, the firmness of our handshake, or the meticulous choice of attire for an event, each element is a deliberate choice in the art of self-presentation.

Verbal cues

• Language and tone: The words we choose and the tone we adopt can convey authority, warmth, intelligence, or humility.
• Storytelling: Narratives about our experiences and achievements can shape how others see us.

Non verbal cues

• Body language: Posture, gestures, and facial expressions communicate emotions and attitudes without words.
• Eye contact: Maintaining or avoiding eye contact can signal confidence, respect, or evasion.

Stylistic cues

• Dress and grooming: How we dress and groom ourselves can signal our social status, professionalism, or group affiliations.
• Accessories and props: Objects we carry or display can be symbols of our identity or status.

The motives behind self-presentation

Why do we go to such lengths to manage how others perceive us? There are two primary drivers: instrumental and expressive motives . Instrumental motives are goal-directed. We present ourselves in a certain way to achieve specific outcomes, such as gaining favor, avoiding conflict, or securing a promotion. On the other hand, expressive motives are about self-expression and identity. We manage impressions to convey who we believe we are and to maintain a consistent self-image.

Instrumental motives

• Influence: We may present ourselves as competent or likable to sway others to our point of view or to get them to do something for us.
• Obtaining rewards: A well-managed impression can lead to tangible benefits like job offers, social connections, or recognition.

Expressive motives

• Self-identity: Through self-presentation, we affirm and communicate our values, beliefs, and unique personality traits.
• Group identity: We may also use self-presentation to identify with a particular social group, aligning ourselves with its norms and values.

Maintaining consistency in self-presentation

The key to effective self-presentation is consistency. Inconsistencies between our words and actions can lead to a loss of credibility and trust. For instance, if you profess a commitment to environmental causes but are seen littering, this discrepancy can tarnish your image. Such inconsistencies can also lead to cognitive dissonance , a psychological state where we experience discomfort due to conflicting beliefs or behaviors. To resolve this discomfort, we may adjust our attitudes or behaviors to align with the image we wish to project.

Aligning actions and words

• Consistent messaging: Ensure that what you say matches what you do. This builds trust and authenticity in your image.
• Behavioral adjustments: Sometimes, to maintain consistency in our self-presentation, we may change our behavior to align with the impressions we’ve created.

Dealing with cognitive dissonance

• Awareness: Recognize when your actions do not match your expressed attitudes or the identity you’re trying to convey.
• Adjustment: Alter your behaviors or attitudes to reduce the dissonance and create a coherent self-image.

Self-presentation in the digital age

As we navigate the digital world, self-presentation has taken on new dimensions. Social media platforms have become stages where we curate images of ourselves through photos, status updates, and interactions. The line between public and private selves blurs as we manage impressions for a potentially global audience. This digital self-presentation comes with its own challenges and opportunities for expression and influence.

Creating a digital identity

• Curated content: We carefully select which parts of our lives to share online, often emphasizing positive and flattering aspects to craft an idealized self-image.
• Feedback loops: Likes, comments, and shares provide immediate feedback, influencing future self-presentation choices.

Navigating the pitfalls

• Authenticity vs. curation: Striking a balance between presenting an ideal self and remaining authentic is a challenge in the digital world.
• Privacy concerns: Deciding how much personal information to share online is a critical aspect of digital self-presentation.

Self-presentation is a crucial part of human interaction, deeply intertwined with our social world and our sense of self. Whether we’re aware of it or not, we’re all engaged in impression management, both offline and online. By understanding the motives and methods behind self-presentation, we can navigate social situations more effectively and authentically. It’s a delicate dance of influence and expression, where the ultimate goal is to present a self that aligns with our identity and aspirations.

What do you think? How do you manage your self-presentation in different social settings? Have you ever experienced cognitive dissonance due to misalignment between your actions and the image you wanted to project?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Social Psychology

1 Definition, Concept and Research Methods in Social Psychology

• Definition and Concept of Social Psychology
• Research Methods in Social Psychology
• Experimental Methods
• Non-Experimental Methods
• Other Research Methods
• Research Ethics

2 Historical Perspective of Social Psychology, Social Psychology and Other Related Disciplines

• Historical Perspective
• Landmarks in the History of Social Psychology
• Social Psychology and Other Related Disciplines
• Significance of Social Psychology Today

3 Social and Person Perception – Definition, Description and Functional Factors

• Social Cognition – Description and Nature
• Social Perception – Definition
• Understanding Temporary States
• Understanding of the Most Permanent or Lasting Characteristics – Attributions
• Impression Formation
• Implicit Personality Theory
• Person Perception
• Social Categorisation

4 Cognitive Basis and Dynamics of Social Perception and Person Perception

• Cognitive and Motivational Basis of Social and Person Perception
• Bias in Attribution
• Role of Emotions and Motivation in Information Processing
• Motivated Person Perception
• Effect of Cognitive and Emotional States

5 Definition, Concept, Description, Characteristic of Attitude

• Defining Attitudes
• Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs
• Formation of Attitudes
• Functions of Attitudes

6 Components of Attitude

• ABCs of Attitudes
• Properties of Attitudes

7 Predicting Behaviour from Attitude

• Relationship between Attitude and Behaviour
• Attitudes Predict Behaviour
• Attitudes Determine Behaviour?
• Behaviour Determine Attitudes

8 Effecting Attitudinal Change and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Compliance of Self-perception Theory, Self-affirmation

• Self Presentation
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Self Perception
• Self Affirmation

9 Introduction to Groups- Definition, Characteristics and Types of Groups

• Groups-Definition Meaning and Concepts
• Characteristics Features of Group
• Types of Group
• The Role of Groups

10 Group Process- Social Facilitation, Social Loafing, Group Interaction, Group Polarization and Group Mind

• Social Facilitation
• Social Loafing
• Group Interaction
• Group Polarization

11 Group Behaviour- Influence of Norms, Status and Roles; Introduction to Crowd Behavioural Theory, Crowd Psychology (Classical and Convergence Theories)

• Human Behaviour in Groups
• Influence of Norms Status and Roles
• Crowd Behavioural Theory
• Crowd Psychology

12 Crowd Psychology- Collective Consciousness and Collective Hysteria

• Crowd: Definition and Characteristics
• Crowd Psychology: Definition and Characteristics
• Collective Behaviour
• Collective Hysteria

13 Definition of Norms, Social Norms, Need and Characteristics Features of Norms

• Meaning of Norms
• Types of Norms
• Violation of Social Norms
• Need and Importance of Social Norms
• Characteristic Features of Social Norms

14 Norm Formation, Factors Influencing Norms, Enforcement of Norms, Norm Formation and Social Conformity

• Norm Formation
• Factors Influencing Norm Formation
• Enforcement of Norms
• Social Conformity

15 Autokinetic Experiment in Norm Formation

• Autokinetic Effect
• Sherif’s Experiment
• Salient Features of Sherif’s Autokinetic Experiments
• Critical Appraisal
• Related Latest Research on Norm Formation

16 Norms and Conformity- Asch’s Line of Length Experiments

• Solomon E. Asch – A Leading Social Psychologist
• Line and Length Experiments
• Alternatives Available with Probable Consequences
• Explanation of the Yielding Behaviour
• Variants in Asch’s Experiments
• Salient Features
• Related Research on Asch’s Findings

Share on Mastodon

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Self-Presentation

Self-presentation definition.

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 controlled presentation of information about all sorts of things, including information about other people or events. Self-presentation refers specifically to information about the self.

Self-Presentation History and Modern Usage

Early work on impression management focused on its manipulative, inauthentic uses that might typify a used car salesperson who lies to sell a car, or someone at a job interview who embellishes accomplishments to get a job. However, researchers now think of self-presentation more broadly as a pervasive aspect of life. Although some aspects of self-presentation are deliberate and effortful (and at times deceitful), other aspects are automatic and done with little or no conscious thought. For example, a woman may interact with many people during the day and may make different impressions on each person. When she starts her day at her apartment, she chats with her roommates and cleans up after breakfast, thereby presenting the image of being a good friend and responsible roommate. During classes, she responds to her professor’s questions and carefully takes notes, presenting the image of being a good student. Later that day, she calls her parents and tells them about her classes and other activities (although likely leaving out information about some activities), presenting the image of being a loving and responsible daughter. That night, she might go to a party or dancing with friends, presenting the image of being fun and easygoing. Although some aspects of these self-presentations may be deliberate and conscious, other aspects are not. For example, chatting with her roommates and cleaning up after breakfast may be habitual behaviors that are done with little conscious thought. Likewise, she may automatically hold the door open for an acquaintance or buy a cup of coffee for a friend. These behaviors, although perhaps not done consciously or with self-presentation in mind, nevertheless convey an image of the self to others.

Although people have the ability to present images that are false, self-presentations are often genuine; they reflect an attempt by the person to have others perceive him or her accurately, or at least consistent with how the person perceives himself or herself. Self-presentations can vary as a function of the audience; people present different aspects of themselves to different audiences or under different conditions. A man likely presents different aspects of himself to his close friends than he does to his elderly grandmother, and a woman may present a different image to her spouse than she does to her employer. This is not to say that these different images are false. Rather, they represent different aspects of the self. The self is much like a gem with multiple facets. The gem likely appears differently depending on the angle at which it is viewed. However, the various appearances are all genuine. Even if people present a self-image that they know to be false, they may begin to internalize the self-image and thereby eventually come to believe the self-pres

entation. For example, a man may initially present an image of being a good student without believing it to be genuine, but after attending all his classes for several weeks, visiting the professor during office hours, and asking questions during class, he may come to see himself as truly being a good student. This internalization process is most likely to occur when people make a public commitment to the self-image, when the behavior is at least somewhat consistent with their self-image, and when they receive positive feedback or other rewards for presenting the self-image.

Self-presentation is often directed to external audiences such as friends, lovers, employers, teachers, children, and even strangers. Self-presentation is more likely to be conscious when the presenter depends on the audience for some reward, expects to interact with the audience in the future, wants something from the audience, or values the audience’s approval. Yet self-presentation extends beyond audiences that are physically present to imagined audiences, and these imagined audiences can have distinct effects on behavior. A young man at a party might suddenly think about his parents and change his behavior from rambunctious to reserved. People sometimes even make self-presentations only for themselves. For instance, people want to claim certain identities, such as being fun, intelligent, kind, moral, and they may behave in line with these identities even in private.

Self-Presentation Goals

Self-presentation is inherently goal-directed; people present certain images because they benefit from the images in some way. The most obvious benefits are interpersonal, arising from getting others to do what one wants. A job candidate may convey an image of being hardworking and dependable to get a job; a salesperson may convey an image of being trustworthy and honest to achieve a sale. People may also benefit from their self-presentations by gaining respect, power, liking, or other desirable social rewards. Finally, people make certain impressions on others to maintain a sense of who they are, or their self-concept. For example, a man who wants to think of himself as a voracious reader might join a book club or volunteer at a library, or a woman who wishes to perceive herself as generous may contribute lavishly to a charitable cause. Even when there are few or no obvious benefits of a particular self-presentation, people may simply present an image that is consistent with the way they like to think about themselves, or at least the way they are accustomed to thinking about themselves.

Much of self-presentation is directed toward achieving one of two desirable images. First, people want to appear likeable. People like others who are attractive, interesting, and fun to be with. Thus, a sizable proportion of self-presentation revolves around developing, maintaining, and enhancing appearance and conveying and emphasizing characteristics that others desire, admire, and enjoy. Second, people want to appear competent. People like others who are skilled and able, and thus another sizable proportion of self-presentation revolves around conveying an image of competence. Yet, self-presentation is not so much about presenting desirable images as it is about presenting desired images, and some desired images are not necessarily desirable. For example, schoolyard bullies may present an image of being dangerous or intimidating to gain or maintain power over others. Some people present themselves as weak or infirmed (or exaggerate their weaknesses) to gain help from others. For instance, a member of a group project may display incompetence in the hope that other members will do more of the work, or a child may exaggerate illness to avoid going to school.

Self-Presentation Avenues

People self-present in a variety of ways. Perhaps most obviously, people self-present in what they say. These verbalizations can be direct claims of a particular image, such as when a person claims to be altruistic. They also can be indirect, such as when a person discloses personal behaviors or standards (e.g., “I volunteer at a hospital”). Other verbal presentations emerge when people express attitudes or beliefs. Divulging that one enjoys backpacking through Europe conveys the image that one is a world-traveler. Second, people self-present nonverbally in their physical appearance, body language, and other behavior. Smiling, eye contact, and nods of agreement can convey a wealth of information. Third, people self-present through the props they surround themselves with and through their associations. Driving an expensive car or flying first class conveys an image of having wealth, whereas an array of diplomas and certificates on one’s office walls conveys an image of education and expertise. Likewise, people judge others based on their associations. For example, being in the company of politicians or movie stars conveys an image of importance, and not surprisingly, many people display photographs of themselves with famous people. In a similar vein, high school students concerned with their status are often careful about which classmates they are seen and not seen with publicly. Being seen by others in the company of someone from a member of a disreputable group can raise questions about one’s own social standing.

Self-Presentation Pitfalls

Self-presentation is most successful when the image presented is consistent with what the audience thinks or knows to be true. The more the image presented differs from the image believed or anticipated by the audience, the less willing the audience will be to accept the image. For example, the lower a student’s grade is on the first exam, the more difficulty he or she will have in convincing a professor that he or she will earn an A on the next exam. Self-presentations are constrained by audience knowledge. The more the audience knows about a person, the less freedom the person has in claiming a particular identity. An audience that knows very little about a person will be more accepting of whatever identity the person conveys, whereas an audience that knows a great deal about a person will be less accepting.

People engaging in self-presentation sometimes encounter difficulties that undermine their ability to convey a desired image. First, people occasionally encounter the multiple audience problem, in which they must simultaneously present two conflicting images. For example, a student while walking with friends who know only her rebellious, impetuous side may run into her professor who knows only her serious, conscientious side. The student faces the dilemma of conveying the conflicting images of rebellious friend and serious student. When both audiences are present, the student must try to behave in a way that is consistent with how her friends view her, but also in a way that is consistent with how her professor views her. Second, people occasionally encounter challenges to their self-presentations. The audience may not believe the image the person presents. Challenges are most likely to arise when people are managing impressions through self-descriptions and the self-descriptions are inconsistent with other evidence. For example, a man who claims to be good driver faces a self-presentational dilemma if he is ticketed or gets in an automobile accident. Third, self-presentations can fail when people lack the cognitive resources to present effectively because, for example, they are tired, anxious, or distracted. For instance, a woman may yawn uncontrollably or reflexively check her watch while talking to a boring classmate, unintentionally conveying an image of disinterest.

Some of the most important images for people to convey are also the hardest. As noted earlier, among the most important images people want to communicate are likeability and competence. Perhaps because these images are so important and are often rewarded, audiences may be skeptical of accepting direct claims of likeability and competence from presenters, thinking that the person is seeking personal gain. Thus, people must resort to indirect routes to create these images, and the indirect routes can be misinterpreted. For example, the student who sits in the front row of the class and asks a lot of questions may be trying to project an image of being a competent student but may be perceived negatively as a teacher’s pet by fellow students.

Finally, there is a dark side to self-presentation. In some instances, the priority people place on their appearances or images can threaten their health. People who excessively tan are putting a higher priority on their appearance (e.g., being tan) than on their health (e.g., taking precautions to avoid skin cancer). Similarly, although condoms help protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy, self-presentational concerns may dissuade partners or potential partners from discussing, carrying, or using condoms. Women may fear that carrying condoms makes them seem promiscuous or easy, whereas men may fear that carrying condoms makes them seem presumptuous, as if they are expecting to have sex. Self-presentational concerns may also influence interactions with health care providers and may lead people to delay or avoid embarrassing medical tests and procedures or treatments for conditions that are embarrassing. For example, people may be reluctant to seek tests or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, loss of bladder control, mental disorders, mental decline, or other conditions associated with weakness or incompetence. Finally, concerns with social acceptance may prompt young people to engage in risky behaviors such as excessive alcohol consumption, sexual promiscuity, or juvenile delinquency.

References:

• 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. 231-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Leary, M. R. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1994). Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and health risk. Health Psychology, 13, 461-470.
• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Self-Presentation Theory

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.

Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey Experiments

Harry Harlow's controversial experiments with Rhesus monkeys in the 1950s and 1960s revealed the profound impact of maternal deprivation and social isolation on primate development,…

Read More »

Emotional Validation

Emotional validation is the act of recognizing, accepting, and affirming others' emotions, fostering trust, connection, and a sense of being understood. Validation helps regulate emotions,…

Social Support Theory

Social support theory emphasizes the impact of social connections on well-being. It provides emotional, practical, and informational aid during stressful times, enhanced resilience, and health…

Affection Exchange Theory

Affection Exchange Theory, proposed by Kory Floyd, emphasizes the role of affectionate communication in forming and maintaining emotional bonds between individuals. It's rooted in evolutionary…

Age Stratification Theory

Age Stratification Theory explores how age-based roles, expectations, and inequalities impact individuals and societies. It examines how different age groups are stratified and the ways…

Self-Discrepancy Theory

E. Tory Higgins' Self-Discrepancy Theory explores the intricate relationships between an individual's actual, ideal, and ought selves, leading to emotional and motivational implications. These discrepancies…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from psychology fanatic.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

What is Self-Worth & How Do We Build it? (Incl. Worksheets)

There’s self-esteem, self-compassion, self-acceptance, self-respect, self-confidence, self-love, self-care, and so on.

There are so many words to describe how we feel about ourselves, how we think about ourselves, and how we act toward ourselves. It’s understandable if they all start to blend together for you; however, they are indeed different concepts with unique meanings, findings, and purposes.

Read on to learn more about what may be the most vital “self-” concept of them all: self-worth.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our three Self-Compassion Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will not only help you show more compassion and kindness to yourself but will also give you the tools to help your clients, students or employees improve their self-compassion and realize their worth.

This Article Contains:

What is the meaning of self-worth and self-value, the psychology of self-worth.

• What Is Self-Worth Theory?

What Determines Self-Worth?

3 examples of healthy self-worth, how to find self-worth and value yourself more, the importance of self-worth in relationships, the risks of tying your self-worth to your job, the self-worth scale, 5 activities and exercises for developing self-worth, 2 worksheets that help increase self-worth, meditations to boost self-worth, recommended books on self-worth, must-watch ted talks and youtube videos, 12 quotes on self-worth, a take-home message.

Self-worth and self-value are two related terms that are often used interchangeably. Having a sense of self-worth means that you value yourself, and having a sense of self-value means that you are worthy. The differences between the two are minimal enough that both terms can be used to describe the same general concept.

However, we’ll provide both definitions so you can see where they differ.

Self-worth is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

“a feeling that you are a good person who deserves to be treated with respect”.

On the other hand, self-value is “more behavioral than emotional, more about how you act toward what you value, including yourself, than how you feel about yourself compared to others” (Stosny, 2014).

Self-Worth versus Self-Esteem

Similarly, there is not a huge difference between self-worth and self-esteem , especially for those who are not professionals in the field of psychology. In fact, the first definition of self-worth on the Merriam-Webster dictionary website is simply “self-esteem.”

Similarly, the World Book Dictionary definition of self-esteem is “thinking well of oneself; self-respect,” while self-worth is defined as “a favorable estimate or opinion of oneself; self-esteem” (Bogee, Jr., 1998).

Clearly, many of these terms are used to talk about the same ideas, but for those deeply immersed in these concepts, there is a slight difference. Dr. Christina Hibbert explains this:

“Self-esteem is what we think and feel and believe about ourselves. Self-worth is recognizing ‘I am greater than all of those things.’ It is a deep knowing that I am of value, that I am loveable, necessary to this life, and of incomprehensible worth.” (2013).

Self-Worth versus Self-Confidence

In the same vein, there are subtle but significant differences between self-worth and self-confidence.

Self-confidence is not an overall evaluation of yourself, but a feeling of confidence and competence in more specific areas. For example, you could have a high amount of self-worth but low self-confidence when it comes to extreme sports, certain subjects in school, or your ability to speak a new language (Roberts, 2012).

It’s not necessary to have a high sense of self-confidence in every area of your life; there are naturally some things that you will simply not be very good at, and other areas in which you will excel. The important thing is to have self-confidence in the activities in your life that matter to you and a high sense of self-worth overall.

We explore this further in The Science of Self-Acceptance Masterclass© .

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with themselves.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

What Is the Self-Worth Theory?

The self-worth theory posits that an individual’s main priority in life is to find self-acceptance and that self-acceptance is often found through achievement (Covington & Beery, 1976). In turn, achievement is often found through competition with others.

Thus, the logical conclusion is that competing with others can help us feel like we have impressive achievements under our belt, which then makes us feel proud of ourselves and enhances our acceptance of ourselves.

The theory holds that there are four main elements of the self-worth model:

• Performance;
• Self-worth.

The first three interact with each other to determine one’s level of self-worth. One’s ability and effort predictably have a big impact on performance, and all three contribute to one’s feeling of worth and value.

While this theory represents a good understanding of self-worth as we tend to experience it, it is unfortunate that we place so much emphasis on our achievements. Aside from competing and “winning” against others, there are many factors that can contribute to our sense of self-worth.

However, people commonly use other yardsticks to measure their self-worth. Here are five of the top factors that people use to measure and compare their own self-worth to the worth of others:

• Appearance—whether measured by the number on the scale, the size of clothing worn, or the kind of attention received by others;
• Net worth—this can mean income, material possessions, financial assets, or all of the above;
• Who you know/your social circle—some people judge their own value and the value of others by their status and what important and influential people they know;
• What you do/your career—we often judge others by what they do; for example, a stockbroker is often considered more successful and valuable than a janitor or a teacher;
• What you achieve—as noted earlier, we frequently use achievements to determine someone’s worth (whether it’s our own worth or someone else’s), such as success in business, scores on the SATs, or placement in a marathon or other athletic challenge (Morin, 2017).

Author Stephanie Jade Wong (n.d.) is on a mission to correct misunderstandings and misperceptions about self-worth. Instead of listing all the factors that go into self-worth, she outlines what does not determine your self-worth (or, what should not determine your self-worth):

• Your to-do list: Achieving goals is great and it feels wonderful to cross off things on your to-do list, but it doesn’t have a direct relationship with your worth as a human;
• Your job: It doesn’t matter what you do. What matters is that you do it well and that it fulfills you;
• Your social media following: It also doesn’t matter how many people think you are worthy of a follow or a retweet. It can be enlightening and healthy to consider the perspectives of others, but their opinions have no impact on our innate value;
• Your age: You aren’t too young or too old for anything. Your age is simply a number and does not factor into your value as a human being;
• Other people: As noted above, it doesn’t matter what other people think or what other people have done or accomplished. Your personal satisfaction and fulfillment are much more important than what others are thinking, saying, or doing;
• How far you can run: Your mile run time is one of the least important factors for your self-worth (or for anything else, for that matter). If you enjoy running and feel fulfilled by improving your time, good for you! If not, good for you! Your ability to run does not determine your self-worth;
• Your grades: We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and some of us are simply not cut out for class. This has no bearing on our value as people, and a straight-A student is just as valuable and worthy as a straight-F student or a dropout;
• The number of friends you have: Your value as a human has absolutely nothing to do with how many friends or connections you have. The quality of your relationships is what’s really important;
• Your relationship status: Whether flying solo, casually dating, or in a committed relationship, your value is exactly the same—your relationship status doesn’t alter your worth;
•  The money (or lack thereof) in the bank: If you have enough money to physically survive (which can, in fact, be $0), then you have already achieved the maximal amount of “worth” you can get from money (hint: it’s 0!);
• Your likes: It doesn’t matter if you have “good taste” or not, if your friends and acquaintances think you’re sophisticated, or if you have an eye for the finer things. Your worth is the same either way.
• Anything or anyone but yourself: Here we get to the heart of the matter—you are the only one who determines your self-worth. If you believe you are worthy and valuable, you are worthy and valuable. Even if you don’t believe you are worthy and valuable, guess what—you still are worthy and valuable!

“ If I succeed at this, I will feel more valuable as a person. ”

Have you ever had a similar thought? You are certainly not alone. While objectively, your worth is not conditional on anything, most of us constantly evaluate our worth as human beings.

Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) describe self-esteem as the extent to which an individual evaluates themselves favorably. Consequently, the core process underlying self-esteem is self-evaluation, and people use many standards and domains to determine their worthiness (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).

Domains represent the areas where people believe success means that they are wonderful or worthwhile, and failure means that they are worthless (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).

For example, the self-worth of person A may be greatly determined by academic performance, while the self-worth of person B may be determined mainly by appearance.

Noticing the domains your use as a frame of reference to determine your self-worth is the first step toward developing more unconditional self-acceptance. The self-reflection questions shared below explore created conditions used to determine ‘worthiness’ and later lead beyond these conditions.

Note that there is a difference between evaluating actions and evaluating personal worth. We can learn from our mistakes and grow as individuals by assessing our efforts. However, by evaluating our personal worth, we can threaten our wellbeing.

You might be thinking, “Okay, I know what does and doesn’t (and shouldn’t) determine self-worth, but what does healthy self-worth really look like?”

Given what we know about the determinants of self-worth, let’s read through a few examples.

Bill is not a great student. He gets mostly Bs and Cs, even when he spends a great deal of time studying. He didn’t get a great score on his SATs, and he’s an average reader, a struggling writer, and nobody’s idea of a mathematician.

Even though Bill wishes he had better grades, he still feels pretty good about himself. He knows that grades aren’t everything and that he’s just as valuable a person as his straight-A friends. Bill has a high sense of self-worth and a realistic view of himself and his abilities.

Next, let’s consider Amy. Amy has a wide variety of interests, including marathons, attending book club, playing weekly trivia with her friends, and meeting new people.

Amy’s not particularly good at running and has never placed in a marathon. She’s a slow reader and frequently misses the symbolism and themes that her fellow book club members pick up on. She only answers about 10% of the trivia questions correctly and leans on her friends’ knowledge quite often. Finally, she loves to talk to new people but sometimes she gets blown off and ignored.

Despite all of this, she still believes that she is worthy and valuable. She knows that her worth as a human is not dependent on her ability to run, read, play trivia, or make new friends. Whether she is great, terrible, or somewhere in between at each of her vast range of chosen activities, she knows she is still worthy of happiness, fulfillment, and love.

Finally, consider the case of Marcus. Marcus is an excellent salesman and frequently outsells most of the other people at his company, but one coworker seems to always be just a bit ahead of him. He is also an avid squash player and frequently competes in tournaments. Sometimes he gets first or second place, but usually he does not place at all.

Even though he is not the best at his job or at his favorite hobby, Marcus still feels that he is valuable. He thinks he is smart, talented, and successful, even though he’s not the smartest, most talented, or most successful, and he’s okay with that.

Bill, Amy, and Marcus all have healthy levels of self-worth. They have varying levels of abilities and talents, and they get a wide range of results from their efforts, but they all understand that what they do is not who they are. No matter whether they win awards or garner accolades for their performance or not, they still have the same high opinion of their value as a person.

There are things you can do to boost your sense of self-worth and ensure that you value yourself like you ought to be valued—as a full, complete, and wonderful human being that is deserving of love and respect, no matter what.

How to build self-worth in adolescents

As with most lifelong traits, it’s best to start early. If you know any adolescents, be sure to encourage them to understand and accept their own self-worth. Reinforce their value as a being rather than a “doing,” as some say—in other words, make sure they know that they are valuable for who they are, not what they do.

If you need some more specific ideas on how to boost an adolescent’s self-worth, check out the suggestions below.

Researchers at Michigan State University recommend two main strategies:

• Provide unconditional love, respect, and positive regard;
• Give adolescents opportunities to experience success (Clark-Jones, 2012).

Showing a teen unconditional love (if you’re a parent, family member, or very close friend) or unconditional respect and positive regard (if you’re a teacher, mentor, etc.) is the best way to teach him self-worth.

If you show a teenager that you love and appreciate her for exactly who and what she is, she will learn that it’s okay to love herself for exactly who and what she is. If you demonstrate that she doesn’t need to achieve anything to earn your love and respect, she’ll be much less likely to put unnecessary parameters on her own self-love and self-respect.

Further, one way in which we gain a healthy sense of self-worth is through early and frequent experiences of success. Successful experiences boost our sense of competency and mastery and make us feel just plain good about ourselves.

Successful experiences also open the door for taking healthy risks and the success that often follows. Don’t just tell a teen that she is worthy and valuable, help her believe it by giving her every opportunity to succeed.

Just be sure that these opportunities are truly opportunities for her to succeed on her own—a helping hand is fine, but we need to figure out how to do some things on our own to build a healthy sense of self-worth (Clark-Jones, 2012).

How to increase self-worth and self-value in adults

It’s a bit trickier to increase self-worth and self-value in adults, but it’s certainly not a lost cause. Check out the two tips below to learn how to go about it.

First, take a look back at the list of what does not determine self-worth. Remind yourself that your bank account, job title, attractiveness, and social media following have nothing to do with how valuable or worthy a person you are.

It’s easy to get caught up in chasing money, status, and popularity—especially when these things are highly valued by those around us and by society in general—but make an effort to take a step back and think about what truly matters when determining people’s worth: their kindness, compassion, empathy, respect for others, and how well they treat those around them.

Second, work on identifying, challenging, and externalizing your critical inner voice. We all have an inner critic that loves to nitpick and point out our flaws (Firestone, 2014). It’s natural to let this inner critic get the best of us sometimes, but if we let her win too often she starts to think that she’s right!

Whenever you notice your inner critic start to fire up with the criticisms, make her pause for a moment. Ask yourself whether she has any basis in fact, whether she’s being kind or not, and whether what she’s telling you is something you need to know. If none of those things are true, feel free to tell her to see herself out!

Challenge her on the things she whispers in your ear and remind her that no matter what you do or don’t do, you are worthy and valuable all the same.

For more specific activities and ideas, see the exercises, activities, and worksheets we cover later in this piece.

It’s an understandable tendency to let someone else’s love for you encourage you to feel better about yourself. However, you should work on feeling good about yourself whether you are in a relationship or not.

The love of another person does not define you, nor does it define your value as a person. Whether you are single, casually seeing people, building a solid relationship with someone, or celebrating your 30th wedding anniversary with your spouse, you are worthy of love and respect, and you should make time to practice self-acceptance and self-compassion.

This is true for people of any relationship status, but it may be especially important for those in long-term relationships.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your partner’s love is what makes you worthy of love. If anything ever happens to your partner or to your relationship, you don’t want to be forced to build up your sense of worth from scratch. It can make breakups and grief much harder than they need to be.

Although this facet of the issue might be enough to encourage you to work on your self-worth, there’s another reason it’s important: Having a healthy sense of self-worth will actually make your current relationship better too.

When you learn to love yourself, you become better able to love someone else. People with high self-respect tend to have more satisfying, loving, and stable relationships than those who do not, precisely because they know that they need to first find their worth, esteem, and happiness within themselves.

Two people who are lit with self-worth and happiness from within make are much brighter than two people who are trying to absorb light from each other (Grande, 2018).

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Similar to the dangers of anchoring your self-worth to someone else, there are big risks in tying your self-worth to your job. Like a significant other, jobs can come and go—sometimes without warning.

You can be let go, laid off, transitioned, dehired, dismissed, downsized, redirected, released, selectively separated, terminated, replaced, asked to resign, or just plain fired. You could also be transferred, promoted, demoted, or given new duties and responsibilities that no longer mesh with the sense of self-worth your previous duties and responsibilities gave you.

You could also quit, take a new job, take some time off, or retire—all things that can be wonderful life transitions, but that can be unnecessarily difficult if you base too much of your self-worth on your job.

As noted earlier, your job is one of the things that don’t define you or your worth. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of what you do, finding joy or fulfillment in it, or letting it shape who you are; the danger is in letting it define your entire sense of self.

We are all so much more than a job. Believing that we are nothing more than a job is detrimental to our wellbeing and can be disastrous in times of crisis.

If so, you’re in luck. There is a scale that is perfectly suited for this curiosity.

Also known as the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale, this scale was developed by researchers Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, and Bouvrette in 2003. It consists of 35 items that measure self-worth in seven different domains. These seven domains, with an example item from each domain, are:

• Approval from others (i.e., I don’t care if other people have a negative opinion of me);
• Physical appearance (i.e., my self-esteem is influenced by how attractive I think my face or facial features are);
• Outdoing others in competition (i.e., my self-worth is affected by how well I do when I am competing with others);
• Academic competence (i.e., I feel bad about myself whenever my academic performance is lacking);
• Family love and support (i.e., my self-worth is not influenced by the quality of my relationships with my family members);
• Being a virtuous or moral person (i.e., my self-esteem depends on whether or not I follow my moral/ethical principles);
• God’s love (i.e., my self-esteem would suffer if I didn’t have God’s love).

Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Once you have rated each item, sum the answers to the five items for each domain and divide the total by 5 for the sub-scale score.

To learn more about this scale or use it to determine your own self-worth, click here .

According to author and self-growth guru Adam Sicinski, there are five vital exercises for developing and maintaining self-worth. He lays them out in five stages, but there’s no need to keep them in strict order; it’s fine to move back and forth or revisit stages.

1. Increase your self-understanding

An important activity on the road to self-worth is to build self-understanding. You need to learn who you are and what you want before you can decide you are a worthy human being.

Sicinski recommends this simple thought experiment to work on increasing your understanding of yourself:

• Imagine that everything you have is suddenly taken away from you (i.e., possessions, relationships, friendships, status, job/career, accomplishments and achievements, etc.);
• Ask yourself the following questions: a. What if everything I have was suddenly taken away from me? b. What if all I had left was just myself? c. How would that make me feel? d. What would I actually have that would be of value?
•  Think about your answers to these questions and see if you can come to this conclusion: “No matter what happens externally and no matter what’s taken away from me, I’m not affected internally”;
• Next, get to know yourself on a deeper level with these questions: a. Who I am? I am . . . I am not . . . b. How am I? c. How am I in the world? d. How do others see me? e. How do others speak about me? f. What key life moments define who I am today? g. What brings me the most passion, fulfillment, and joy?
• Once you have a good understanding of who you are and what fulfills and satisfies you, it’s time to look at what isn’t so great or easy about being you. Ask yourself these questions: a. Where do I struggle most? b. Where do I need to improve? c. What fears often hold me back? d. What habitual emotions hurt me? e. What mistakes do I tend to make? f. Where do I tend to consistently let myself down?
•  Finally, take a moment to look at the flipside; ask yourself: a. What abilities do I have? b. What am I really good at?

Spend some time on each step, but especially on the steps that remind you of your worth and your value as a person (e.g., the strengths step).

2. Boost your self-acceptance

Once you have a better idea of who you are, the next step is to enhance your acceptance of yourself.

Start by forgiving yourself for anything you noted in item 5 above. Think of any struggles, needs for improvement, mistakes, and bad habits you have, and commit to forgiving yourself and accepting yourself without judgment or excuses.

Think about everything you learned about yourself in the first exercise and repeat these statements:

• I accept the good, the bad and the ugly;
• I fully accept every part of myself including my flaws, fears, behaviors, and qualities I might not be too proud of;
• This is how I am, and I am at peace with that

3. Enhance your self-love

Now that you have worked on accepting yourself for who you are, you can begin to build love and care for yourself. Make it a goal to extend yourself kindness, tolerance, generosity, and compassion .

To boost self-love, start paying attention to the tone you use with yourself. Commit to being more positive and uplifting when talking to yourself.

If you’re not sure how to get started, think (or say aloud) these simple statements:

• I feel valued and special;
• I love myself wholeheartedly;
•  I am a worthy and capable person (Sicinski, n.d.).

4. Recognize your self-worth

Once you understand, accept, and love yourself, you will reach a point where you no longer depend on people, accomplishments, or other external factors for your self-worth.

At this point, the best thing you can do is recognize your worth and appreciate yourself for the work you’ve done to get here, as well as continuing to maintain your self-understanding, self-acceptance, self-love, and self-worth.

To recognize your self-worth, remind yourself that:

• You no longer need to please other people;
• No matter what people do or say, and regardless of what happens outside of you, you alone control how you feel about yourself;
• You have the power to respond to events and circumstances based on your internal sources, resources, and resourcefulness, which are the reflection of your true value;
• Your value comes from inside, from an internal measure that you’ve set for yourself.

5. Take responsibility for yourself

In this stage, you will practice being responsible for yourself, your circumstances, and your problems.

Follow these guidelines to ensure you are working on this exercise in a healthy way:

• Take full responsibility for everything that happens to you without giving your personal power and your agency away;
• Acknowledge that you have the personal power to change and influence the events and circumstances of your life.

Remind yourself of what you have learned through all of these exercises, and know that you hold the power in your own life. Revel in your well-earned sense of self-worth and make sure to maintain it.

Check out the four worksheets below that can help you build your self-worth.

About Me Sentence Completion Worksheet

This worksheet outlines a simple way to build self-worth. It only requires a pen or pencil and a few minutes to complete. Feel free to use it for yourself or for your adult clients, but it was designed for kids and can be especially effective for them.

This worksheet is simply titled “About Me: Sentence Completion” and is exactly what you might expect: it gives kids a chance to write about themselves. If your youngster is too young to write down his own answers, sit with him and help him record his responses.

The sentence stems (or prompts) to complete include:

• I was really happy when . . .
• Something that my friends like about me is . . .
• I’m proud of . . .
• My family was happy when I . . .
• In school, I’m good at . . .
• Something that makes me unique is . . .

By completing these six prompts, your child will take some time to think about who he really is, what he likes, what he’s good at, and what makes him feel happy.

Self-Esteem Sentence Stems worksheet.

Self-Esteem Checkup

This worksheet is good for a wide audience, including children, adolescents, young adults, and older adults. The opening text indicates that it’s a self-esteem worksheet, but in this case, the terms self-esteem and self-worth are used interchangeably.

Completing this worksheet will help you get a handle on your personal sense of understanding, acceptance, respect, and love for yourself.

The worksheet lists 15 statements and instructs you to rate your belief in each one on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (totally or completely). These statements are:

• I believe in myself;
• I am just as valuable as other people;
• I would rather be me than someone else;
• I am proud of my accomplishments;
• I feel good when I get compliments;
• I can handle criticism;
• I am good at solving problems;
• I love trying new things;
• I respect myself;
• I like the way I look;
• I love myself even when others reject me;
• I know my positive qualities;
• I focus on my successes and not my failures;
• I’m not afraid to make mistakes;
• I am happy to be me.

Add up all of the ratings for these 15 statements to get your total score, then rate your overall sense of self-esteem on a scale from 0 (I completely dislike who I am) to 10 (I completely like who I am).

Finally, respond to the prompt “What would need to change in order for you to move up one point on the rating scale? (i.e., for example, if you rated yourself a 6 what would need to happen for you to be at a 7?)”

Click here to preview this worksheet for yourself or click here to view it in a collection of self-esteem-building, small-group counseling lesson plans.

If you’re a fan of meditations , check out the four options below. They’re all aimed at boosting self-worth:

• A Guided Meditation to Help Quiet Self-Doubt and Boost Confidence from Health.com;
• Guided Meditation for Inner Peace and Self-Worth from Linda Hall;
• Guided Meditation: Self-Esteem from The Honest Guys Meditations & Relaxations;

If you’re not fond of any of these four meditations, try searching for other guided meditations intended to improve your self-worth. There are many out there to choose from.

To learn more about self-worth and how to improve it, check out some of the most popular books about this subject on Amazon:

• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You’re Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are by Dr. Brené Brown ( Amazon );
• What to Say When You Talk to Your Self by Dr. Shad Helmstetter ( Amazon );
• The 21-Day Self-Love Challenge: Learn How to Love Yourself Unconditionally, Cultivate Confidence, Self-Compassion & Self-Worth   by Sophia Taylor ( Amazon );
• Love Yourself: 31 Ways to Truly Find Your Self Worth & Love Yourself by Randy Young ( Amazon );
• Self-Worth Essentials: A Workbook to Understand Yourself, Accept Yourself, Like Yourself, Respect Yourself, Be Confident, Enjoy Yourself, and Love Yourself by Dr. Liisa Kyle ( Amazon );
• Learning to Love Yourself: Finding Your Self-Worth by Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse ( Amazon ).

If you’re more of a watcher than a reader, there are some great TED Talks and YouTube videos you can check out, including:

TED Talk: Meet Yourself: A User’s Guide to Building Self-Esteem  by Niko Everett

In her talk, Niko Everett, the founder of the organization Girls for Change, discusses inspiring ways to build up your self-esteem.

TED Talk: Claiming Your Identity by Understanding Your Self-Worth by Helen Whitener

Judge Helen Whitener discusses self-worth through the lens of social justice and equality in this talk.

A Clever Lesson in Self Worth from Meir Kay

Sometimes all we need to kickstart or motivate us to work on our self-love and self-worth is a good, insightful quote. If that’s what you’re looking for, read on.

You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.

A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.

Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Loving ourselves works miracles in our lives.

Louise L. Hay

The fact that someone else loves you doesn’t rescue you from the project of loving yourself.

Sahaj Kohli

Why should we worry about what others think of us, do we have more confidence in their opinions than we do our own?

Brigham Young

Don’t rely on someone else for your happiness and self-worth. Only you can be responsible for that. If you can’t love and respect yourself—no on else will be able to make that happen. Accept who you are—completely; the good and the bad—and make changes as YOU see fit—not because you think someone else want you to be different.

Stacey Charter

Your problem is you’re afraid to acknowledge your own beauty. You’re too busy holding onto your unworthiness.

It’s surprising how many persons go through life without ever recognizing that their feelings toward other people are largely determined by their feelings toward themselves, and if you’re not comfortable within yourself, you can’t be comfortable with others.

Sidney J. Harris

Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one’s own sunshine.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

It is never too late to be what you might have been.

George Eliot

Stay true to yourself. An original is worth more than a copy.

Suzy Kassem

17 Exercises To Foster Self-Acceptance and Compassion

Help your clients develop a kinder, more accepting relationship with themselves using these 17 Self-Compassion Exercises [PDF] that promote self-care and self-compassion.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Self-worth is an important concept for both researchers and laymen to understand, and it’s especially important for us to be able to identify, build, and maintain a normal, healthy sense of self-worth.

Learning about self-worth can teach you how to be more happy and fulfilled in your authentic, loveable self.

What do you think is the most important takeaway from research on this topic? Do you think a lack of self-worth is a problem? Or perhaps you think an excess of self-worth is the bigger problem today? Let us know in the comments section.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Self Compassion Exercises for free .

• Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem.  Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1,  115-160.
• Bogee, Jr., L. (1998). Leadership through personal awareness. University of Hawaii. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/intlrel/LTPA/selfwort.htm
• Clark-Jones, T. (2012). The importance of helping teens discover self-worth. Michigan State University – MSU Extension. Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/news/the_importance_of_helping_teens_discover_self-worth
• Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 , 894–908.
• Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth.  Psychological Review, 108(3), 593.
• Firestone, L. (2014). Essential tips for building true self-worth. Psych Alive. Retrieved from https://www.psychalive.org/self-worth/
• Grande, D. (2018). Building self-esteem and improving relationships. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-it-together/201801/building-self-esteem-and-improving-relationships
• Hibbert, C. (2013). Self-esteem vs. self-worth. Dr. Christina Hibbert. Retrieved from https://www.drchristinahibbert.com/self-esteem-vs-self-worth/
• Morin, A. (2017). How do you measure your self-worth? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201707/how-do-you-measure-your-self-worth
• Roberts, E. (2012). The difference between self-esteem and self-confidence. Healthy Place. Retrieved from https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/buildingselfesteem/2012/05/the-difference-between-self-esteem-and-self-confidence
• Sicinski, A. (n.d.). How to build self-worth and start believing in yourself again. IQ Matrix. Retrieved from https://blog.iqmatrix.com/self-worth
• Stosny, S. (2014). How much do you value yourself? Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-entitlement/201406/how-much-do-you-value-yourself
• Wong, S. J. (n.d.). 13 things that don’t determine your self-worth. Shine. Retrieved from https://advice.shinetext.com/articles/12-things-that-dont-determine-your-self-worth/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

So, you check the appropriate boxes in a worksheet you somehow develop self worth?

This was very helpful, thank you. It encapsulated a lot of topics I wanted to touch on during therapy. Well-researched and written 🙂 Especially love how you linked how most people who struggle with self-worth, struggle with relationships.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter

As humans, we spend most of our life working to understand our personal identities. The question of “who am I?” is an age-old philosophical thought [...]

Discovering Self-Empowerment: 13 Methods to Foster It

In a world where external circumstances often dictate our sense of control and agency, the concept of self-empowerment emerges as a beacon of hope and [...]

How to Improve Your Client’s Self-Esteem in Therapy: 7 Tips

When children first master the expectations set by their parents, the experience provides them with a source of pride and self-esteem. As children get older, [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

3 Self-Compassion Tools (PDF)

• PRESENTATION SKILLS

Self-Presentation in Presentations

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Presentation Skills:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aspects of Personal Presentation

Your personal presentation includes:

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

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

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

What does the audience expect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your accessories should be consistent with your clothes.

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

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

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

The Importance of Self-Presentation

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

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

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

Self-Presentation also Includes Body Language and Voice.

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion…

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

Further Reading from Skills You Need

The Skills You Need Guide to Getting a Job

Develop the skills you need to get that job.

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

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

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

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))

2568 Accesses

59 Citations

66 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 PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• 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

12.2 Self-presentation

Learning objectives.

• 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 ( 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 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?

Connect the Concepts

Tweens, teens, and social norms.

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 ( 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 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 ( Figure 12.10 ).

Link to Learning

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.

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/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, Kathryn Dumper, William Jenkins, Arlene Lacombe, Marilyn Lovett, Marion Perlmutter
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology
• Publication date: Dec 8, 2014
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology/pages/12-2-self-presentation

© Feb 9, 2022 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.

Search form

You are here.

Self-Presentation: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Audiences We Have

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

• 25748 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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The long-term benefits of positive self-presentation via profile pictures, number of friends and the initiation of relationships on facebook for adolescents’ self-esteem and the initiation of offline relationships.

• Developmental Science and Applied Developmental Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Social networking sites are a substantial part of adolescents’ daily lives. By using a longitudinal approach the current study examined the impact of (a) positive self-presentation, (b) number of friends, and (c) the initiation of online relationships on Facebook on adolescents’ self-esteem and their initiation of offline relationships, as well as the mediating role of positive feedback. Questionnaire data were obtained from 217 adolescents (68% girls, mean age 16.7 years) in two waves. Adolescents’ positive self-presentation and number of friends were found to be related to a higher frequency of receiving positive feedback, which in turn was negatively associated with self-esteem. However, the number of Facebook friends had a positive impact on self-esteem, and the initiation of online relationships positively influenced the initiation of offline relationships over time, demonstrating that Facebook may be a training ground for increasing adolescents’ social skills. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

Introduction

According to the theoretical framework that defines “development as action in context,” individual development entails two aspects: (a) development is seen as the outcome of one’s intentional and goal-oriented behaviors that are related to specific contextual opportunities and (b) such behaviors evoke changes in the individual itself ( Silbereisen and Eyferth, 1986 ). Adolescents are therefore considered as active constructors of their own development ( Dreher and Oerter, 1986 ).

In this perspective, investigating the opportunities of adolescents’ self-presentation and initiation of relationships on social networking sites (SNSs) for two components of adolescents’ psychosocial development, including identity (self-esteem) and intimacy (initiation of relationships offline), is meaningful for several reasons.

First, adolescents are very likely to use SNSs such as Facebook, because they have a substantial need to communicate and stay in contact with their friends ( Peter et al., 2005 ) due to the rising interest in and significance of peers during adolescence ( Hartup, 1996 ; Harter, 1998 ). Second, identity development interacts with the need for self-presentation ( Harter, 1998 ), with Facebook satisfying this need in different ways. SNSs enable adolescents to demonstrate who they are by means of their Facebook profile and to gain positive feedback for doing so ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ). Positive feedback is especially beneficial when received from one’s peers ( Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner, 2011 ), which on Facebook is most likely.

However, presenting oneself to one’s peers in a face-to-face context, especially to other peers, may lead to awkward or anxious feelings ( Harter, 1999 ). Presenting oneself and initiating relationship online can help adolescents to overcome these uncomfortable feelings due to two features of computer-mediated communication (CMC) ( Walther, 1996 ): (a) the asynchronicity of communication, including self-presentation, and (b) reduced visual and auditory cues ( Walther, 1996 ; Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 ). An important consequence of these reduced cues is that adolescents become less concerned about how others perceive them and, therefore feel fewer inhibition in initiating contacts or presenting oneself ( Walther, 1996 ; Valkenburg and Peter, 2009a ; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016 ). In sum, CMC enables young individuals to experience a higher control over their self-presentation and relationship initiation compared to face-to-face interactions.

Finally, today’s adolescents spend a large amount of time on SNSs as they are the first generation of “digital natives” ( Prensky, 2001 ). For example, Tsitsika et al. (2014) examined across six European countries that 40% of the participants (aged 14–17 years) spent two or more hours daily on SNSs.

Given the great relevance of SNSs in adolescences’ daily lives, it is important to examine the consequences of its usage. Accumulating evidence suggests beneficial effects of different aspects of SNS usage on various psychological outcomes, such as increased life satisfaction ( Ellison et al., 2007 ; Valenzuela et al., 2009 ), self-esteem ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ; Van Zalk et al., 2014 ), subjective well-being ( Kim and Lee, 2011 ; Valkenburg et al., 2011 ), gaining social support ( Quinn and Oldmeadow, 2013 ; Oh et al., 2014 ; Van Zalk et al., 2014 ; Frison and Eggermont, 2015 ), developing a sense of belonging to a friendship group ( Quinn and Oldmeadow, 2013 ; Oh et al., 2014 ), as well as reduced feelings of loneliness ( Burke et al., 2010 ; Deters and Mehl, 2013 ).

Our research extends previous studies in investigating the impact of three different aspects of one’s positive Facebook use, namely positive self-presentation, number of friends and initiation of online relationships, on the developmental dimensions of (a) self-esteem and (b) the initiation of offline relationships. First, we investigate the long-term rather than the cross-sectional outcomes of different positive Facebook behaviors. Second, we examine an adolescent instead of a college sample. The investigation of this age group is relevant because certain SNS functions are related to developmental tasks in adolescence (e.g., Reich et al., 2012 ; Spies Shapiro and Margolin, 2014 ). Third, we examine the impact of specific positive Facebook behaviors rather than mere usage (e.g., frequency of use). Finally, we take positive feedback in terms of the frequency of receiving Likes from one’s Facebook friends as a mediating variable into account.

By examining the association of the usage of different Facebook features such as self-presentation, number of friends and the initiation of online relationships on adolescents’ self-esteem and their ability to initiate relationships offline we wish to illuminate the psychological process of adolescents’ SNSs use and its potential psychological benefits. We chose these specific aspects of positive Facebook behaviors because they represent crucial behaviors for adolescents’ psychological development in an online environment, such as communication and interaction with one’s friends as well as presenting one’s identity to significant others and getting feedback for doing ( Hartup, 1996 ; Harter, 1998 ).

Dimensions of Positive Facebook Behaviors

Positive self-presentation.

“Self-presentation can best be understood as selectively presenting aspects of one’s self to others” ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 , p. 122). It is practiced on Facebook when an individual creates his or her own profile, whereby multiple options for presenting oneself are provided ( Zhao et al., 2008 ; Pempek et al., 2009 ; Lee et al., 2014 ).

In our study, we focus on self-presentation through profile pictures because it has been posited as the most important instrument for self-presentation on SNSs ( Strano, 2008 ; Ivcevic and Ambady, 2013 ; Wu et al., 2015 ). The profile picture is the main representation of the profile owner ( Strano, 2008 ; Wu et al., 2015 ). It is the picture that accompanies the name of the profile owner and the first picture that potential new Facebook friends see before they send a friend request. It appears alongside every chat, comment, or “Like” of the user. Adolescents also indicated that they looked at the profile pictures on Facebook to find out more about a potential romantic partner, as this enables them to assess the character and personality of the other user ( Van Ouytsel et al., 2016 ).

As social media users are strategic in self-presentation ( van Dijck, 2013 ), the number of impressions of themselves individuals try to create is almost limitless. Research on strategic self-presentation in face-to-face environments has demonstrated that people are more likely to present themselves in an enhancing manner in an attempt to make the best possible impression ( Schlenker and Leary, 1982 ). Previous findings about online self-presentation demonstrate that in an SNS environment as well users have a tendency to present themselves positively ( Strano, 2008 ; Zhao et al., 2008 ; Gonzales and Hancock, 2011 ) as well as authentically ( Yang and Brown, 2016 ). People present themselves positively in the attempt to achieve social goals ( Schlenker and Leary, 1982 ), such as to get others to like them or to convince others of their competences and (social) skills ( Jones, 1990 ). Several studies have associated different aspects of self-presentation among adults on Facebook and positive responses from the SNS audience ( Liu and Brown, 2014 ; Yang and Brown, 2016 ). Positive self-presentation via profile pictures was found to predominantly elicit positive feedback in terms of receiving Likes on Facebook rather than evoking comments or getting shard ( Kim and Yang, 2017 ). One longitudinal study among adolescents suggests that active public Facebook use (e.g., frequency of posting videos on Facebook) is associated with positive responses on Facebook ( Frison and Eggermont, 2015 ), but the study did not examine specific positive self-presentational behaviors. Therefore, to our knowledge, so far no study links adolescents’ self-presentation to positive feedback. To fill this gap, we hypothesize: Positive self-presentation will increase positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends ( H1 ). Figure 1 summarizes the above-mentioned hypotheses.

FIGURE 1. Hypothesized model. For figure clarity, gender is not included in the figure.

Number of Friends

“Friends” in the context of Facebook refers to the number of people the user is connected with on Facebook. In contrast to public online chat-rooms in which interactions are primarily based on anonymous communication between unacquainted individuals, SNSs such as Facebook involve non-anonymous communication with known people from one’s offline world ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ). Multiple studies have shown that adolescents’ online and offline worlds are related ( Lenhart and Madden, 2007 ; Pempek et al., 2009 ; Van Zalk et al., 2014 ). Facebook friends have basically two functions: one the one hand they provide the audience for one’s self-presentation on Facebook, on the other hand they can actively participate in the users’ behaviors on Facebook by sending private messages, commenting, sharing or liking the actions of the other users. As a consequence, online friends become an important source of emotional and practical support ( Boyd, 2006 ), which in turn may contribute to mental health in adolescence ( Frison and Eggermont, 2015 ). Therefore, the number of friends on Facebook is considered as an important aspect of one’s positive Facebook use.

Several studies support a positive association between the number of friends and different forms of social feedback ( Kim and Lee, 2011 ; Manago et al., 2012 ; Nabi et al., 2013 ; Oh et al., 2014 ), positive interaction ( Oh et al., 2014 ); life satisfaction ( Manago et al., 2012 ; Oh et al., 2014 ) and well-being ( Kim and Lee, 2011 ; Manago et al., 2012 ; Nabi et al., 2013 ). It seems reasonable that a bigger network would increase the likelihood of receiving positive feedback on Facebook. Nevertheless no study so far addressed the association of the number of friends and positive feedback. Therefore, we assume: Number of friends will increase positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends ( H2 ).

Initiation of Online Relationships

The desire for social belonging is a fundamental motive to initiate and maintain social relationships ( Baumeister and Leary, 1995 ) and at the same time is one of the main motives to create a SNS profile ( Ellison et al., 2007 ; Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012 ; Reich et al., 2012 ; Spies Shapiro and Margolin, 2014 ).

Peer communication on SNSs is highly desirable because SNSs provide an environment in which the rules of the larger offline world can be practiced and reinforced ( Yang and Brown, 2013 ). The deep connection to others requires affirmation in the virtual environment, so that users perceive that the information they share with others is positively received ( Liu and Brown, 2014 ).

In the present study, we refer to the initiation of online relationships, in earlier studies also labeled the initiation of friendships, as a part of interpersonal competence (e.g., Buhrmester, 1990 ). Adolescent friendship demands greater facility in a number of close relationship competencies than in childhood, as they must be able to initiate conversations and relationships outside the classroom context ( Buhrmester, 1990 ) such as nowadays for instance in online environments. Youths who are incapable of initiating relationships may fail in developing intimate friendships. A lack of intimate friendships in turn may lead to fewer validating interactions with peers. As a result adolescents feel less secure, more anxious, and less worthy ( Buhrmester, 1990 ).

Adolescents who initiate contacts on SNSs more often may profit from these efforts in two interrelated ways. First, due to adolescents’ more frequent initiation of contacts with peers, other users become more aware of them. Second, they may be perceived as more socially likeable and therefore other users may be more willing to give positive feedback regarding their other Facebook behaviors (e.g., liking their profile pictures). This assumption follows the stimulation hypothesis that online communication leads to closer friendships among adolescents and that SNSs generally stimulate social interaction (e.g., Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ).

Previous research among adolescents focuses primarily on the association of online communication and internalizing problems following the compensation hypothesis. It states that young individuals who are uncomfortable interacting with peers in face-to-face contexts are able to meet their social needs through SNSs more easily and therefore benefit from their online communication ( McKenna et al., 2002 ). As certain channels of communication such as eye contact, tone of voice (e.g., shaking, high pitched) and facial expressions are not available on SNSs, introverted ( Peter et al., 2005 ), shy ( Orr et al., 2009 ), lonely ( Bonetti et al., 2010 ; Teppers et al., 2014 ), and social anxious adolescents ( Selfhout et al., 2009 ; Bonetti et al., 2010 ; Teppers et al., 2014 ) seem to profit from online communication. For example, the findings of Bonetti et al. (2010) found that lonely children and adolescents were motivated to use online communication significantly more frequently to compensate for their poorer social skills offline and by doing so fulfilled crucial needs of social interaction, self-disclosure and identity exploration. To expand the focus on the association of internalizing problems and adolescents’ online communication, we hypothesize: Initiation of online relationships will increase positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends ( H3 ).

Two Components of Adolescents’ Psychosocial Development: Self-Esteem and Initiation of Offline Relationships

Self-esteem.

All theories on self-esteem agree that individuals have the desire to maintain, protect, and enhance their self-esteem ( Rosenberg, 1989 ). Peer acceptance and interpersonal feedback on the self as well as the control over one’s environment are significant predictors of adolescents’ self-esteem and well-being ( Harter, 1999 , 2003 ). SNSs may provide adolescents with all three aspects. As discussed in the previous section, SNSs enable adolescents to control what they want to present to others and to initiate relationships in a safer context compared to face-to-face interactions ( Walther, 1996 ; Valkenburg and Peter, 2009a ; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016 ). This is important since an insufficient self-esteem among adolescents is considered to result in poorer mental and physical health during later life ( Trzesniewski et al., 2006 ). Following Mead’s (1934) theory of symbolic interaction, people internalize and experience themselves indirectly based on the attitudes of others. Therefore, individuals self-esteem reflects the ways others perceive and value them ( Heatherton and Wyland, 2003 ). Feeling accepted by others will increase one’s self-esteem, whereas feeling rejected will decrease one’s self-esteem. In line with this assumption, accumulating evidence among adults suggests a positive association of receiving affirmation on SNSs and self-esteem ( Gonzales and Hancock, 2011 ; Yang and Brown, 2016 ; Burrow and Rainone, 2017 ).

Little attention, however, has been paid to the impact of interpersonal feedback online from one’s peers on adolescents’ self-esteem. One early cross-sectional study found that the tone of feedback on their profile was related to individuals’ social self-esteem. Positive feedback was associated with an enhanced self-esteem, and negative feedback with a reduced self-esteem ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ). Yet the study did not examine the tone of reaction as a result of a specific SNS behavior (i.e., self-presentation) but merely as a result of the frequency of SNS use. By experimenting with their self-presentation, they can optimize the reactions and feedback from their peers and thus enhance their self-esteem ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 ). Thus, we hypothesize: Positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends will increase adolescents’ self-esteem ( H4 ).

Based on the “Capitalization Theory” (e.g., Sas et al., 2009 ), the number of friends on Facebook might remind the users of their social connections, which in turn would directly increase their self-esteem. According to the notion of a “friends” heuristic ( Nabi et al., 2013 ), the number of friends might predict self-esteem directly, because Facebook users are considered to apply a heuristic based on their number of friends to evaluate social support availability. Social support availability in turn might be perceived as a source of mental health benefits, such as self-esteem. Thus, we propose: The number of friends will have a direct positive impact on adolescents’ self-esteem ( H5 ).

Moreover, initiating social contacts with peers may foster self-esteem by increasing a feeling of social connectedness to others ( LaRose et al., 2001 ). Facebook offers adolescents the opportunity to talk about topics they like, such as music, or to share videos on a common interest, which may facilitate the initiation of relationships online and in turn have a positive impact on their self-esteem. Also online communications may enhance the feeling that one has a satisfactory number of communication partners to interact with ( Denissen et al., 2008 ) since every interaction with other users on Facebook is stored and can be retrieved at any time. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: Initiation of online relationships will have a direct positive impact on adolescents’ self-esteem ( H6 ).

Initiation of Offline Relationships

As the initiation and maintenance of friendship networks is considered a developmentally significant process during adolescence ( Hartup, 1996 ), it is crucial to examine how the use of SNSs contributes to “offline” social skills such as the initiation of offline relationships. Analogous to our understanding of the initiation of online relationships, we refer to the initiation of offline relationships as an aspect of interpersonal competence.

As positive feedback received from friends on SNSs was found to be the source of enhanced self-esteem ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ), it may be plausible that positive responses to one’s positive Facebook behaviors may also contribute to adolescents’ ability to initiate relationships online. Positive feedback may give adolescents the encouraging experience they need to initiate offline relationships confidently. Thus, we hypothesize: Positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends will increase adolescents’ initiation of offline relationships ( H7 ).

The network size will also positively influence adolescents’ ability to initiate offline relationships more easily in two interrelated ways. First, a higher number of friends offers the user more opportunities to communicate with a higher number of people offline due to the online-offline connection. Second, as Facebook displays a diverse range of information about every other user on the “newsfeed” section, such as events visited or activities undertaken, adolescents can build on this information to start an offline conversation. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: The number of friends will have a direct positive impact on adolescents’ initiation of offline relationships ( H8 ).

Through the initiation of online relationships, adolescents can practice and reinforce their communication abilities with a large number of other teens. These online communication opportunities in turn may carry over to adolescents’ offline lives, so that their offline social competence will improve ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2008 ). Indeed, adolescents indicate that they use online contexts to strengthen offline relationships ( Reich et al., 2012 ). Instant messaging with peers, which is comparable with sending private messages on Facebook, was for example found to have a positive impact on adolescents’ existing offline friendships ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009b ). This positive effect can be explained by adolescents’ tendency to disclose intimate information more frankly online than they might do offline ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009b ).

Nevertheless, research on the impact of specific online behaviors on offline social skills is scarce. One study determined that adolescents’ online communication with a wide variety of people stimulated their offline social competence ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2008 ). No study so far has investigated whether practicing social skills within SNSs may carry over to the users’ offline lives. Social interactions on SNSs might be especially beneficial for developing social skills due to the multiple features to interact with others. In addition they are perceived as less threatening than face-to-face interactions due to the heightened control over the interaction (e.g., Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 ). Thus, we hypothesize: The initiation of online relationships will have a direct positive impact on adolescents’ initiation of offline relationships ( H9 ).

The Hypothesized Model

Taken together, following the assumption of CMC ( Walther, 1996 ) that online communication enables adolescents to experience more control over their self-presentation and interaction with other peers, and the stimulation hypothesis (e.g., Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ) that the usage of different SNSs features stimulates young individuals interaction, we formulated the posited hypotheses. In addition, positive feedback could also indirectly increase adolescents’ self-esteem and their initiation of offline relationships over time, as previous research confirms the beneficial role of positive feedback online for individuals’ development ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ; Manago et al., 2012 ; Nabi et al., 2013 ; Yang and Brown, 2016 ). SNSs are designed to allow users to engage in different supportive interactions such as sharing and providing information, giving somebody encouragement or expressing appreciation, which may produce differential outcomes ( Oh et al., 2014 ). Especially in the period of adolescence positive feedback received from one’s peers is crucial ( Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner, 2011 ) due to rising interest in and significance of peers ( Hartup, 1996 ; Harter, 1998 ). For instance, Frison and Eggermont (2015) did not find support for a significant positive impact of active public Facebook use on adolescents’ perceptions of friend support. Only when positive feedback such as positive comments and Likes from the Facebook community were entered in their model, there was a positive relationship between active public Facebook use at T1, positive feedback at T2, and perceived friend support at T2 ( Frison and Eggermont, 2015 ). These results highlight the role of positive feedback in the relation between different types of Facebook use and adolescents’ well-being as a mediating factor. Consequently, we tested the indirect effects between the T1variables positive self-presentation, number of friends, and initiation of online relationships and T2 self-esteem and T2 initiation of offline relationships with the frequency of Likes as a mediating variable.

Materials and Methods

Sample and procedure.

The current study pursues a longitudinal approach by using online questionnaire data at two measurement points. Using survey questionnaire is considered appropriate as our approach primarily deals with participants’ individual differences and psychosocial characteristics. In this case survey questionnaires can help ensure the study’s external validity and provide generalizability ( Wrench et al., 2013 ).

At the first measurement point (September 2013 to January 2014), the URL of the online questionnaire was distributed via two channels: on spickmich.de , a German SNS, and in different Facebook groups that deal with the interests of adolescents. 869 participants retrieved the questionnaire. 703 remained after excluding participants who did not match the age range (14–17 years), who did not complete the questionnaire or who answered unreliably by speeding through the questionnaire. At the end of the questionnaire, participants had the opportunity to leave their e-mail address to receive the link for the online questionnaire at the second measurement point. 567 participants left their e-mail addresses to get an invitation for the second part of the study. All participants gave informed consent at both measurement points as approved by the Ethics Board of the FU-Berlin which did not deem parental consent necessary. The participants were also informed that they are allowed to ask for the deletion of their answers at any time as well as that all answers would be treated anonymously.

At T2 (September to November 2014) 295 participants retrieved the questionnaire. 283 participants actually started the survey by entering their identity code; this number was reduced to 241 subjects after excluding participants who did not fit the age range, who had no Facebook profile anymore, or answered the questionnaire double or stopped after giving their identity code. After matching the samples, 217 subjects remained after eliminating participants whose identity code could not be matched or did not complete the questionnaire. The average time span between survey completion in wave 1 and wave 2 amounts to 10 months.

The final sample consists of 148 girls (68.2%) and 69 boys (31.8%). Participants ranged in age from 14 to 18 years ( M = 16.7; SD = 1.03). Most (63.1%) were attending college-preparatory school (Gymnasium), 12.9% were attending vocational school (Realschule), 2.3% general/mixed school (Hauptschule) – all of which are different forms of German secondary schools – 18.4% were attending other forms of school; 3.2% reported not going to school anymore.

To examine whether attrition biased our sample, we examined the differences between those who participated in both waves and those who participated in one wave. More specifically, using Pillai’s trace, a MANOVA showed significant differences, F (6,615) = 3.196, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.03. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed that adolescents who participated in both waves scored significantly lower on positive self-presentation and on initiation of online relationships. Little’s (1988) Missing Completely At Random test indicated that the data were missing completely at random, χ 2 (2) = 3.704, p = 0.157.

Number of Facebook friends was measured by asking how many people were listed as “friends” in a participant’s Facebook profile. Since number of friends is a count variable that has a floor of zero and no ceiling, any distribution drawn from such a population would be expected to be positively skewed and thick-tailed. Indeed, the variable revealed both skewness (4.43 t1 ; 6.76 t2 ) and kurtosis (34.12 t1 ; 70.32 t2 ). Because this violates the normality and homoscedasticity assumptions of regression models, we used a log-normalized distribution in our longitudinal model that showed much improved skewness and kurtosis.

Positive self-presentation was measured by a 5-item scale that assesses the extent to which participants selectively show positive aspects of themselves through profile pictures on Facebook. Each of the five items had five response categories, ranging from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( very often ). The scale formed a unidimensional structure and showed satisfactory internal consistencies in both waves. A complete list of the of the positive presentation variables is provided in Table 1 .

TABLE 1. Mean values, standard deviations, and reliabilities of study variables.

Positive feedback was assessed by asking the participants to rate the frequency of Likes that they received in response to their self-presentation through profile pictures on a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always ).

Self-esteem was assessed with one subscale of the “Inventar zu Selbstkonzept und Selbstvertrauen” (“Inventory of self-concept and self-confidence”) ( Fend et al., 1984 ), which is an adaption of Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale. The subscale contains eight items (e.g. “In general I’m satisfied with myself” or “In my opinion, I’m ok”) using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( disagree ) to 4 ( agree ). Four items were reversed and therefore later converted back.

Initiation of online and offline relationships on Facebook were assessed with two subscales, each with four items. The items were adopted from Valkenburg and Peter (2008) , based on several earlier instruments measuring different aspects of social competence among adolescents (i.e., Buhrmester et al., 1988 ). For our research purposes we used four items of the subscale “initiation of offline relationships.” Response options ranged from 1 ( very difficult ) to 5 ( very easy ). Furthermore, we transferred the items to an online context to assess the ability to initiate relationships and interactions on Facebook. This scale also contained four items with a 5-point Likert scale. Both scales formed a unidimensional structure and showed satisfactory internal consistencies in both waves. A complete item list of the initiation of online as well as offline relationships variables is provided in Table 1 .

Descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the scales at both waves are provided in Table 1 . The reliability of the composite scores was estimated by McDonald’s ω ( McDonald, 1999 ) as the use of Cronbachs’s α as either a reliability or internal consistency index has been strongly criticized in the psychometric literature because it is based on the assumption of τ-equivalent items, an assumption only rarely met in empirical data ( Sijtsma, 2009 ). The zero-order correlations among the key variables are provided in Table 2 .

TABLE 2. Zero-order correlations among the key variables at both measurement points.

Strategy of Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using the statistical programs IBM SPSS Statistics 22 ( SPSS, 2013 ) and the Structural Equation Modeling software Mplus 7 ( Muthén and Muthén , 1998–2012 ), using the maximum likelihood method. The final longitudinal sample of 217 students was used. A longitudinal path analysis was conducted using continuous variables, computed through mean scores (except for the number of Facebook friends and positive feedback). The bootstrapping method was used to assess the significance of indirect pathways ( MacKinnon, 2008 ).

In the longitudinal model, T2 self-esteem and initiation of offline relationships were regressed on the T1 mediator positive feedback for profile pictures (H4 and H7), and this mediator was regressed on the T1 variables positive self-presentation, number of Facebook friends, and initiation of online relationships (H1–3). To test the direct effects, T2 self-esteem was regressed on the T1 number of friends (H5) and the T1 initiation of online relationships (H6). Moreover, T2 initiation of offline relationships was regressed on the T1 number of friends (H8) and the T1 initiation of online relationships (H9). Because Pillai’s trace showed that there were gender differences, F (10,186) = 3.361, p = 0.000, η p 2 = 0.058, in positive feedback for profile pictures at T1 and T2 with girls scoring higher, and in number of Facebook friends at T2, the initiation of online relationships at T2, and the initiation of offline relationships at T1 and T2 with boys scoring higher, we controlled for the baseline values of participants’ gender by adding them as predictors for all of the hypothesized endogenous variables in our model (i.e., positive feedback at T1, self-esteem at T2, and initiation of offline relationships at T2). Participants’ age was not included in the model because the previous multivariate test did not reveal any effects at any measurement point, Pillai’s Trace F (30,564) = 1.168, p = 0.249, η p 2 = 0.058. We further allowed control paths between T1 self-esteem, T1 initiation of offline relationships and T1 positive feedback, following the assumptions that individuals with a higher self-esteem and a higher ability to initiate interactions offline might have more chances to elicit positive feedback as they probably have healthier relationships. Furthermore, we added prior values as control variables. More specifically, self-esteem at T1 predicted self-esteem at T2 and initiation of offline relationships at T1 predicted the initiation of offline relationships at T2.

The model fit the data well on all of the conventional goodness-of-fit indices: χ 2 (2) = 5.290, p = 0.36, RMSEA = 0.039, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.983, SRMR = 0.01. Path coefficients of the model are presented in Table 3 . Figure 2 visualizes the observed path model. The coefficients in Figure 2 are standardized betas. In line with H1 and H2, T1 positive self-presentation and number of friends were associated with positive feedback at T1 (β = 0.37, p = 0.000; β = 0.23, p = 0.001). However, T1 initiation of online relationships was not related to positive feedback at T1 (H3) (β = -0.03, p = 0.722). Contrary to expectation, positive feedback was not related to T2 initiation of offline relationships (H7) (β = 0.03, p = 0.544). Also contrary to our expectations was the only significant indirect path: T1 positive self-presentation was negatively related to T2 self-esteem via T1 positive feedback (H4) (β = -0.07, p = 0.001). As expected, T1 number of friends was related to a higher level of T2 self-esteem (H5) (β = 0.11, p = 0.034) and T1 initiation of online relationships was positively related to T2 initiation of offline relationships (H9) (β = 0.19, p = 0.003). But T1 number of friends was not related to T2 initiation of offline relationships (H8) (β = 0.11, p = 0.109), and there was no association between initiation of online relationships at T1 and T2 self-esteem (H6) (β = -0.06, p = 0.295). Females reported a more frequent positive feedback at T1 (β = 0.30, p = 0.000).

TABLE 3. Path analysis results.

FIGURE 2. Model examining the relationship between aspects of one’s positive Facebook use, and gender and the outcomes self-esteem and initiation of offline relationships. The reported statistics are standardized coefficients. All displayed paths are significant. The thin lines represent direct paths. The thick lines represent an indirect path.

As “adolescence is traditionally considered to be the period in life when peer influences are most intense” ( Kandel, 1986 , p. 204), the current study aimed to gain more insight into the impact of different positive Facebook behaviors on adolescents’ self-esteem and the initiation of offline relationships.

In accordance with H1, positive self-presentation at T1 predicted a higher level of T1 positive feedback from the Facebook community. These findings are in line with previous research into the association of positive self-presentation and positive feedback ( Yang and Brown, 2016 ). On the one hand this might be simply explained by the fact that by editing one’s Facebook profile more often, the user more often becomes the focus of attention of the audience. On the other hand positivity expressed through specific profile pictures may pay off. This is even more significant in the light of the findings of Forest and Wood (2012) that people who post status updates expressing high negativity are less liked than people with status updates expressing high positivity. Even a recent neurological research study could demonstrate a positive association between self-presentation via profile pictures and positive feedback on Facebook. Adolescents who viewed photographs posted to Facebook that had received more Likes demonstrated greater activation of neural regions involved in reward processing ( Sherman et al., 2016 ).

As expected, the number of friends was positively related to positive feedback from one’s Facebook friends (H2). Contrary to our expectation, however, there was no relationship between the initiation of online relationships and the frequency of Likes (H3), presumably because of the more private nature of this specific Facebook behavior, which is not visible to the whole Facebook audience. Moreover, the initiation of online relationships might evoke other forms of feedback such as private messages or comments rather than Likes. In line with this assumption, a recent study demonstrates that individuals are more likely to like a post containing photos while they were more prone to comment on posts containing text information ( Kim and Yang, 2017 ).

As recent research demonstrates that “getting feedback on content you have posted” is a major reason for using Facebook for some individuals ( Smith, 2014 ), the questions arises what meaning a Like has for an individual. Since a Like only takes one click, it may be an easy way to express respect, affirmation or support. Although we did not examine whether Likes are directly perceived as beneficial, we believe that a Like clearly expresses a positive appreciative reaction and is generally perceived as such. This assumption builds on several findings regarding the meaning of Likes and their link to other psychological outcomes. Lee et al. (2014) for example found that a Like is positively related to building social capital and to bonding, which expresses the social value of a Like. Scissors et al. (2016) argue that Likes are social cues that are perceived as signals for social appropriateness or social acceptance and therefore may express psychological support and empathy in an online setting. Based on survey data as well as data from content analysis, individuals indicated that Likes represent signals of like-mindedness or support. The fact that adolescents are especially vulnerable to feedback from others ( Zimmer-Gembeck and Skinner, 2011 ) and that positive feedback on Facebook is mostly provided by one’s peers emphasizes the importance of this kind of social valuing.

In contrast to our expectations, T1 positive feedback did not have an impact on T2 initiation of offline relationships. Moreover, we were surprised to find one indirect effect with a relationship that contrasted our expectation: T1 positive self-presentation was negatively related to T2 self-esteem via T1 positive feedback. While some researchers found an association between positive feedback and enhanced self-esteem ( Valkenburg et al., 2006 ; Yang and Brown, 2016 ) using cross-sectional data, Yang and Brown’s (2016) longitudinal approach did not reveal this relationship. This may be due to the fact that our two measurement points were chosen too close to one another to demonstrate an impact of this kind of lightweight feedback on individuals’ self-esteem and initiation of offline relationships. It is also possible that self-esteem is more sensitive to concurrent stimuli ( Yang and Brown, 2016 ).

Nevertheless, the finding of a negative indirect effect may hold for several reasons. As Likes are an element of one’s self-presentation online, people with certain personality traits may view and value Likes differently than others ( Scissors et al., 2016 ). For instance, people with low self-esteem or socially anxious individuals may value Likes more because they have a greater need to feel socially accepted ( Leary et al., 1995 ). Relying on affirmation from others to feel good about oneself may be an expression of limited self-esteem, which can undermine well-being over time ( Kernis et al., 2000 ).

Besides internalizing problems, there are other personality traits that may have affected our results. For instance, according to Seidman (2013) neuroticism was positively associated with the tendency to express ideal and hidden aspects of the self. Some adolescents in our study may have expressed their ideal rather than their actual self. In this case positive feedback from one’s peers on their presented profile pictures would not be linked to the self-esteem development or would affect it negatively. As we did not assess personality traits in our study, we cannot rule out these variables could modulate our hypothesized relationships.

Additionally, social comparison may cause our finding. Young individuals are particularly likely to engage in social (upward or downward) comparison and these types of comparisons can have a strong impact on their self-esteem ( Krayer et al., 2008 ). SNSs such as Facebook make it easy for adolescents to compare themselves to peers simply by looking through the profile page of another user. For example, female adolescents on SNSs reported a more negative body image after looking at pictures of other females with a high physical attractiveness versus a low physical attractiveness ( Haferkamp and Kramer, 2011 ). Participants in our study may be confronted with especially attractive peers and therefore the positive feedback may not be sufficient enough to boost their self-esteem, or even diminish it. Also, as adolescents present themselves positively on SNSs, so do their Facebook friends. The online exposure to their friends’ positive, socially desirable moments (e.g., visiting a party) may lead to a higher level of social comparison ( Neira and Barber, 2014 ). Similar to the “friendship paradox” (the belief that your friends have more friends than you do) ( Forest and Wood, 2012 ), Scissors et al. (2016) describe a “Like paradox,” whereby people feel that their Facebook friends receive more Likes than they do because their friends have more Facebook contacts to provide those Likes. Individuals with lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels of self-monitoring are more likely to think that Likes are meaningful and consequently feel upset when they do not receive an appropriate number of Likes ( Scissors et al., 2016 ).

Finally, more elaborate feedback (e.g., comments or sharing content) from one’s friends may be perceived as more beneficial than Likes alone and therefore may have affected the psychological outcomes in a longitudinal setting differently. According to Calero (2013) having one’s post shared weighs approximately as much as receiving two comments, each of which has roughly the weight of seven Likes.

While profile pictures are the most important instruments for self-presentation on SNSs ( Strano, 2008 ; Ivcevic and Ambady, 2013 ; Wu et al., 2015 ), there are many additional ways to create an online identity (e.g., Pempek et al., 2009 ; Lee et al., 2014 ) and benefit from the positive feedback from one’s peers. For instance, Pempek et al. (2009) found that emerging adults used information about religion, political ideology, their work, education, and their preferences for music on their Facebook profiles to express their identity online.

In accordance with H5, T1 number of Facebook friends was positively related to adolescents’ T2 self-esteem. This finding suggests that online friends can be an important source of adolescents’ self-esteem and it is consistent with previous findings that emphasize the beneficial role of number of friends in online settings (e.g., Nabi et al., 2013 ).

T1 initiation of online relationships, however, did not predict T2 self-esteem (H6). This finding is in line with findings by Van Zalk et al. (2011) among university students. They found that chatting with friends as well as with peers that the user knows exclusively online was not significantly associated with self-esteem longitudinally. They only found for less extraverted individuals that chatting with peers found exclusively online was significantly related to higher self-esteem, as well as to fewer depressive symptoms through heightened supportiveness. Their results confirm the social compensation rather than the stimulation hypothesis (e.g., Peter et al., 2005 ).

As expected, the initiation of online relationships had a direct positive impact on the initiation of offline relationships (H9). The skills practiced online seem to carry over to an offline context. As the ability to create and maintain new relationships becomes especially crucial in adolescence ( Hartup, 1996 ), this is a very encouraging result. Aside from the theoretical contribution, this finding points to the role of SNSs as a training ground where the initiation of relationships can be trained probably due to the fact that online communication is perceived as less threatening than face-to-face interactions ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ). Therefore, practitioners among adolescent disciplines could be advised to encourage adolescents to use SNSs for communication purposes.

Unlike H8, T1 number of friends was not related to T2 initiation of offline relationships. As argued above, actively making contact seems more important than the mere number of friends.

Finally, gender was found to be a significant predictor, with girls receiving more Likes for their positive self-presentation on Facebook. This finding is in line with previous research that female users receive more reactions and replies on their online blog entries than boys do ( Mazur and Kozarian, 2010 ; Hong et al., 2017 ). As girls generally are more interested in the social aspect of SNSs ( Lenhart and Madden, 2007 ; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ; Valkenburg et al., 2011 ), they might try more carefully to make a positive impression with the consequence of getting more positive feedback.

As adolescence is a time of struggle to find a balance between autonomy and connectedness as well as to explore one’s identity ( Spies Shapiro and Margolin, 2014 ), SNSs such as Facebook provide a crucial context for reflecting upon and trying out new identities, for learning and attempting new social skills, and for establishing affiliations. Except for the negative indirect path, our results suggest on the whole positive consequences of adolescents’ Facebook use and thereby confirming the stimulation hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, SNSs enable adolescents in general to self-disclose and present oneself to others more freely in comparison to face-to-face communication ( McKenna and Bargh, 2000 ). Online environments are less threatening contexts in which young individuals can share information about oneself more freely due to reduced visual and auditory cues, and the asynchronicity of communication (CMC, e.g., Walther, 1996 ). With self-presentation facilitating relationship intimacy, this hypothesis also states that online communication leads to higher social skills among young individuals ( McKenna and Bargh, 2000 ). Adolescents’ connectedness to their peers (number of friends) on Facebook is positively related to receiving positive feedback on the one hand, and to a higher self-esteem over time on the other hand. Friendships in the period of adolescence require trust, self-disclosure (including self-presentation), loyalty and support ( Collins and Steinberg, 2006 ) and Facebook opens multiple options for these behaviors. Through their self-presentation via profile pictures adolescents are able to express their belonging to other peers as well as other positive aspects of oneself. Their initiation of online relationships seems to carry over to their offline social skills. In sum, and in line with previous research, the motives to engage in SNS activities are quite similar to those in face-to-face contexts: to maintain existing offline friendships ( Subrahmanyam et al., 2008 ; Reich et al., 2012 ), make plans with friends, and get to know people better ( Lenhart and Madden, 2007 ; Pempek et al., 2009 ). Building on our findings adolescents should be encouraged to engage in these forms of active Facebook activities.

This perspective is in line with the most recent research on the impact of adolescents’ Facebook use on the six “Cs” (competence, confidence, connection, character, compassion/caring, and contribution) of the positive youth development (PYD) framework ( Lee and Horsley, 2017 ). They found that the participants of their study could use Facebook as an effective tool to plan and organize leisure activities which in turn influenced adolescents’ social competence and social connections positively over time ( Lee and Horsley, 2017 ).

Besides multiple benefits of adolescents’ SNSs usage, we are aware that several potential costs of SNS usage emerge, including the risk of becoming a victim of online attacks such as sexual solicitation, the potential for a disproportionate amount of negative feedback, and the possibility of unhealthy social comparisons, as noted earlier. The findings of Dredge et al. (2014) for example suggest that specific self-presentation behaviors in adolescence such as the type of relationship status and the number of friends were related to a higher level of cyberbullying victimization. As adolescence is a period of physical changes, including sexual development ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 ), teenage girls were found to present themselves more seductively in profile pictures than boys did in teen chat-rooms (e.g., wearing only underwear) ( Kapidzic and Herring, 2011 ).

Limitations

In interpreting findings from this study, several limitations should be kept in mind. First, our model is not an exhaustive one. Although we included different types of Facebook behavior thought to have a positive impact on adolescents’ development, there are other predictors, mediators, and identity outcomes that should be studied in the future. For instance, we focused on positive self-presentation via profile pictures because it has been posited as the most crucial instrument for self-presentation on SNSs ( Strano, 2008 ; Ivcevic and Ambady, 2013 ; Wu et al., 2015 ). However, studying self-presentation via status updates might also be an important source for online affirmation and further positive outcomes ( Forest and Wood, 2012 ; Deters and Mehl, 2013 ).

The second set of limitations concerns the design of the study and how some of these variables were measured. The longitudinal design does not allow us to draw causal inferences regarding the relationships among variables due to the correlational nature of the study. For example self-esteem and initiation of offline relationships could have influenced self-presentation at the first measurement point, especially given the small time span between the two waves. Future studies should thus use experimental settings as much as possible to show causal effects. Besides the question about the meaning of Likes, one might discuss the accuracy of the self-reported frequency of Likes, since previous research has shown that individuals tend to overestimate the rate of feedback on SNSs ( Bernstein et al., 2013 ). Moreover, the use of a 5-point Likert scale to define positive feedback might be too subjective. As noted earlier, individuals with lower levels of self-esteem and higher levels of self-monitoring seem to value Likes more ( Scissors et al., 2016 ) than people with higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of self-monitoring. As a consequence, a user with low self-esteem/high self-monitoring may be disappointed by getting few Likes per picture whereas a user with high self-esteem/low self-monitoring may be pleased with it. Another limitation concerns the simultaneous acquisition of positive feedback as a mediator variable.

Furthermore, there are additional potential limitations concerning self-report biases. For example, social desirability could cause a response artifact ( Edwards, 1957 ). That applies in the present study especially to questions about the number of friends and the frequency of Likes as these questions may inadvertently draw inflated answers because of adolescents’ desire to appear more popular. Additional measurements, such as judges’ ratings or content analysis, would contribute to clarify this issue.

Thirdly, the high attrition may have influenced the findings. As preliminary analysis have revealed that adolescents who participated in both waves scored significantly lower on positive self-presentation and on initiation of online relationships, it is possible that personality traits or internalizing problems such as shyness or introversion may have affected the results. As previous research shows that shy and introverted individuals have favorable attitudes toward SNSs ( Peter et al., 2005 ; Orr et al., 2009 ), these users may have been more interested in its usage and therefore in the subject of the study. In the same way, extraverted or self-confident adolescents may have chosen not to participate in both waves, because of a lack of interest. Future studies should therefore investigate potential mediating and moderating variables, such as adolescents’ personality traits, to provide deeper insight into the relationship between positive Facebook use, and adolescents’ psychosocial development. Although the attrition between the two measurement points is an important limitation in our study, high attrition is commonly observed in adolescence samples (e.g., Valkenburg and Peter, 2009b ).

The final set of limitations pertains to the sample. We used a non-representative convenience sample. Participants usually have an affinity for the subject addressed by the survey and therefore consider it interesting enough to invest time responding to the questionnaire. Their affinity for the use of Facebook may have influenced the responses and hence the results. Despite the non-representative nature of our study there are some similarities to two representative studies among 1,200 adolescents in Germany in 2013 and 2014 (JIM-study [Youth, Information, and (Multi) Media]; Feierabend et al., 2013 , 2014 ). Both in the JIM-study of 2013 and our study participants at T1 had on average 290 Facebook friends. Also, 78.8% of our participants (T1) visited Facebook 4–7 times a week compared to 75% of participants from the JIM-study of 2013 who visited Facebook daily or several times a week. Further similarities exist between the JIM-study 2014 and our sample at wave 2. Most of the participants were students (78.3% our sample vs. 87% JIM-study 2014) and the majority of them were attending college-preparatory school (63.1% vs. 85% JIM-study 2014). Moreover, the majority of adolescents aged 14–15 (62%) and 16–17 (75%) used Facebook on a daily basis or several times a week compared to 80.4 and 86.6%, respectively, in our sample at T2.

Despite these limitations, the results from the present study extend prior research by developing an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between specific types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ self-esteem and their initiation of relationships offline. More specifically, by integrating the process of adolescents’ identity and social development into the theoretical framework of CMC ( Walther, 1996 ), the present study found empirical support for the stimulation hypothesis: The initiation of online relationships had a direct positive impact on the initiation of offline relationships, and the number of friends was positively associated with adolescents’ self-esteem over time. SNSs, such as Facebook may serve as a training ground to practice social skills in a less threatening context compared with face-to-face interactions ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2007 ). Besides these positive effects for the psychosocial development of young individuals, we found a negative indirect association of positive self-presentation, the frequency of positive feedback, and adolescents’ self-esteem over time.

Author Contributions

The present study is based on a personal initiative of the first author AM. The conception, sampling, analysis, and interpretation of the data were executed by AM. HS was providing input, support and feedback for every part of the study. AM drafted the manuscript. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Both researchers agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access Publication Fund of the Freie Universität Berlin.

Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernstein, M. S., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., and Karrer, B. (2013). “Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (New York, NY: ACM), 21–30. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470658

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonetti, L., Campbell, M. A., and Gilmore, L. (2010). The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children’s and adolescents’ online communication. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Network. 13, 279–285. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0215

Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Myspace Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1418/1336

Google Scholar

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Dev. 61, 1101–1111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02844.x

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., and Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55, 991–1008. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.991

Burke, M., Marlow, C., and Lento, T. (2010). “Social network activity and social well-being,” in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery), 1909–1912. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753613

Burrow, A. L., and Rainone, N. (2017). How many likes did I get?: purpose moderates links between positive social media feedback and self-esteem. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69, 232–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.005

Calero, A. (2013). Likes vs. Comments vs. Shares. Available at: http://www.antoniocalero.com/2013/05/06/facebook-likes-comments-shares

Collins, W. A., and Steinberg, L. (2006). “Adolescent development in interpersonal context,” in Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development , eds N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley), 1003–1067.

Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., and Van Aken, M. A. G. (2008). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 181–196. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.181

Deters, F. G., and Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4, 579–586. doi: 10.1177/1948550612469233

Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., and de la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Presentation on Facebook and risk of cyberbullying victimisation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 40, 16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.035

Dreher, E., and Oerter, R. (1986). “Children’s and adolescents’ conceptions of adulthood: the changing view of a crucial developmental task,” in Development as Action in Context , eds R. K. Silbereisen and K. Eyferth (Berlin: Springer), 109–120.

Edwards, A. (1957). The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research. New York, NY: Dryden.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Med. Commun. 12, 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Feierabend, S., Plankenhorn, T., and Rathgeb, T. (2013). Studie 2013. Jugend, Information, (Multi) Media [JIM-Study 2013. Youth, Information, and (Multi) Media]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest.

Feierabend, S., Plankenhorn, T., and Rathgeb, T. (2014). JIM-Studie 2014. Jugend, Information, (Multi) Media [JIM-Study 2014. Youth, Information, and (Multi) Media]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverband Südwest.

Fend, H., Helmke, A., and Richter, P. (1984). Inventar zu Selbstkonzept und Selbstvertrauen. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.

Forest, A. L., and Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychol. Sci. 23, 295–302. doi: 10.1177/0956797611429709

Frison, E., and Eggermont, S. (2015). Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Commun. Res. 1, 1–28. doi: 10.1177/0093650215617506

Gonzales, A. L., and Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Network. 14, 79–83. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0411

Haferkamp, N., and Kramer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Network. 14, 309–314. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0120

Harter, S. (1998). “The development of self-representations,” in Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. Handbook of Child Psychology , 5th Edn, Vol. 3, ed. N. Eisenberg (New York, NY: John Wiley), 553–617.

Harter, S. (1999). The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. New York, NY: Guilford.

Harter, S. (2003). “The development of self-representation during childhood and adolescence,” in Handbook of Self and Identity , eds M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 611–642.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company we keep: friendship and their developmental significance. Child Dev. 67, 1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01714.x

Heatherton, T. F., and Wyland, C. L. (2003). “Assessing self-esteem,” in Positive Psychological Assessment: A Handbook of Models and Measures , eds S. J. Lopez and C. R. Snyder (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 219–233. doi: 10.1037/10612-014

Hong, C., Chen, Z., and Li, C. (2017). “Liking” and being “liked”: how are personality traits and demographics associated with giving and receiving “likes” on Facebook? Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 292–299. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.048

Ivcevic, Z., and Ambady, N. (2013). Face to (face) book: the two faces of social behavior? J. Pers. 81, 290–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00804.x

Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal Perception. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Kandel, D. B. (1986). “Processes of peer influence in adolescence,” in Development as Action in Context , eds R. K. Silbereisen and K. Eyferth (Berlin: Springer), 203–227.

Kapidzic, S., and Herring, S. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: have patterns changed? J. Comput. Med. Commun. 17, 39–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01561.x

Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D. J., Wheatman, S. R., and Goldman, B. N. (2000). Master of one’s psychological domain? Not likely if one’s self-esteem is unstable. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1297–1305. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262010

Kim, C., and Yang, S.-U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: how each behavior differs from the other. Public Relat. Rev. 43, 441–449. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006

Kim, J., and Lee, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Network. 14, 359–364. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

Krayer, A., Ingledew, D. K., and Iphofen, R. (2008). Social comparison and body image in adolescence: a grounded theory approach. Health Educ. Res. 23, 892–903. doi: 10.1093/her/cym076

LaRose, R., Mastro, D., and Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding internet usage: a social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 19, 395–413. doi: 10.1177/089443930101900401

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., and Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: the sociometer hypothesis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 518–530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

Lee, A. R., and Horsley, J. S. (2017). The role of social media on positive youth development: an analysis of 4-H Facebook page and 4-H’ers’ positive development. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 77, 127–138. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.04.014

Lee, E., Kim, Y. J., and Ahn, J. (2014). How do people use Facebook features to manage social capital? Comput. Hum. Behav. 36, 440–445. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.007

Lenhart, A., and Madden, M. (2007). Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2007/04/18/teens-privacy-and-online-social-networks/

Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 1198–1202. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

Liu, D., and Brown, B. B. (2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among Chinese college students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 38, 213–219. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.003

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., and Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: the anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Dev. Psychol. 48, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0026338

Mazur, E., and Kozarian, L. (2010). Self-presentation and interaction in blogs of adolescents and young emerging adults. J. Adolesc. Res. 25, 124–144. doi: 10.1177/0743558409350498

McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McKenna, K. Y., and Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4, 57–75. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6

McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., and Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: what’s the big attraction? J. Soc. Issues 58, 9–31. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00246

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide , 7th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.

Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., and So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Network. 16, 721–727. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0521

Nadkarni, A., and Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Pers. Ind. Diff. 52, 243–249. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Neira, B. C. J., and Barber, B. L. (2014). Social networking site use: Linked to adolescents’ social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Austr. J. Psychol. 66, 56–64. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12034

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

Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., and Orr, R. R. (2009). The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 12, 337–340. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0214

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., and Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 30, 227–238. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M., and Schouten, A. P. (2005). Developing a model of adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 8, 423–430. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.423

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon 9, 1–6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816

Quinn, S., and Oldmeadow, J. A. (2013). Is the igeneration a “we” generation? Social networking use among 9- to 13-year-olds and belonging. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 31, 136–142. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12007

Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., and Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-to-face: overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social networks. Dev. Psychol. 48, 356–368. doi: 10.1037/a0026980

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400876136

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: modeling reciprocal effects. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54, 1004–1018. doi: 10.2307/2095720

Sas, C., Dix, A., Hart, J., and Su, R. (2009). “Dramaturgical capitalization of positive emotions: The answer for Facebook success?,” in Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology , (Swinton: British Computer Society), 120–129. doi: 10.1145/1671011.1671025

Schlenker, B. R., and Leary, M. R. (1982). Audiences’ reactions to self-enhancing, self-denigrating, and accurate self-presentations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 18, 89–104. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(82)90083-X

Scissors, L., Burke, M., and Wengrovitz, S. (2016). “What’s in a like?: attitudes and behaviors around receiving Likes on Facebook,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing , (New York, NY: ACM), 1501–1510. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2820066

Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivations. Pers. Ind. Diff. 54, 402–407. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009

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

Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., and Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1027–1035. doi: 10.1177/0956797616645673

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74, 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

Silbereisen, R. K., and Eyferth, K. (1986). “Development as action in context,” in Development as Action in Context , eds R. K. Silbereisen and K. Eyferth (Berlin: Springer), 3–16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-02475-1_1

Smith, A. (2014). 6 New Facts about Facebook. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/

Spies Shapiro, L. A., and Margolin, G. (2014). Growing up wired: social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 17, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10567-013-0135-1

SPSS (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, release 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.

Strano, M. M. (2008). User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology 2, 5.

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., and Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29, 420–433. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22282

Teppers, E., Luyckx, K., Klimstra, T. A., and Goossens, L. (2014). Loneliness and Facebook motives in adolescence: a longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect. J. Adolesc. 37, 691–699. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.11.003

Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., Poulton, R., and Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 42, 381–390. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.381

Tsitsika, A. K., Tzavela, E. C., Janikian, M., Ólafsson, K., Iordache, A., Schoenmakers, T. M., et al. (2014). Online social networking in adolescence: patterns of use in six European countries and links with psychosocial functioning. J. Adolesc. Health 55, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.010

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., and Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 14, 875–901. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x

Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 12, 1169–1182. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x

Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet. Commun. Res. 35, 208–231. doi: 10.1177/0093650207313164

Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2009a). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents. A decade of research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x

Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2009b). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: a longitudinal study. J. Commun. 59, 79–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x

Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: an integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. J. Adolesc. Health 48, 121–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020

Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., and Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 9, 584–590. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584

Valkenburg, P. M., Sumter, S. R., and Peter, J. (2011). Gender differences in online and offline self-disclosure in pre-adolescence and adolescence. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 29, 253–269. doi: 10.1348/2044-835X.002001

van Dijck, J. (2013). “You have one identity”: performing the self on facebook and linkedin. Media Cult. Soc. 35, 199–215. doi: 10.1177/0163443712468605

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., and Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 76–86. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042

Van Zalk, M. H., Branje, S. J., Denissen, J., Van Aken, M. A., and Meeus, W. H. (2011). Who benefits from chatting, and why? The roles of extraversion and supportiveness in online chatting and emotional adjustment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 1202–1215. doi: 10.1177/0146167211409053

Van Zalk, M. H. W., Van Zalk, N., Kerr, M., and Stattin, H. (2014). Influences between online-exclusive, conjoint, and offline-exclusive friendship networks: the moderating role of shyness. Eur. J. Pers. 28, 134–146. doi: 10.1002/per.1895

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23, 3–43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001

Wrench, J. S., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V. P., and McCroskey, J. C. (2013). Quantitative Research Methods for Communication: A Hands-on Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wu, Y.-C. J., Chang, W.-H., and Yuan, C.-H. (2015). Do Facebook profile pictures reflect user’s personality? Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 880–889. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.014

Yang, C. C., and Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. J. Youth Adolesc. 42, 403–416. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x

Yang, C. C., and Brown, B. B. (2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self development during the college transition. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 402–416. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., and Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 1816–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., and Skinner, S. A. (2011). The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: an integrative review and critique of research. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 35, 1–17. doi: 10.1177/0165025410384923

Keywords : adolescents, Facebook use, self-presentation, profile pictures, number of friends, self-esteem, initiation of relationships, computer-mediated communication

Citation: Metzler A and Scheithauer H (2017) The Long-Term Benefits of Positive Self-Presentation via Profile Pictures, Number of Friends and the Initiation of Relationships on Facebook for Adolescents’ Self-Esteem and the Initiation of Offline Relationships. Front. Psychol. 8:1981. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01981

Received: 31 July 2017; Accepted: 30 October 2017; Published: 15 November 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Metzler and Scheithauer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anna Metzler, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Module 3: The Self

Module Overview

Human beings, by their very nature, are prone to focus on the self and to engage in behavior to protect it. Module 3 will cover some of the ways this occurs. We will start by focusing on the self-concept or who we are and self-schemas. We will also discuss self-perception theory, possible selves, the self-reference effect, self-discrepancies, how others affect our sense of self, and cultural differences of the self. Then we will tackle the issue of self-esteem and its two forms – global and domain specific. Self-esteem across the life span and gender and cross-cultural differences will be examined. We will discuss how self-esteem is affected, and protected, when mortality is made salient, self-efficacy and locus of control, self-regulation, self-awareness, and self-enhancement. Our third section will cover self-presentation and specific strategies we use such as self-promotion, ingratiation, false modesty, self-verification, and self-monitoring. Finally, we will discuss cognitive biases and heuristics used to defend the self, such as the self-serving bias, false consensus effect, false uniqueness effect, and unrealistic optimism and defensive pessimism.

Module Outline

3.1. The Self-Concept

3.2. self-esteem, 3.3. self-presentation, 3.4. cognitive biases and heuristics used to bolster the self.

Module Learning Outcomes

• Define the self-concept and clarify how we learn about the self.
• Define self-esteem and describe efforts we engage in to protect or improve it.
• Describe ways we make ourselves appear in a more positive light to others.
• Outline cognitive biases and heuristics used to defend the self.

Section Learning Objectives

• Define self-concept and clarify whether it is stable or malleable.
• Define and exemplify self-schemas.
• Describe self-perception theory and how it helps us learn about the self.
• Clarify the importance of possible selves.
• Describe the self-reference effect.
• Define self-discrepancy theory.
• Describe Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self.
• Define reflected appraisal.
• Describe the social comparison theory and how it helps us to learn about the self.
• Clarify the importance of the two-factor-theory of emotion for the self.
• Describe cultural differences in the conception of the self.

3.1.1. The Age-Old Question – Who Are You?

Quite possibly the fundamental question of human existence is who we are. If asked who you are by another person, how would you describe yourself? Are you smart, resourceful, compassionate, petty, empathetic, self-serving, or optimistic? Are you good at sports or do you write poetry well? Should any singing you do be reserved for the shower? These descriptors are what make up our self-concept or the way we see ourselves. This view is probably clear most of the time. If you are not talented at writing, you will likely avoid writing intensive classes as a student. Some classes you cannot avoid, and so in these instances you will seek out extra help so that you are successful with the class. If you are incredibly talented at football, you may go out for the team but will not likely try out for the baseball team. But are there times when you are not so sure about who you are? The answer is likely yes. Maybe you and your spouse are considering adopting. Though you consider yourself a compassionate person, you are not sure you can open your heart up to another child the same way you would to a biological child. In this case, you have no prior experience to reference to determine who you are in this situation.

3.1.1.1. Is self-concept stable or malleable? There are two contradictory views of the self. Though our self-concept is relatively stable and people resist any information that contradicts their view of themselves (Greenwald, 1980), specific social environments can cause different selves to appear (Martindale, 1980). Markus and Kunda (1986) explored this dual nature of the self-concept in a study of 40 female students at the University of Michigan who participated to earn credit in their introductory psychology class (recall our discussion in Module 2 of convenience samples and issues with generalizability as a result). The participants were run one at a time and with three female confederates who were also undergraduate students but paid for their involvement. The researchers used minimal deception and led the participants to believe the study was on attitudes and opinions. They were first shown posters in a series of three trials. The posters had three items on them, either three colors, cartoons, or greeting cards, and the participant was asked to record for each poster the number of the item she liked best (of the three). The experimenter then explained that she had to transfer the responses to a computer coding sheet and that it would make life easier if all participants (the actual participant and the three confederates) could read their responses out loud. On each trial the participant went first, followed by the confederates. Her responses determined what the confederates would say. In the uniqueness condition, on all but 3 of the 18 trials the confederates all disagreed with the participant but agreed with one another. So if the participant preferred Color A the confederates all chose C. On the other three trials, the first confederate agreed with the participant while the other two disagreed with her and with each other. In the similarity condition, on all but 3 of the trials, the confederates agreed with the participant. If she chose Color C, then so did the three confederates. On the other three trials, none of the confederates agreed with the participant and two agreed with each other (meaning if the participant chose C, one chose A and two chose B, for instance). The participant then completed a series of dependent measures to include judgments of similarity to reference groups, self-categorization judgments, and word association. There was also a manipulation check such that participants were asked what percentage of the time they thought other participants agreed with their preference judgment in the first part of the study. Debriefing then occurred.

Results showed that for the manipulation check, subjects were aware of the extent to which participants agreed with them. The uniqueness group stated that the others agreed with them just 8% of the time while the similarity subjects estimated 77% of the time. The authors note that there was actually 17% and 83% agreement, respectively. In terms of how stable self-concept is, results showed that neither group appeared to have been influenced by the information about their similarity or uniqueness. In terms of the malleability of self-concept, the differences in the latencies between the two conditions for self-categorization judgments (i.e. their reaction times), suggests that different types of self-conceptions were mediating these judgments. This was also seen in the similarity to reference groups task such that both conditions felt more similar to in-groups than out-groups. It should be noted that the effect was not as strong for the similarity condition as their mean judgment of similarity to the in-group ( M = 4.93) was not as strong as the uniqueness condition ( M = 5.13), and their judgment of out-groups was higher ( M = 2.26) than the uniqueness condition ( M = 1.82).

Markus and Kunda (1986) conclude that both the stability and malleability of the self-concept were demonstrated in their study, though if one only looked at the results of the first part of the study (the showing of the posters with the three items to choose from) “one would tend to infer that the self-conceptions of these individuals were relatively unresponsive to the self-relevant information provided by the study” (pg. 864). Further examination of the word association, latency, and similarity tasks show that “…underlying these similar general self-descriptions were very different temporary self-conceptions” (pg. 864). When individuals were led to feel unique, they became disturbed by this and following the preference manipulation viewed their uniqueness as negative while the state of similarity to others became positive and desirable. They recruited conceptions of themselves as similar to others and made these endorsements relatively quickly (as shown through shorter latencies). Those made to feel extremely similar to others responded in the exact opposite way.

Finally, they say that the self-concept is a set of self-conceptions and from it, “the individual constructs a working self-concept that integrates the core self-conceptions with those elicited by the immediate context. In this sense, the self-concept becomes similar to that suggested by the symbolic interactionists. Thus, for Mead (1934) there was no fixed self-concept, only the current self-concept that was negotiated from the available set of self-conceptions” (Markus and Kunda, 1986, pg. 865).

3.1.2. Self-Schemas

As we interact with our world, we gather information that we need to organize in a way that we can obtain it again when needed. Basically, we store it away in memory and retrieve it when we encounter the person, object, or concept at a later time. This element of cognition is called a schema and as we can have schemas concerning external objects or ideas, we too can have them about ourselves, called a self-schema. These self-schemas make up our self-concept in much the same way that the words on this page make up the module you are reading, and this module is just one of many in the textbook. Markus (1977) defined self-schemata as, “cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of the self-related information contained in an individual’s social experiences (pg. 64).”

Self-schemas represent a person’s domain specific attributes or abilities and experiences as they relate to that domain. This allows for quicker encoding, more confident evaluation, accurate retrieval of domain-relevant information, and the ability to adapt to different information processing goals (Carpenter, 1988; Greenwald, 1980; Markus, 1977). Individuals with a self-schema in a domain are said to be schematic while those lacking one are aschematic for that ability (Cross & Markus, 1994). According to Markus (1977), aschematic individuals are not able to recognize their ability in a given domain and do not assign their ability any critical personal importance.

They can also help to shape social perception when the description of person is ambiguous. One study showed that when a target (Chris) is described as equally likely to be independent or dependent, participants classified as independence-schematics rated Chris as more independent and dependence-schematics rated him as more dependent or less likely to act independently compared to aschematics. The authors say that self-schemas serve a motivational role such that they help to foster the self-system’s stability, validation, and perpetuation (Green & Sedikides, 2001).

3.1.2.1. Types of self-schemas. Prieto, Cole, and Tageson (1992) compared depressed, clinic-referred children; nondepressed, clinic-referred children; and nondepressed, non-clinic referred children on three cognitive measures of positive and negative self-schemas. On a word recognition measure and an incidental word recall measure, depressed individuals had a less positive self-schema compared to the other two groups. Only non-depressed groups recalled significantly more positive words than negative ones. The results suggest that such negative self-schemas affect how new information is stored and accessed. Another study found that depressive self-schemas were a result of peer victimization such that individuals who experienced relational and verbal victimization more so than physical victimization by their peers had stronger negative and weaker positive self-cognitions and an elimination of the “normative memorial bias for recall of positive self-referential words” (Cole et al., 2014).

Self-schemas have also been identified for race-ethnicity (Oyserman, 2008; Oyserman et al., 2003), body weight (Altabe & Thompson, 1996; Markus, Hamill, & Sentis, 1987), gender (Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982), exercise (Kendzierski, 1990), religion (McIntosh, 1995), and illness (Clemmey & Nicassio, 1997), to name a few. Lodge and Hamill (1986) even propose a partisan schema related to political knowledge and interest. Those described as schematics are high in interest and knowledge and show a “consistency bias” such that they recall more policy statements consistent with a congressman’s party affiliation than those inconsistent with it. They also can classify campaign statements as Republican or Democrat. Aschematics, or those low in interest and knowledge, perform at no better than chance levels in the same task. The authors note that the restructuring of memory shown by schematics, and in particular those scoring especially high on interest and knowledge which they call sophisticates, demonstrates a serious bias in how political information is processed.

3.1.2.2. Self-perception theory. One way we gain knowledge about ourselves is through observing ourselves, called introspection or looking inward. We notice food preferences, particular music genres we like, the types of clothing we prefer to wear, and the type of person we consider to be a friend. But what we gain self-knowledge about tends to be things that are not central or critical (Bem, 1972). Why is that? The things about us that are most important make up the attitudes we express, the beliefs we hold, the traits we display, and the emotions we prefer to display and so are at our core. Self-perception helps us to learn about the more secondary aspects of the self.

3.1.2.3. Possible selves. Not only are we concerned about the person we are right now, but we focus on the person we might become, which Markus and Nurius (1986) call possible selves . These could be positive conceptions of our future self, but likewise, they could be something we are afraid of becoming and could elicit guilt and anxiety in the individual (Carver et al., 1999). According to Inglehart, Markus, and Brown (1988) our possible selves allow us to focus attention on specific, task-relevant cognitions, emotions and actions, thereby allowing us to move from our current state to the desired one (Oyserman & Markus, 1990a), especially when a possible self is seen as a self-regulator (i.e. a student who spends more time on homework, improved grades, and participated in class more because they realize they are not doing well now, but could in the future if they engage in specific types of behaviors; Oyserman et al., 2004). Across two studies, Cross and Markus (1994) showed that schematic individuals were better able to direct their attention to the problem at hand and concentrate on it while aschematic individuals were quicker to endorse negative possible selves related to logical reasoning ability. Hence, self-schemas can help foster competence by “providing a foundation for the development of possible selves related to that ability” (pg. 434). They continue, “…the possible self may link effective steps and strategies for solving reasoning problems with beliefs about one’s ability and competence in the domain. Bringing to mind a positive, desired view of oneself in the future as logical and analytical may also help the student dispel anxiety or worry during the task” (pg. 435). Research has also shown that when balance between feared and expected possible selves does not exist, the outcomes can be negative such as the initiation and maintenance of delinquent activity in adolescents (Oyserman and Markus, 1990b).

3.1.2.4. The self-reference effect. Would it surprise you to learn that humans have a tendency to more efficiently process, and recall more accurately, information about ourselves? Probably not. This is called the self-reference effect (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Craik and Lockhart (1972) proposed the depth of processing (DOP) framework which says that how well a memory trace is retained is determined by the nature of the encoding operations such that deep, meaningful analyses result in a more durable trace than shallow, structural analyses of a stimulus. Up to 1977 it was believed that better retention could be achieved by semantic encoding though Rogers, Kuiper, and Kriker (1977) showed that self-referent encoding produced even better recall. The self-reference effect has since been replicated in numerous studies (for an overview of this research, please see Symons & Johnson, 1997).

Since the self-reference effect is a property of memory, we might expect that it is affected by the aging process. Across three studies, Gutchess, et al., (2007) showed that under some circumstances, older adults can benefit from self-referencing as much as young adults can but in general, they are more limited in their application of it. The authors speculate that “older adults may be limited in their application of self-referencing due to its demand on cognitive resources and their diminished ability to apply the strategy flexibly and broadly in other types of evaluative judgments” (pg. 834).

In terms of what area of the brain might control the self-reference effect, research using lesioning has found a role for the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Patients with focal brain damage to the mPFC were given a standard trait judgment paradigm and damage to this area was found to abolish the self-reference effect, suggesting that the structure is important for self-referential processing and the neural representation of the self (Philippi et al., 2012). The implications of this research go beyond social psychology, too. The authors write, “The ability to detect and encode information for self-relevance might contribute not only to the formation of a self-concept, but also more broadly to psychological and social functioning. Across a variety of psychopathological conditions and personality disorders, self-referential processing appears to be dysfunctional, making it a major target for psychotherapy.” To read this article yourself, please visit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297026/ .

3.1.3. Self-Discrepancies

Self-discrepancy theory was postulated by Higgins (1987) to distinguish between the various self-states proposed by sociology, psychology, and even philosophy. Higgins says there are two cognitive dimensions which underlie the various self-state representations. The first is the domains of the self , numbering three total – the actual, ideal, and ought selves. The actual self includes the attributes that you are believed to possess, whether by yourself or another person. The ideal self includes all attributes that someone, whether you or another person, hope or wishes for you to possess. The ought self are the attributes that someone (yourself or another person) believes you should possess (i.e. linked to a sense of duty, obligation, or responsibility). Higgins exemplifies the ideal and ought self through the example of the conflict a hero faces between their personal wishes and their sense of duty.

The second cognitive dimension is what he calls standpoints on the self , or whose perspective on the self is involved. The two basic standpoints are your own personal standpoint and the standpoint from a significant other such as a spouse, parent, sibling, or close friend. A person can have a self-state representation for any number of these significant others.

The two cognitive dimensions can then be combined to form six basic types of self-state representations: actual/own, actual/other, ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other. Our self-concept is derived from the first two, while the last four are self-directive standards or acquired guides for being, or as he calls them, self-guides . Self-discrepancy theory therefore proposes that people differ as to which self-guide they are motivated to meet, and that people do not necessarily possess all four (we might have only ought or ideal self-guides). We are motivated to “reach a condition where our self-concept matches our personally relevant self-guides” (pg. 321).

If this does not happen, we can experience sadness, disappointment, fear, dissatisfaction, apprehension, or feel threatened. For instance, if a discrepancy exists between the actual/own and ideal/own states, meaning the person feels their personal hopes or wishes have not been fulfilled, they will be vulnerable to dejected-related emotions such as disappointment, frustration, and dissatisfaction. If the discrepancy is between actual/own and ideal/other, meaning they have failed to obtain a significant other’s hopes or wishes for them, they may feel shame, embarrassment, or feel downcast. If the discrepancy is between actual/own and ought/other, meaning the current state of our attributes from our standpoint does not match the state the person believes some significant other considers to be our duty or obligation to obtain, then we might experience agitation-related emotions and feel fear or threatened. Finally, an actual/own and ought/own discrepancy occurs when the current state of our attributes, from our standpoint, do not match the state we believe is our duty or obligation to obtain and so we feel self-contempt, guilt, and uneasiness (Higgins, 1987).

In sum, self-discrepancy theory helps us to understand discrepancies between our view of our self and who we would ideally like to be or believe other people think we should be.

3.1.4. How Others Affect Our Sense of Self

3.1.4.1. The looking-glass self. Sociologist Charles Cooley (1902) stated that people based their sense of self on how they think others see them. This social interaction serves as a sort of mirror in which people use the judgments of others to measure their own worth, behavior, and values. He calls this the looking-glass self , and it occurs in three steps. First, we imagine how we appear to others when in a social situation. Second, we imagine what others think of our appearance. Third, we form opinions and feelings about this perceived judgment and then respond to it. Let’s say for instance you are assigned to a small group in your social psychology class and are asked to discuss the topic of self-discrepancy theory. You have not interacted with these individuals thus far this semester, and so you want to demonstrate to these fellow students that you are knowledgeable of the concept. As you discuss the material, you take note of how your fellow classmates respond to your thoughts and applications of the concept of self-discrepancy theory. What is their body language? Do they maintain eye contact with you? Do they seem to be distracted or are they focused? What words do they use in response to your comments? If your classmates generally have positive feedback such as commenting constructively on your thoughts or listening intently, you will feel confident that they see you as competent and knowledgeable. If, on the other hand, they look away often, are playing a game on their phone, or have negative comments, you will likely feel that they do not see you as knowledgeable. To make matters more complicated, in the future your professor has you work with a different group of classmates for a different activity. The new task provides a different context for the interaction and the new set of students changes the nature of those involved. So, how you use the information obtained from this new group of individuals will likely be different than the first group. And of course, not all feedback carries the same weight. Maybe you know one of your group members is an A student and doing very well in the class. If they provide positive feedback this will mean more to you than a student praising your analysis who you know is struggling.

3.1.4.2. Reflected appraisals. Building off Cooley’s work, Felson (1985) said that we come to see ourselves as those important to us see us, called a reflected appraisal. In an interesting study of adolescents from the Netherlands, Verkuyten (1988) found that the general self-esteem of ethnic minorities was relatively high, despite the fact that they have low status, experience discrimination and prejudice, and have little power to influence policymakers. So why was their self-esteem higher than expected? As support for the reflected appraisal process, they derived their self-esteem from fellow family members who regarded them highly.

3.1.4.3. Social comparison theory. Oftentimes, we are uncertain of our abilities and so look to others for a clue. A college baseball player may compare his batting average against those of his teammates to see how well he is doing. Festinger (1954) called this the social comparison theory . We make such comparisons as a way to bring about self-improvement or to motivate us to be better. If the players’ batting average is not the lowest, but close, he may ask for additional batting practice or tips from the batting coach. We also compare ourselves to others to enhance our positive self-image. If the player learns that his batting average is better than most of his teammates, he will feel good about his hitting ability. Of course, he might also develop a superior attitude or become biased or judgmental.

How might social media affect the social comparisons we make? Social networking sites such as Facebook give the impression that others are doing better than they are which can be detrimental to how we view ourselves. In a study of 231 adults aged 18-25, Facebook use was found to lead to greater levels of negative social comparison which resulted in seeing oneself as less socially competent and less physically attractive. This effect was weaker among happier individuals (de Vries & Kuhne, 2015).  A similar study of Instagram “likes” found that exposing female undergraduates to thin-ideal images led to greater levels of body and facial dissatisfaction than average images and that greater investment in Instagram likes led to higher levels of appearance comparison and facial dissatisfaction (Tiggerman et al., 2018).

The benefit of social comparison is that it can lead to efforts to self-improve. How so? We could make a specific type of social comparison called an upward social comparison in which we compare our traits and abilities against someone who is more skilled than we are. This can lead us to engage in motivated behavior to improve, but it could also leave us feeling incompetent, shameful, or jealous (Collins, 1996).

3.1.4.4. Arousal as information about us. Stimuli are forever present in our sensory world and we have perceptions of them. These perceptions lead us to respond. For example, if you are walking down a street and hear footsteps behind you, you might perceive this as a threat if it is late at night and you thought you were alone on the street. This could lead you to walk quicker to your car or house or turnaround to confront the person behind you. What if you heard footsteps but is the middle of the day, on campus, and in between classes? You would likely perceive this as just another student going to class and have no reaction. Schachter (1964) proposed his two-factor theory of emotion which states that how we perceive our own emotions depends on two factors: 1) how much physiological arousal we experience such as rapid breathing, sweating, and/or a pounding heart, and 2) the cognitive interpretation or label we apply such as angry, scared, or happy. Others help us with the second factor such that we will examine their reactions to a given situation to help us interpret the arousal we are experiencing. Say for instance we are at a movie and out of nowhere the killer jumps out and attacks the protagonist. When this happens, we jump in our seat and scream, and notice that other moviegoers have the same reaction. We thus realize we experienced a high level of arousal and label the emotion as scared. Soon after we likely laugh at ourselves since we knew all along the event was not real but a mere fiction on the screen.

3.1.5. The Self and Culture

The self does not exist on an island but in the context of the society and culture in which it lives. As such, there is a great deal of variability in terms of what the self-concept is from culture to culture. First, culture includes all the beliefs, customs, institutions, experience, values, attitudes, art, religion, etc. of a group of people. Each culture establishes norms , or rules, for how its members should behave. For instance, Western cultures view the self as independent or individualistic , meaning that individuals reject conformity, focus on individual traits and goals, and seek personal achievement while Asian cultures are interdependent or collectivistic and identify the self in a social context, believe in blending in, focus on group goals, promote solidarity, and are against egotism.  According to Markus and Kitayma (1991) the independent construal of self is bounded, unitary, and stable; focuses on being unique, realizing internal attributes, and promoting ones’ goals; and sees the role of others as self-appraisal and linked to social comparison and reflected appraisal. In terms of the interdependent self, they say the structure is flexible; the task is to belong and fit in, occupy one’s place and promote other’s goals; and our relationships with others in specific contexts define the self. The independent is internal and private, focused on one’s abilities, thoughts, and feelings while the interdependent is external and public, and focused on statuses, roles, and relationships (Markus & Kitayma, 1991).

Research shows that East Asians, namely those from Korea, have more flexibility in their self-concept compared to Americans (Choi & Choi, 2002) and that Asian Americans, compared to European Americans, show variability across relationship contexts but stability within them (English & Serena, 2007). In another study, when trait self-perceptions across different relationships were inconsistent, relationship quality and authenticity was lower for European Americans but not East Asian Americans. When there was inconsistency within the same relationship, both ethnic groups showed negative outcomes (English & Chen, 2011).

• Describe how self-esteem is a need.
• Identify and define types of self-esteem.
• Clarify what happens to self-esteem across the life span.
• Clarify if there are gender and cross-cultural differences in self-esteem.
• Define Terror Management Theory and clarify its relevance to self-esteem.
• Describe self-efficacy and locus of control and how they relate to the self.
• Define self-regulation.
• Define self-awareness and describe issues related to it.
• Differentiate public and private self-consciousness.
• Define self-enhancement and describe strategies used in it.

3.2.1. Self-Esteem Defined and Described

3.2.1.1. Self-esteem as a need. Psychologist Abraham Maslow described a hierarchy of needs as one way to understand motivation and specifically the push of motivated behavior (contrasted with the pull that comes from outside us). According to Maslow, there are five types of needs arranged in a hierarchy, or more so in a pyramid formation. Lower level needs must be fulfilled before higher level ones can be. At the bottom are the physiological needs which are what we need to survive. They include food, water, sex, temperature, oxygen, etc. At the next level are needs centered on our safety and security , or living in a safe environment, being safe from Mother Nature, and having enough money to pay the bills. With this level satisfied, we can next focus on feeling socially connected to others and being in mature relationships, which he called the love and belonginess needs . Fourth are our self-esteem needs or being independent, gaining mastery, how we feel about ourselves, and being responsible. At the pinnacle of the pyramid are our self-actualization needs , which Carl Rogers and other humanistic psychologists discussed. This level focuses on realizing our full potential, feeling fulfilled and satisfied, and seeking personal growth. We also pursue interests out of intrinsic interest and not extrinsic demands. For our purposes, Maslow’s fourth level will be focused on and self-esteem can be defined as how we see ourselves, including both positive and negative evaluative components.

3.2.1.2. Types of self-esteem. Is self-esteem a unitary concept though? Rosenberg (1979) proposed a global self-esteem and subsequent research has supported domain specific self-esteem such as for academic matters (Rosenberg et al., 1995). So, which causes which? Does global self-esteem lead to specific or vice versa? The authors propose that global could be the result of specific self-esteem since it is “based on the judgments of various parts of the self, the parts (specifics) might be seen as responsible for the whole (global)” (pg. 148). In terms of the specific arising from global, they say, “assessments of particular facets of the self may well be based on one’s overall feelings of self-worth” (pg. 148). They conclude that global and specific self-esteem are in fact neither equivalent nor interchangeable, global appears to be heavily affective in nature and associated with psychological well-being while specific is more judgmental and evaluative arising from a cognitive component; specific facets of the self vary in their level of abstraction and some types such as academic self-esteem affect global self-esteem more than other types; the degree to which we value our behavior affects how much specific self-esteem affects global; and finally, in the case of school performance it is affected by self-esteem but in terms of the specific type and not global (Rosenberg et al., 1995).

What are some of the specific types of self-esteem.? According to Gentile et al. (2009) they might include:

• Physical appearance – what we look like
• Athletics – how good we are in sports
• Academics – our general performance in school
• Social Acceptance – our friendships, peer relationships, and social approval
• Family – Our family can serve as a source support and help affirm our beliefs about our own self-worth
• Behavioral conduct – includes our perception of how socially unacceptable our behavior is
• Affect – Feeling happy, satisfied, and free from anxiety which lead to better emotional well-being
• Personal self – Our evaluation of our personality independent from the physical body or others
• Self-satisfaction – Our measure of happiness with oneself as a person
• Moral-ethical self-concept – Our perception of moral-ethical attributes and how satisfied we are with our religion or lack of one

3.2.1.3. Self-esteem across the life span. Our next question centers on whether self-esteem can change throughout our life. Trzesniewski et al., (2003) tested this very question across two studies and found that, “stability is relatively low during early childhood, increases through adolescence and young adulthood, and then declines during midlife and old age” (pg. 215). This effect held across gender, nationality, and ethnicity. How can we account for these trends? First, self-esteem was least stable during childhood, though the authors question whether self-esteem measures are valid for young children as they may not fully understand the meaning of questions on such scales or cannot form abstract concepts of themselves, such as being good or bad. Second, self-esteem is lower in early adolescence and increases after this likely due to the turmoil puberty brings about in terms of rapid maturational changes. By late adolescence and early adulthood, the individual has the resources and autonomy necessary to deal with these changes. Finally, self-esteem stability decreases from midlife to old age likely because in midlife there are few environmental changes but as we transition into late adulthood, there are a great deal of life changes and shifting social circumstances such as children moving out, retirement, health problems and the death of loved ones. In regard to late adulthood, they add, “Another possibility is that as individuals age they may begin to review their lifelong accomplishments and experiences, leading in some cases to more critical self-appraisals and in other cases to greater acceptance of their faults and limitations” (pg. 216).

Interestingly, data from 187 newlywed couples shows that the birth of the first child does affect self-esteem over the first five years of marriage. Changes mostly affect the mother and are negative in nature with a sudden decline in self-esteem the first year after the child’s birth and a gradual decline continuing over the next four years. The study utilized a control group of parents who had no child during the same period and for which there was no change in self-esteem. This suggests that the change in self-esteem of the parents with a child was likely due to the birth of their first child (Bleidorn et al., 2016).

3.2.1.4. Gender and cross-cultural differences in self-esteem. Gentile et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies and assessed the 10 different domains of self-esteem mentioned at the end of the previous section. They found that gender differences vary greatly across the different domains of self-esteem. In some cases, there was no difference at all (i.e. academic, social acceptance, family, and affect), while other domains showed a moderate amount of variation (i.e. males higher on physical appearance, athletics, personal, and self-satisfaction; females higher on behavioral conduct and moral-ethical).

But are there cross-cultural differences in gender and self-esteem? Bleidorn et al. (2016) tackled the issue in an Internet sample of 985,937 individuals from 48 nations and found that self-esteem increased from late adolescence to middle adulthood, there were significant gender gaps, and that males consistently report higher self-esteem than females. These findings are important as they show that the trends, which are consistent with the literature but previous studies only examined Western samples, are in fact cross-culturally valid and suggest universal mechanisms at least in part. These mechanisms might include biological sources including genetics or hormones or universal sociocultural factors such as socially learned gender roles and stereotypes.

Despite these cross-cultural similarities, there was a difference across nations in terms of the magnitude of gender-specific trajectories, suggesting that universal explanations may not be at work but culture-specific influences such as a nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita, mean age at marriage, and HDI (Human Development Index; measures of living a long life, being educated, and having a decent standard of living) are responsible. Their data suggests that wealthy, developed, egalitarian, and individualistic nations had relatively large gender differences in self-esteem, though they decrease throughout early and middle adulthood. In contrast, collectivistic, poorer, developing nations marked by greater gender inequality and an earlier age at marriage show smaller gender gaps, though these increase during early and middle adulthood.

Bleidorn et. al. (2016) conclude that universal influences on self-esteem do not tell the whole story, and that “systematic cultural differences in the magnitude and shape of gender and age differences in self-esteem provide evidence for contextual influences on the self-esteem development in men and women” (pg. 408).

3.2.2. Terror Management Theory (TMT)

3.2.2.1. What is TMT? Ernest Becker (1962, 1973, & 1975) stated that it is the human capacity for intelligence, to be able to make decisions, think creatively, and infer cause and effect, that leads us to an awareness that we will someday die. This awareness manifests itself as terror and any cultural worldviews that are created need to provide ways to deal with this terror, create concepts and structures to understand our world, answer cosmological questions, and give us a sense of meaning in the world.

Based on this notion, Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solomon, 1986) posits that worldviews serve as a buffer against the anxiety we experience from knowing we will die someday. This cultural anxiety buffer has two main parts. First, we must have faith in our worldviews and be willing to defend them. Second, we derive self-esteem from living up to these worldviews and behaving in culturally approved ways. So, culture supports a belief in a just world and meeting the standards of value of the culture provides us with immortality in one of two ways. Literal immortality is arrived at via religious concepts such as the soul and the afterlife. Symbolic immortality is provided by linking our identity to something higher such as the nation or corporation and by leaving something behind such as children or cultural valued products. It has also been linked to the appeal of fame (Greenberg, Kosloff, Solomon, Cohen, and Landau, 2010).

Finally, based on whether death thoughts are in focal attention or are unconscious, we employ either proximal or distal defenses. Proximal defenses involve the suppression of death-related thoughts, a denial of one’s vulnerability, or participating in behavior that will reduce the threat of demise (i.e. exercise) and occur when thought of death is in focal attention. On the other hand, distal defenses are called upon when death thoughts are unconscious and involve strivings for self-esteem and faith in one’s worldview and assuage these unconscious mortality concerns through the symbolic protection a sense of meaning offers.

3.2.2.2. The typical mortality salience study. In a typical mortality salience (MS) study, participants are told they are to take part in an investigation of the relationship between personality traits and interpersonal judgments. They complete a few standardized personality assessments which are actually filler items to sustain the cover story. Embedded in the personality assessments is a projective personality test which consists of two open ended questions which vary based on which condition the participant is in. Participants in the MS condition are asked to write about what they think will happen to them when they die and the emotions that the thought of their own death arouses in them. Individuals in the control condition are asked to write about concerns such as eating a meal, watching television, experiencing dental pain, or taking an exam. Next, they complete a self-report measure of affect, typically the PANAS (Positive-Affect, Negative-Affect Scale), to determine the effect of MS manipulation on their mood. Finally, they are asked to make judgments about individuals who either directly or indirectly threaten or bolster their cultural worldviews.

3.2.2.3. Worldview defense. General findings on TMT have shown that when mortality is made salient, we generally display unfavorable attitudes toward those who threaten our worldview and celebrate those who uphold our view. This effect has been demonstrated in relation to anxious individuals even when part of one’s in-group (Martens, Greenberg, Schimel, Kosloff, and Weise, 2010) such that mortality reminders led participants to react more negatively toward an anxious police liaison from their community (Study 1) or to a fellow university student who was anxious (Study 2). Mortality salience has also been found to elevate preference for political candidates who are charismatic and espouse the same values associated with the participant’s political worldview, whether conservative or liberal (Kosloff, Greenberg, Weise, and Solomon, 2010).

Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Lyon (1989) examined reactions of participants to those who violated or upheld cultural worldviews across a series of six experiments. In general, they hypothesized that when people are reminded of their own mortality, they are motivated to maintain their cultural anxiety buffer and are punitive toward those who violate it and benevolent to those who uphold it. Experiments 1 and 3 provided support for the hypothesis that subjects induced to think about their own mortality increased their desire to punish the moral transgressor (i.e. to recommend higher bonds for an accused prostitute) while rewarding the hero (Experiment 3). Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 and extended them by showing that increasing MS does not lead subjects to derogate just any target as it had no effect on evaluations of the experimenter. Also, MS increased punishment of the transgressor only among subjects who believed the target’s behavior was truly immoral.

Experiments 4 – 6 tested alternative explanations for the findings. First, self-awareness could lead individuals to behave in a manner consistent with their attitudes and standards.  The results of Study 4 showed that unlike MS, self-awareness does not encourage harsher bond recommendations and in fact, heightened self-awareness reduces how harshly a prostitute is treated among individuals with positive attitudes toward prostitution. In Study 5, physiological arousal was monitored and MS was found not to arise from mere heightened arousal. Finally, Experiment 6 showed that particular features of the open-ended death questionnaire did not lead to the findings of Studies 1-5, but rather to requiring subjects to think about their own deaths.

McGregor, Lieberman, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, Simon, and Pyszcznski (1998) tested the hypothesis that MS increases aggression against those who threaten one’s worldview by measuring the amount of hot sauce allocated to the author of a derogatory essay. In the study, politically conservative and liberal participants were asked to think about their own death (MS) or their next important exam (control). They were then asked to read an essay that was derogatory toward either conservatives or liberals. Finally, participants allocated a quantity of very spicy hot sauce to the author of the essay, knowing that the author did not like spicy foods and would have to consume the entire sample of hot sauce. As expected, MS participants allocated significantly more hot sauce to the author of the worldview-threatening essay than did control participants.

In a second study, participants thought about their own mortality or dental pain and were given an opportunity to aggress against someone who threatened their worldview. Half of the MS participants allocated the hot sauce before evaluating the target while the other half evaluated the target before allocating the hot sauce. Results of Study 2 showed that MS participants allocated significantly more hot sauce when they were not able to verbally derogate the targets prior to the administration of hot sauce. However, when MS participants were able to first express their attitudes toward the target, the amount of hot sauce allocated was not significantly greater than for the controls. This finding suggests that people will choose the first mode of worldview defense provided to them.

3.2.2.4. Self-esteem. According to the anxiety buffer hypothesis, if a psychological structure provides protection against anxiety, then strengthening that structure should make an individual less prone to displays of anxiety or anxiety related behavior in response to threats while weakening that structure should make a person more prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety related behavior in response to threats. In support of this, Greenberg et al. (1992) showed that by increasing self-esteem, self-reported anxiety in response to death images and physiological arousal in response to the threat of pain could be reduced. Furthermore, the authors found no evidence that this effect was mediated by positive affect. Additional support for the function of self-esteem in reducing anxiety was provided by Harmon-Jones, Simon, Greenberg, Pyszcynski, Solomon, and McGregor (1997) who showed that individuals with high self-esteem, whether induced experimentally (Experiment 1) or dispositionally (Experiment 2), did not respond to MS with increased worldview defense and that this occurred due to the suppression of death constructs (Experiment 3).

3.2.3. Self-Efficacy and Locus of Control

Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1986) is our sense of competence and feeling like we can deal with life’s problems. It includes our beliefs about our ability to complete a task and affects how we think, feel, and motivate ourselves. When our self-efficacy is high, we feel like we can cope with life events and overcome obstacles. Difficult tasks are seen as challenges and we set challenging goals. In contrast, if it is low, we feel hopeless, helpless, and that we cannot handle what life throws at us. We avoid difficult tasks and throw in the towel quickly when things get tough. These individuals are easily depressed and stressed.

Our sense of competence is affected by the degree to which we blame internal or external forces for our success and failures. Using Julian Rotter’s (1973) concept of locus of control, we have an internal locus of control if we believe we are in control of our own destiny, but if we believe outside forces determine our life, we have an external locus of control.

So how do self-efficacy and locus of control intersect with one another. A study of students from a mid-sized public university in the northeastern area of the United States showed that students with an external locus of control and who are low in academic self-efficacy should be identified as they enter college and interventions directed at them to help them perform better in their classes (Drago, Rheinheimer, & Detweiler, 2018). A study of 147 women with type 1 diabetes examined the relationship between self-efficacy, locus of control, and what their expectations were of preconception counseling (Grady & Geller, 2016). Using the Diabetes-Specific Locus of Control (DLC) measure which assesses beliefs about internal, chance, and powerful others loci of control in terms of how diabetes is managed (the measure has 5 subscales: internal-autonomy, internal-blame, chance, powerful other – health professionals, and powerful other – nonmedical), a measure to assess preconception planning, and sociodemographic data,  the researchers tested the hypothesis that expectations of preconception counseling would be associated with beliefs about disease control and self-efficacy. The results showed that self-efficacy for planning a healthy pregnancy predicted outcome expectations of preconception counseling. The authors write, “…women’s self-efficacy was positively associated with their perceived usefulness of preconception counseling and birth control use, whereas self-blame about disease management negatively correlated with these views” (pg. 41). The authors suggest that efforts should be taken to improve self-efficacy and empower women with diabetes to confidently control their disease” (Grady & Geller, 2016).

3.2.4. Self-Regulation

We cannot always act or say what we feel. At times, we have to practice what social psychologists call self-regulation or controlling and directing our thoughts, feelings, and actions so that we can achieve a societal or personal goal. The good news is that much of our self-regulation occurs outside of conscious awareness but if we are trying to engage in meaningful behavioral change, we might have to focus much of our energy into self-control. One study linked successful self-regulation to executive functions to include updating, inhibiting, and shifting, which results in the ability to take goal-direction action such as losing weight (Dohle, Diel, & Hofmann, 2018).

Do concerted efforts at self-regulation reduce the amount of energy available for such activities in subsequent tasks? The question implies that self-regulation is a limited resource. Baumeister, Bratslasky, Muraven, and Tice (1998) tested this over four experiments and described this temporary reduction in the self’s ability to engage in volitional action caused by engaging in a volitional act previously ego depletion . The researchers first attempted to show that exerting self-control in terms of resisting temptation (Experiment 1) or a preliminary act of choice and responsibility (Experiment 2) would reduce the person’s ability to self-regulate on a subsequent, frustrating and difficult task. Results showed that people asked to resist eating chocolates and to make themselves eat radishes instead gave up much faster when next asked to complete a difficult puzzle than those who could indulge and eat the chocolate. Likewise, people who freely and deliberately consented to make a counterattitudinal or proattitudindal speech gave up quickly when asked to do the puzzle while those who expected to make the counterattitudinal speech under low-choice conditions showed no reduction in self-control. They state that it was the act of responsible choice, and not the behavior itself, that depleted the self and reduced persistence on the subsequent task. Experiments 3 and 4 further confirmed the finding that an initial act of volition leads to ego depletion in subsequent tasks. The good news is that this resource is replenished with time and specific factors could hasten or delay this replenishment (Baumeister et al., 1998).

3.2.5. Self-Awareness

Duval and Wicklund (1972) proposed that our self-regulation can either be directed inward and toward the self or directed outward and toward the environment. We are usually focused outward, but there are times when our attention is turned inward. For instance, if you walk by a mirror you might stop to see how you look in your new jeans. If we see a video of ourselves, are asked to talk about ourselves in an interview, or are required to give a presentation in our social psychology class, we experience an increased level of self-awareness and compare ourselves against a high standard which leads to reduced self-esteem since we realize we do not meet the standard. We then engage in motivated behavior to meet the standard, reassess whether we have, and then continue making adjustments until we finally meet the standard or give up and turn away from the self (Carver & Scheier, 1981). As you might expect, the process is aversive and so we want to resolve it (Flory et al., 2000). If we do not, we could experience depression (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987), engage in binge eating (Heatherton & Baumeister), and engage in counternormative behavior such as cheating (Diener & Wallbom, 1976) to name a few of the negative effects. Two recent studies found that when male participants were exposed to an intervention designed to focus their attention onto inhibitory, self-awareness cues, they engaged in significantly less alcohol-related physical aggression behaviors toward a female confederate compared to controls (Gallagher & Parrott, 2016) but for men with an internal and not an external locus of control (Purvis, Gallagher, & Parrott, 2016).

It is possible that some individuals are more self-focused than others, a distinction referred to as public vs. private self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). Public self-consciousness refers to an individual who focuses on themselves as a social object and is concerned by how they appear to others. In contrast, private self-consciousness refers to an individual who focuses on the internal self, is introspective, and attends to one’s thoughts, feelings, and motives. Scheier, Buss, and Buss (1978) found that for those high in private self-consciousness, the correlation between aggressive behavior and self-report of aggressiveness was significantly higher than for those low in private self-consciousness or high or low public self-consciousness. Public self-consciousness has also been found to relate to social aspects of identity while private self-consciousness was related to personal aspects (Cheek & Briggs, 1982).

3.2.6. Self-Enhancement

Self-enhancement is a fundamental component of human nature and involves our tendency to see ourselves in a positive light. This often occurs after our self-esteem has been negatively affected in some way (Beauregard & Dunning, 1998).

According to Sedikides & Gregg (2008), self-enhancement can be done in one of several ways. First, we might self-advance or self-protect either by augmenting positivity or reducing the negativity of the self-concept. Second, self-enhancement can occur either publicly or privately whereby in the case of the former we engage in favorable self-presentation and the latter is an internal affair. Third, we tend to self-enhance in domains that matter most to us. Finally, self-enhancement is either candid or tactical, meaning “one can both seize an opportunity for overt and immediate self-advancement, or one can forgo it in favor of other activities liable to facilitate delayed self-enhancement” (pg. 104).

People can also engage in positive illusions (Taylor & Brown, 1988) in which they hold opinions of themselves that are exaggerated or falsely positive regarding abilities and skills. These positive illusions include inflating their perceptions of themselves (i.e. self-aggrandizement), believing they have more control over events than they do (i.e. exaggerated perceptions of control), and being overly optimistic about their future (i.e. unrealistic optimism). Positive illusions have been shown to lead to successful adjustment to stressful events (Taylor & Armor, 1996); increased satisfaction in close relationships when an individual idealized their partner and is in turn idealized by them (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996); and better outcomes for physical health later in life in terms of more satisfaction with leisure time, higher self-esteem, better perceived health, and less boredom proneness when retirees hold an exaggerated youthful bias (Gana, Alaphillippe, & Bailly, 2002). Positive illusions have been reported in parenting as well in which parents have a tendency to rate their own children as possessing more positive and less negative attributes than other children (Wenger & Fowers, 2008).

Have you ever worried about doing well on a test and so create an excuse to cover poor performance such as saying you were sick when you took it? If so, you engaged in behavioral self-handicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978). We self-handicap when we are uncertain about our abilities and anticipate a threat to our self-esteem. Instead of saying we failed the exam because our ability was low or we did not study, we instead blame it on being sick or not sleeping well the night before. Self-handicapping can take two forms – behavioral and claimed. Behavioral self-handicapping occurs when we actively acquire an impediment such as drug or alcohol abuse (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985) or do not have enough time to practice (Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985). Claimed self-handicapping occurs when a person only reports obstacles to their success such as suffering from test anxiety (Smith, Snyder, and Handelsman, 1982) or being in a bad mood (Baumgarder, Lake, and Arkin, 1985). Between the two, behavioral handicaps are more convincingly tied to performance and so more credible, while claimed handicaps serve as an excuse for failure but do not necessarily decrease the person’s chance of success (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). Finally, Stewart & Walker (2014) found that self-handicapping was predicted by perfectionism and an external locus of control in a study of 79 university students (they also found that perfectionism predicted low self-efficacy).

We might even engage in the social comparison process to feel better about ourselves. How so? Instead of comparing our performance to others to see where we rate, we will look for someone we know performs worse than we do or is worse off than we are, and then make a downward social comparison (Wills, 1981). This makes us feel better about ourselves because no matter how bad off we are at the time, that person is in a far worse predicament. Maybe we know we are in a batting slump over the past 10 games and have experienced a reduction in our self-esteem as a result. We might compare ourselves against another teammate who has underperformed all year and realize that our situation is temporary and not seemingly permanent like theirs.

People have a tendency to evaluate themselves much higher than they evaluate others. For instance, they are smarter, better looking, more capable, and more honest than other people. This is called the “better than average” ( BTA) effect. Across five studies, Brown (2012) showed that the BTA is stronger for important attributes than ones that do not matter and when participants experienced a threat to their feelings of self-worth. It has also been shown that the effect holds for easy tasks which produce underconfidence, but not for difficult ones which lead to overconfidence and making a worse-than-average bias (Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007). Finally, Kanten and Teigen (2008) asked 385 students to rate themselves or an acquaintance relative to their peers on several personality traits. The results showed that participants saw themselves as superior to most others at all points in time. The authors describe a better than average improvement effect such that participants said they were more superior now compared to the past and expected to be even more superior in the future.

Finally, Cialdini et al. (1976) said that people have a tendency to publicly announce their associations with successful others in a process they called “ bask in reflected glory ” (BIRG). In a series of three field experiments involving 300 university students across seven universities in the United States, Cialdini et al. (1976) found that participants strived to bask in the glory of successful others even though they were not the cause of their  success, such as wearing school apparel and saying ‘we’ after their team was victorious but not when they lost (in the case of a loss, participants often said ‘they lost’ instead of ‘we lost’).  In another study, two days before the 1999 general election in Flanders researchers counted and recorded houses displaying at least one poster or one removable lawn sign supporting a political party (a total of 462 addresses for posters and 177 addresses for lawn signs). The day after the elections, the houses were checked to see if the poster or lawn sign (s) was/were still present. The results showed that the better the election result, the more houses that still displayed the sign/poster. Winners flaunted their association with the winning party, supporting BIRG while supporters of the losing party tried to conceal their association (Boen et al., 2002).

• Define self-presentation.
• Define self-promotion and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define ingratiation and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define false modesty and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define self-verification and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define self-monitoring and describe how it is used in self-presentation.

3.3.1. Self-Presentation Defined

Think about the last date you went on, especially a first date. What did you do beforehand? You likely showered and groomed yourself, maybe even rehearsed what you would say in the mirror. You also likely took great care to pick your clothes out to make a good first impression. Any strategies we use to make ourselves appear in a more positive light to others is called self-presentation. We intentionally try to control or shape their impressions of us (Schlenker, 2012). First impressions are especially important. Oftentimes, if we make a bad first impression it can be virtually impossible to overcome even if subsequent interactions are much more positive.

3.3.2. Specific Strategies Used in Self-Presentation

So that we can successfully shape the view others have of us to be positive, we need to engage in effortful behavior. How so? One strategy is to use self-promotion or engaging in behaviors or saying positive things about oneself. We often engage in this type of behavior on a first date or in an interview. Research has also shown that individuals higher in narcissism and lower in self-esteem engage in greater levels of online activity on social networking sites such as Facebook and use more self-promotional content to include About Me, Main Photo, View Photos, and status updates. The study also found gender differences insofar as males engaged in more self-promotion in the About Me and Notes sections while females displayed more self-promotional main photos (Mehdizadeh, 2010).

Another strategy is called ingratiation or complimenting, flattering, or engaging in other acts that lead a person to do things for you or like you. This is a typical strategy used by salespeople to have you engage in one clear behavior – buy a car or other product. Politicians are known to use the strategy also so that you come to like them while they are campaigning and then subsequently vote for them on election day. Cialdini (2007) writes in his book Influence: The Power of Persuasion , “Apparently we have such an automatically positive reaction to compliments that we can fall victim to someone who uses them in an obvious attempt to win our favor” (pg. 176).

Maybe you have been on a team at work before and had an idea that completely revolutionized the way your company completed a service for its clients. Did you gloat about your performance? Not likely. You were more likely to downplay your performance and talk about the contributions of your fellow teammates instead. The end result is that you will be seen as likeable and competent by others but for what is called false modesty , you must have been successful in your performance and others must know about it already (i.e. a fan was watching the big game and saw the wide receiver catch the game winning touchdown).

Another strategy is to choose situations or interpret behavior in ways that confirm already held beliefs or to avoid situations and criticism that might contradict these beliefs. Essentially, we want to confirm our existing self-concept but from the eyes of others. This behavior can best be described as self-verification .

Finally, we engage in self-monitoring or observing our own behavior so that we can make adjustments to produce the impression we desire in others and to meet the demands of the situation (Snyder, 1987). For instance, a literature review of self-monitoring through paper diaries, the internet, personal digital assistants, and digital scales in relation to weight loss, found that more frequent self-monitoring of diet, physical activity, or weight led to more successful outcomes for weight management (Burke, Wang, & Sevick, 2011).

• Define the self-serving bias.
• Describe how social desirability is a form of the self-serving bias.
• Contrast the false consensus and false uniqueness effects.
• Outline the benefits, and perils, of optimism and pessimism.

Our final section covers cognitive biases and heuristics used to increase our sense of self, though we have discussed others already throughout this module.

3.4.1. The Self-Serving Bias

First, the self-serving bias is our tendency to see ourselves in a favorable light. We take credit for our successes but blame failures on outside forces. This bias is often displayed by students who are quicker to explain a bad grade on a test as the instructor creating a test that was too difficult or testing on information not in the study guide. When the student does well, though, it is due to their skill and time spent studying, and not necessarily to the test being extra easy.

We even have a tendency to see ourselves as less likely to exhibit a self-serving bias than others (Friedrich, 1996; Myers, 1990). Friedrich (1996) documented this effect across two studies. First, 47 upper level undergraduates enrolled in either a statistics or industrial/organizational psychology course completed an anonymous survey at the beginning of class having them read a paragraph about the results of a SAT survey and then respond to a paragraph describing the self-serving bias. At the end they were asked, “How often do you think (you; the average person) make this kind of mistake when judging or evaluating (yourself; him- or herself)?” and indicated their answer on a 9-point scale (1 meaning almost never and 9 indicating nearly all the time). The results showed that students generally saw themselves as significantly less likely to distort their self-perceptions. In the second study, 38 introductory psychology students were lectured on research related to the self-serving bias during the last third of a regularly scheduled class. At the beginning of the next class they were given a questionnaire asking them to what degree they thought that they or the average person (depending on the condition they were in) would make the mistake. The same 9-point scale was used. Results of the second study were consistent with the first such that students believed others are more likely to commit the self-serving bias than they are.

Another way we see the self-serving bias play out in research is through the social desirability effect or when participants only provide information that appears to be what is expected by society or is desirable. If asked questions about sexual activity, some may report lower levels of activity than is true or not mention acts of sexual impropriety. Though our society has become sexually charged, there are still limits to what is acceptable. We will talk more about self-serving behavior when we discuss attribution theory in Module 4.

3.4.1.1. Explaining self-serving bias. So, what are potential causes of the self-serving bias? In a 2008 article, Shepperd, Malone, and Sweeny cite a few different classes of explanations. First, the previously discussed self-enhancement and self-presentation are offered as motivation-driven reasons (please see the previous sections for a discussion).

Second, they offer cognitive-driven explanations. The outcomes might be inconsistent with expectations such that our expectations are grounded in experience and we utilize cognitive mechanisms that might mute, dampen, or even erase previous negative experiences but not positive ones. Our outcomes may also not be consistent with our self-schema meaning that our views of our skills and abilities are often overly positive and that we view ourselves as the kind of person who produces positive outcomes, not negative ones. Positive outcomes are consistent with our self-schema while negative outcomes lead to two possible conclusions: the negative outcome had an internal cause and our positive self-schema is not correct, or the negative outcome had an external cause and our positive self-schema remains intact. A third possibility is that outcomes are inconsistent with actions . Positive expectations usually lead to goal-directed behavior. The authors offer the example of a boy who prepares to ask a girl out on a date by rehearsing what he will say, dressing nice, and acting charming. If she accepts his offer, he will see it as due to his efforts but if she rejects him, he will likely regroup and try again a few times. If the answer continues to be ‘no’ then he will believe the cause is not with him but something external.

A fourth cognitive explanation is called biased hypothesis-testing . When failure occurs in place of expected success, we are likely to ask ‘why did this happen?’ Like scientist’s, people form hypotheses to answer the question and then collect data to test it. But they are often not good scientists and engage in confirmation bias and see only information that confirms rather than disconfirms their hypothesis. People also find case-positive information more diagnostic than case-negative. Finally, people engage in different standards of proof in which they form a proposition or hypothesis and proceed to evaluate evidence. Unlike biased hypothesis-testing though, they consider all information and do not omit disconfirming evidence. How much information is needed to accept or reject their hypothesis also varies insofar as they require more information to accept an undesired hypothesis and less for a desired hypothesis.  For instance, the specific hypothesis tested (i.e. ‘Am I smart?’ or ‘Am I stupid?’) determines what information is sought out in biased hypothesis testing while in different standards of proof the exact hypothesis determines how much information is required to draw a conclusion (more proof for the question centered on whether they are stupid and less for if they are smart).

Shepperd, Malone, and Sweeny (2008) conclude that the self-serving bias can only be understood using both motivational and cognitive driven explanations.

3.4.2. Overestimating Our Opinions and Skills

People often overestimate to what degree their opinion is shared by others. This tendency is called the false consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). It may occur because people are biased in viewing their own positions as what everyone else subscribes to as well, or because they overgeneralize from case information with their opinion serving as one salient type of case information (Alicke & Largo, 1995). The false consensus effect has been demonstrated in regard to smoking behavior (thinking that half or more than half of adults or peers smoked led to the most smoking involvement; Botvin et al., 1992); drug use (Wolfson, 2000); engaging in health protective or defeating behaviors (Suls, Wan, & Sanders, 1988); a willingness to escalate a disturbance (Russell & Arms, 1995); presidential preferences such that supporters of a candidate predicted a higher percentage of support for the candidate than other candidates (Brown, 1982); determining the extent to which other voters would vote like you (Koestner et al., 1995); and illicit drug use by elite athletes (Dunn, Thomas, Swift, & Burns, 2011).

Likewise, we tend to underestimate to what degree others share our abilities and skills. This tendency is called the false uniqueness effect . We might see our math ability as rare, our future to be brighter, or our opinion of a social matter to be more desirable. One study found that participants believed their first name to be unique, whether it was rare or common. The effect held for both male and female names and the researchers also found that when we consider making a name change, rare names are often considered (Kulig, 2013).

3.4.3. Optimism…to the Extreme

Of course, seeing the jar as half full and not half empty has obvious benefits for mental health. This is the essence of the difference between being optimistic and pessimistic.  Scheier and Carver (1985) offered a theory of dispositional optimism which defines it as, “a stable individual difference that reflects the general perception that future positive outcomes will be common and future negative outcomes will be rare” (Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman, 2012). Research has shown that being optimistic results in higher levels of subjective well-being for college students (Gallagher & Lopez, 2009) and adults (Isaacowitz, 2005), leads to more adaptive coping mechanisms (Carver et al., 2009; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006), can bring about greater success on the job (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), results in goal attainment (Segerstrom & Nes, 2006), and brings about better physical health (Giltay et al., 2004).

Is optimism universal? Gallagher, Lopez, and Pressman (2012) conducted a study using representative samples from 142 countries numbering over 150,000 participants and found that individuals of all ages, races, education levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds and most countries are optimistic and that this optimism leads to better subjective well-being and health. Optimism is not merely a benefit of living in an industrialized nation either.

But is there such a thing as being too optimistic to the point of being unrealistic? The answer is yes and Weinstein (1980) identified a tendency people have to think they are invulnerable and that others will be the victims of misfortune but not themselves. He called this error in judgment, which results in a bias towards favorable outcomes, unrealistic optimism . For instance, college students in one study were unrealistically optimistic about the likelihood they would develop alcohol related problems in the future such as having a hangover, missing classes, or having an argument with a friend over their drinking. The negative consequences of unrealistic optimism were found to be both proximal and distal (Dillard, Midboe, & Klein, 2009). Another study found that patient’s participating in early-phase oncology trials display the unrealistic optimism bias in relation to their expectation of the therapeutic benefit of the trial and that this tendency can undermine the informed consent of participants (Jansen et al., 2011).

Everything is not always roses and so expressing some pessimism can actually help us to be realistic. Defensive pessimism can help us manage our anxiety and pursue our goals by setting low expectations and mentally exploring possible outcomes of goal-relevant tasks (Norem, 2008; Norem & Cantor, 1986). Hazlett, Molden, and Sackett (2011) found that participants who were focused on growth and advancement preferred optimistic forecasts and perform better when they express an optimistic outlook while those who were concerned with safety and security preferred pessimistic forecasts and perform better when they express a pessimistic outlook.

Module Recap

That’s it. We spent an entire module talking about our – self and should feel no guilt over it. Kidding. To be serious though, we all try and answer the question of who we are and philosophers have been tackling issues related to what it means to be human and matters of human existence since the dawn of time. Our discussion focused on the self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and biases and heuristics we make/use to protect our sense of self. We hope you enjoyed the wide array of issues we covered and with this topic out of the way, we can now continue our discussion in Part II of how we think about ourselves and others by focusing on ‘others.’ After this, we will round out Part II by discussing the attitudes we have about ourselves, others, and things in our world.

2nd edition

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Self-Esteem?

Your Sense of Your Personal Worth or Value

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin

Theories of Self-Esteem

Healthy self-esteem, low self-esteem, excessive self-esteem.

• How to Improve

Self-esteem is your subjective sense of overall personal worth or value. Similar to self-respect, it describes your level of confidence in your abilities and attributes.

Having healthy self-esteem can influence your motivation, your mental well-being, and your overall quality of life. However, having self-esteem that is either too high or too low can be problematic. Better understanding what your unique level of self-esteem is can help you strike a balance that is just right for you.

Key elements of self-esteem include:

• Self-confidence
• Feelings of security
• Sense of belonging
• Feeling of competence

Other terms often used interchangeably with self-esteem include self-worth, self-regard, and self-respect.

Self-esteem tends to be lowest in childhood and increases during adolescence, as well as adulthood, eventually reaching a fairly stable and enduring level. This makes self-esteem similar to the stability of personality traits over time.

Why Self-Esteem Is Important

Self-esteem impacts your decision-making process, your relationships, your emotional health, and your overall well-being. It also influences motivation , as people with a healthy, positive view of themselves understand their potential and may feel inspired to take on new challenges.

Four key characteristics of healthy self-esteem are:

• A firm understanding of one's skills
• The ability to maintain healthy relationships with others as a result of having a healthy relationship with oneself
• Realistic and appropriate personal expectations
• An understanding of one's needs and the ability to express those needs

People with low self-esteem tend to feel less sure of their abilities and may doubt their decision-making process. They may not feel motivated to try novel things because they don’t believe they can reach their goals. Those with low self-esteem may have issues with relationships and expressing their needs. They may also experience low levels of confidence and feel unlovable and unworthy.

People with overly high self-esteem may overestimate their skills and may feel entitled to succeed, even without the abilities to back up their belief in themselves. They may struggle with relationship issues and block themselves from self-improvement because they are so fixated on seeing themselves as perfect .

Click Play to Learn More About Self-Esteem

This video has been medically reviewed by Rachel Goldman, PhD, FTOS .

Many theorists have written about the dynamics involved in the development of self-esteem. The concept of self-esteem plays an important role in psychologist Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs , which depicts esteem as one of the basic human motivations.

Maslow suggested that individuals need both appreciation from other people and inner self-respect to build esteem. Both of these needs must be fulfilled in order for an individual to grow as a person and reach self-actualization .

It is important to note that self-esteem is a concept distinct from self-efficacy , which involves how well you believe you'll handle future actions, performance, or abilities.

Factors That Affect Self-Esteem

There are many factors that can influence self-esteem. Your self-esteem may be impacted by:

• Physical abilities
• Socioeconomic status
• Thought patterns

Racism and discrimination have also been shown to have negative effects on self-esteem. Additionally, genetic factors that help shape a person's personality can play a role, but life experiences are thought to be the most important factor.

It is often our experiences that form the basis for overall self-esteem. For example, low self-esteem might be caused by overly critical or negative assessments from family and friends. Those who experience what Carl Rogers referred to as unconditional positive regard will be more likely to have healthy self-esteem.

There are some simple ways to tell if you have healthy self-esteem. You probably have healthy self-esteem if you:

• Avoid dwelling on past negative experiences
• Believe you are equal to everyone else, no better and no worse
• Express your needs
• Feel confident
• Have a positive outlook on life
• Say no when you want to
• See your overall strengths and weaknesses and accept them

Having healthy self-esteem can help motivate you to reach your goals, because you are able to navigate life knowing that you are capable of accomplishing what you set your mind to. Additionally, when you have healthy self-esteem, you are able to set appropriate boundaries in relationships and maintain a healthy relationship with yourself and others.

Low self-esteem may manifest in a variety of ways. If you have low self-esteem:

• You may believe that others are better than you.
• You may find expressing your needs difficult.
• You may focus on your weaknesses.
• You may frequently experience fear, self-doubt, and worry.
• You may have a negative outlook on life and feel a lack of control.
• You may have an intense fear of failure.
• You may have trouble accepting positive feedback.
• You may have trouble saying no and setting boundaries.
• You may put other people's needs before your own.
• You may struggle with confidence .

Low self-esteem has the potential to lead to a variety of mental health disorders, including anxiety disorders and depressive disorders. You may also find it difficult to pursue your goals and maintain healthy relationships. Having low self-esteem can seriously impact your quality of life and increases your risk for experiencing suicidal thoughts.

If you are having suicidal thoughts, contact the  National Suicide Prevention Lifeline  at  988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor. If you or a loved one are in immediate danger, call 911.

For more mental health resources, see our  National Helpline Database .

Overly high self-esteem is often mislabeled as narcissism , however there are some distinct traits that differentiate these terms. Individuals with narcissistic traits may appear to have high self-esteem, but their self-esteem may be high or low and is unstable, constantly shifting depending on the given situation. Those with excessive self-esteem:

• May be preoccupied with being perfect
• May focus on always being right
• May believe they cannot fail
• May believe they are more skilled or better than others
• May express grandiose ideas
• May grossly overestimate their skills and abilities

When self-esteem is too high, it can result in relationship problems, difficulty with social situations, and an inability to accept criticism.

How to Improve Self-Esteem

Fortunately, there are steps that you can take to address problems with your perceptions of yourself and faith in your abilities. How do you build self-esteem? Some actions that you can take to help improve your self-esteem include:

• Become more aware of negative thoughts . Learn to identify the distorted thoughts that are impacting your self-worth.
• Challenge negative thinking patterns . When you find yourself engaging in negative thinking, try countering those thoughts with more realistic and/or positive ones. 
• Use positive self-talk . Practice reciting positive affirmations to yourself.
• Practice self-compassion . Practice forgiving yourself for past mistakes and move forward by accepting all parts of yourself.

Low self-esteem can contribute to or be a symptom of mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression . Consider speaking with a doctor or therapist about available treatment options, which may include psychotherapy (in-person or online), medications, or a combination of both.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, Betterhelp, and Regain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Though some of the causes of low self-esteem can’t be changed, such as genetic factors, early childhood experiences, and personality traits, there are steps you can take to feel more secure and valued. Remember that no one person is less worthy than the next. Keeping this in mind may help you maintain a healthy sense of self-esteem.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares strategies that can help you learn to truly believe in yourself, featuring IT Cosmetics founder Jamie Kern Lima.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Robins RW. Stability of self-esteem across the life span .  J Pers Soc Psychol . 2003;84(1):205-220.

von Soest T, Wagner J, Hansen T, Gerstorf D. Self-esteem across the second half of life: The role of socioeconomic status, physical health, social relationships, and personality factors .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2018;114(6):945-958. doi:10.1037/pspp0000123

Johnson AJ. Examining associations between racism, internalized shame, and self-esteem among African Americans . Cogent Psychology . 2020;7(1):1757857. doi:10.1080/23311908.2020.1757857

Gabriel AS, Erickson RJ, Diefendorff JM, Krantz D. When does feeling in control benefit well-being? The boundary conditions of identity commitment and self-esteem.   Journal of Vocational Behavior . 2020;119:103415. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103415

Nguyen DT, Wright EP, Dedding C, Pham TT, Bunders J. Low self-esteem and its association with anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in Vietnamese secondary school students: A cross-sectional study .  Front Psychiatry . 2019;10:698. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00698

Brummelman E, Thomaes S, Sedikides C. Separating narcissism from self-esteem.   Curr Dir Psychol Sci . 2016;25(1):8-13. doi:10.1177/0963721415619737

Cascio CN, O’Donnell MB, Tinney FJ, Lieberman MD, Taylor SE, Stretcher VJ, et. al. Self-affirmation activates brain systems associated with self-related processing and reward and is reinforced by future orientation . Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience . 2016;11(4):621-629. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv136

Maslow AH. Motivation and Personality . 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1987.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: Giving a research presentation can be very scary, especially if you've never done it before. No matter whether it's your bachelor's, your master's or your PhD, here are the types of questions you're likely to be asked in different categories. And the first one is all about topic selection and overview. Now these sort of questions come up because it's a little bit lazy. It's like an easy start for the examiners or the referees or the academics that are asking you questions. These are sorts of questions such as, why did you choose this topic? Briefly explain what your research project is about. What is the scope of your research project? And importantly, what is the significance of your study? So these kind of questions just get the ball rolling. And what you're really expected to have here is just like a little summary, a little abstract in your mind, an elevator pitch, if you will, about your research. So it just has to follow a very simple structure. That is a little bit of background about why you're doing it, the methods you used, what you found, and the significance. If you can just hit those sort of like little points just in a single sentence for each one, that will be an easy kind of start to all of these sort of questions. I've included in these examples that I'll post down below in the description sort of example answers. That'll just get your brain thinking about how it can relate to your research. So this section is all about just making sure you're familiar with the overarching kind of story of your research. And these sort of questions are designed not only because they're easy for the people asking the questions, but also to warm you up to that first sort of stage of dialogue. Hopefully, it is nice and easy. You've got these answers. And one thing I always do with all of these answers is at the end of my presentation, I make sure that I have slides specifically relating to these categories so that I have supporting information for any question they're likely to ask me. The second sort of questions you're likely to be asked is all about literature reviews and frameworks. They want to have confidence that you know how your work fits in with the general field. So you should have an idea of what happened before you and why there is this research problem you're answering. Here are the sort of questions they can ask you. How does your work relate to the existing literature in the field? And what theories or frameworks did you base your research on? These questions are very important. And what you'll find is that different academics that are there asking you questions will have different biases towards different techniques. So one thing I like to do is have a look at the people that are on my panel and then just go, okay, well, this person's more likely to ask about this subject, so I'll understand how my research fits in with that. These people really like this framework or this methodology, so I'll make sure that I understand how my research fits with that. And that's just a really sort of like sneaky way of making sure that you can not only make it relevant, but also you're rubbing the egos of the people that are on your panel a little bit as well. The next category can seem like a little bit of a scattergun of ideas that get thrown at you while you're giving your presentation or you're in the questions and answer section. And it's essentially the research design methodology and variables section. And this sort of question can come from left of field. It can just be thrown at you and the sort of questions that you're asked are what are your research variables? What research methodology did you use? Why did you use that particular methodology? How did you ensure the study's validity and reliability? Why did you choose this particular sample or population for your study? Can you explain the data analysis process you used and what sort of data was implied for the research? So here, it's really important that you just have a little bit of a defense on why you chose certain things. It's important to have a slide, you know, tucked away at the end of your presentation that highlights the benefits, the pros and cons of different research methodologies showing that you chose the best one for what you wanted to achieve. Now unfortunately here, this is the section of the kind of discussion where you can end up feeling attacked because these people now are trying to find holes in your research. They're going to ask about why you did this and not that, why you chose this population and not this population. But it's also okay in this bit to be like, well, I think that this is the true way of doing it, the best way of doing it. And this is where you can sort of inject your own little bit of stubbornness and say, no, you know, with all due respect, this is the best way to do it because of X, Y, and Z. And if you've just gone over the pros and cons of each method for your research field, you'll be able to present that kind of like with a lot of certainty and a lot of confidence. And that's what they're really looking for is that you are confident with the method you chose and therefore that means the results you've gained. The next section is findings, contributions, limitations, and implications. This is an area where they want to find out what you think about the broader implications of your work. There are questions such as, what limitations did you encounter? What is the most surprising finding from your research? Can you discuss the main contributions? How do your findings impact the real world? What areas will you suggest for future research? And how would you relate your findings to the existing theories in the area or field? This is where you can let your imagination and that kind of marketing side of yourself really come out. I actually like these sorts of questions because you're able to sell them on a bigger idea. You know, if your research was to be extrapolated out for the next five to 10 years, what could happen? And that's what I really liked talking about about my research. My research was solar cells, so I was like, I would love to see everyone have a solar painted roof, because my PhD was solar paint. So I was like, you could paint roofs of cars, you could paint the bus stops, the wings of an aeroplane. Like that is where I was able to kind of like, you know, really sell the implications of my work. Don't worry about thinking too far in the future, but you do need to understand on the other side of the coin about the limitations of your work. So even though you've got this grand scheme, what is your research not telling you? My research, for example, didn't tell me about the longevity of the solar cells. It didn't tell me about the bulk production of the solar cells. So just being sure you understand where your research stops from the data you've got. So it's kind of a balancing act, right? Let's back that up again. First of all, you've got your data set and you need to understand where that data set stops. You can say the limitations of my study is this, but in the future, if all of those issues get solved and people keep on working on this, this is where this research could go. And that's where I really like kind of selling the big idea of why you're there. The last category of question you're likely to be asked is all about self-reflection and future work. This is where you can really take ownership of what went wrong and what you would do differently. Everyone knows in research, hindsight is 20-20. So the source of questions you can get asked are, what would you have done differently if you could start your project again? What are the future directions of your research? What did you learn from doing this research? And how has your view of research topic changed throughout the course of your project? Now, this is all about reflection and you don't have to worry about looking clever, I think, at this point. This is all about ensuring that you have kind of that self-reflective ability to look at what you've done and go, you know what? If I was to start all over again, I wouldn't do this line of work. I probably wouldn't touch on this, but I'd double down on this a little bit more. Maybe you'd sort of like even take your research in a different direction. And I think this is the sort of discussion that academics really like, because they can start plugging their own ideas in it. And also, sneakily, they're probably trying to get ideas for their own research. So, this is where you can have a really open and frank discussion about what went wrong, what went right. And to be honest with you, every research project, no matter how well it's planned, goes wrong in some aspect. And I think that these sort of questions are there to make sure that you understand that no research is perfect and you're able to reflect at the end and say, this was good, this was bad, and these are the things I would change. And so, don't be afraid about telling them the real sort of like nitty gritty bits of what you would do differently. I think that's probably where the most interesting insights from research come. So, there we have it. There are all of the different questions that you can get asked during your oral defense. I'll put a list of them in the comments below so that you can sort of like prepare your talk to have these slides after the final slide of your talk. I like to include sneaky little slides afterwards after my final slide so that I can quickly sort of like move to them. And I find that that often catches them off guard and it helps just give you confidence that you know what you're talking about because you go, oh yeah, no, I've actually got a slide on that. Click, click, click. As you can see, these are the pros and cons, blah, blah, blah. It really works. So, let me know in the comments what sorts of other questions you've been asked and the sorts of answers you've been asked to provide during your oral defense. I'd love to hear it. And also remember, there are more ways you can engage with me. The first way is to sign up to my newsletter. Head over to andrewstapleton.com.au forward slash newsletter. The link is in the description. And when you sign up, you'll get five emails over about two weeks. Everything from the tools I've used, the podcasts I've been on, how to write the perfect abstract, the perfect daily schedule, and more. It's exclusive content available for free. So, go sign up now. And also, head over to academiainsider.com. That's my new project where I've got my two eBooks, the Ultimate Academic Writing Toolkit, as well as the PhD Survival Guide. I've got a resource pack for people applying for PhDs and grad school as well. I've got a forum and a blog. It's all going on over there to make sure that academia works for you. All right then, I'll see you in the next video.