self presentation theory social psychology

Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• Impression management refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.
• Generally, people undertake impression management to achieve goals that require they have a desired public image. This activity is called self-presentation.
• In sociology and social psychology, self-presentation is the conscious or unconscious process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them.
• The goal is for one to present themselves the way in which they would like to be thought of by the individual or group they are interacting with. This form of management generally applies to the first impression.
• Erving Goffman popularized the concept of perception management in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , where he argues that impression management not only influences how one is treated by other people but is an essential part of social interaction.

Impression Management in Sociology

Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959).

By conveying particular impressions about their abilities, attitudes, motives, status, emotional reactions, and other characteristics, people can influence others to respond to them in desirable ways.

Impression management is a common way for people to influence one another in order to obtain various goals.

While earlier theorists (e.g., Burke, 1950; Hart & Burk, 1972) offered perspectives on the person as a performer, Goffman (1959) was the first to develop a specific theory concerning self-presentation.

In his well-known work, Goffman created the foundation and the defining principles of what is commonly referred to as impression management.

In explicitly laying out a purpose for his work, Goffman (1959) proposes to “consider the ways in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kind of things he may or may not do while sustaining his performance before them.” (p. xi)

Social Interaction

Goffman viewed impression management not only as a means of influencing how one is treated by other people but also as an essential part of social interaction.

He communicates this view through the conceit of theatre. Actors give different performances in front of different audiences, and the actors and the audience cooperate in negotiating and maintaining the definition of a situation.

To Goffman, the self was not a fixed thing that resides within individuals but a social process. For social interactions to go smoothly, every interactant needs to project a public identity that guides others’ behaviors (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Leary, 2001; Tseelon, 1992).

Goffman defines that when people enter the presence of others, they communicate information by verbal intentional methods and by non-verbal unintentional methods.

According to Goffman, individuals participate in social interactions through performing a “line” or “a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (1967, p. 5).

Such lines are created and maintained by both the performer and the audience. By enacting a line effectively, a person gains positive social value or “face.”

The verbal intentional methods allow us to establish who we are and what we wish to communicate directly. We must use these methods for the majority of the actual communication of data.

Goffman is mostly interested in the non-verbal clues given off which are less easily manipulated. When these clues are manipulated the receiver generally still has the upper hand in determining how realistic the clues that are given off are.

People use these clues to determine how to treat a person and if the intentional verbal responses given off are actually honest. It is also known that most people give off clues that help to represent them in a positive light, which tends to be compensated for by the receiver.

Impression Management Techniques

• Suppressing emotions : Maintaining self-control (which we will identify with such practices as speaking briefly and modestly).
• Conforming to Situational Norms : The performer follows agreed-upon rules for behavior in the organization.
• Flattering Others : The performer compliments the perceiver. This tactic works best when flattery is not extreme and when it involves a dimension important to the perceiver.
• Being Consistent : The performer’s beliefs and behaviors are consistent. There is agreement between the performer’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

Self-Presentation Examples

Self-presentation can affect the emotional experience . For example, people can become socially anxious when they are motivated to make a desired impression on others but doubt that they can do so successfully (Leary, 2001).

In one paper on self-presentation and emotional experience, Schlenker and Leary (1982) argue that, in contrast to the drive models of anxiety, the cognitive state of the individual mediates both arousal and behavior.

The researchers examine the traditional inverted-U anxiety-performance curve (popularly known as the Yerkes-Dodson law) in this light.

The researchers propose that people are interpersonally secure when they do not have the goal of creating a particular impression on others.

They are not immediately concerned about others’ evaluative reactions in a social setting where they are attempting to create a particular impression and believe that they will be successful in doing so.

Meanwhile, people are anxious when they are uncertain about how to go about creating a certain impression (such as when they do not know what sort of attributes the other person is likely to be impressed with), think that they will not be able to project the types of images that will produce preferred reactions from others.

Such people think that they will not be able to project the desired image strongly enough or believe that some event will happen that will repudiate their self-presentations, causing reputational damage (Schlenker and Leary, 1982).

Psychologists have also studied impression management in the context of mental and physical health .

In one such study, Braginsky et al. (1969) showed that those hospitalized with schizophrenia modify the severity of their “disordered” behavior depending on whether making a more or less “disordered” impression would be most beneficial to them (Leary, 2001).

Additional research on university students shows that people may exaggerate or even fabricate reports of psychological distress when doing so for their social goals.

Hypochondria appears to have self-presentational features where people convey impressions of illness and injury, when doing so helps to drive desired outcomes such as eliciting support or avoiding responsibilities (Leary, 2001).

People can also engage in dangerous behaviors for self-presentation reasons such as suntanning, unsafe sex, and fast driving. People may also refuse needed medical treatment if seeking this medical treatment compromises public image (Leary et al., 1994).

Key Components

There are several determinants of impression management, and people have many reasons to monitor and regulate how others perceive them.

For example, social relationships such as friendship, group membership, romantic relationships, desirable jobs, status, and influence rely partly on other people perceiving the individual as being a particular kind of person or having certain traits.

Because people’s goals depend on them making desired impressions over undesired impressions, people are concerned with the impressions other people form of them.

Although people appear to monitor how they come across ongoingly, the degree to which they are motivated to impression manage and the types of impressions they try to foster varies by situation and individuals (Leary, 2001).

Leary and Kowalski (1990) say that there are two processes that constitute impression management, each of which operate according to different principles and are affected by different situations and dispositional aspects. The first of these processes is impression motivation, and the second is impression construction.

Impression Motivation

There are three main factors that affect how much people are motivated to impression-manage in a situation (Leary and Kowalski, 1990):

(1) How much people believe their public images are relevant to them attaining their desired goals.

When people believe that their public image is relevant to them achieving their goals, they are generally more motivated to control how others perceive them (Leary, 2001).

Conversely, when the impressions of other people have few implications on one’s outcomes, that person’s motivation to impression-manage will be lower.

This is why people are more likely to impression manage in their interactions with powerful, high-status people than those who are less powerful and have lower status (Leary, 2001).

(2) How valuable the goals are: people are also more likely to impress and manage the more valuable the goals for which their public impressions are relevant (Leary, 2001).

(3) how much of a discrepancy there is between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them..

People are more highly motivated to impression-manage when there is a difference between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them.

For example, public scandals and embarrassing events that convey undesirable impressions can cause people to make self-presentational efforts to repair what they see as their damaged reputations (Leary, 2001).

Impression Construction

Features of the social situations that people find themselves in, as well as their own personalities, determine the nature of the impressions that they try to convey.

In particular, Leary and Kowalski (1990) name five sets of factors that are especially important in impression construction (Leary, 2001).

Two of these factors include how people’s relationships with themselves (self-concept and desired identity), and three involve how people relate to others (role constraints, target value, and current or potential social image) (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Self-concept

The impressions that people try to create are influenced not only by social context but also by one’s own self-concept .

People usually want others to see them as “how they really are” (Leary, 2001), but this is in tension with the fact that people must deliberately manage their impressions in order to be viewed accurately by others (Goffman, 1959).

People’s self-concepts can also constrain the images they try to convey.

People often believe that it is unethical to present impressions of themselves different from how they really are and generally doubt that they would successfully be able to sustain a public image inconsistent with their actual characteristics (Leary, 2001).

This risk of failure in portraying a deceptive image and the accompanying social sanctions deter people from presenting impressions discrepant from how they see themselves (Gergen, 1968; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980).

People can differ in how congruent their self-presentations are with their self-perceptions.

People who are high in public self-consciousness have less congruency between their private and public selves than those lower in public self-consciousness (Tunnell, 1984; Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Desired identity

People’s desired and undesired selves – how they wish to be and not be on an internal level – also influence the images that they try to project.

Schlenker (1985) defines a desirable identity image as what a person “would like to be and thinks he or she really can be, at least at his or her best.”

People have a tendency to manage their impressions so that their images coincide with their desired selves and stay away from images that coincide with their undesired selves (Ogilivie, 1987; Schlenker, 1985; Leary, 2001).

This happens when people publicly claim attributes consistent with their desired identity and openly reject identities that they do not want to be associated with.

For example, someone who abhors bigots may take every step possible to not appear bigoted, and Gergen and Taylor (1969) showed that high-status navel cadets did not conform to low-status navel cadets because they did not want to see themselves as conformists (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Target value

people tailor their self-presentations to the values of the individuals whose perceptions they are concerned with.

This may lead to people sometimes fabricating identities that they think others will value.

However, more commonly, people selectively present truthful aspects of themselves that they believe coincide with the values of the person they are targeting the impression to and withhold information that they think others will value negatively (Leary, 2001).

Role constraints

the content of people’s self-presentations is affected by the roles that they take on and the norms of their social context.

In general, people want to convey impressions consistent with their roles and norms .

Many roles even carry self-presentational requirements around the kinds of impressions that the people who hold the roles should and should not convey (Leary, 2001).

Current or potential social image

People’s public image choices are also influenced by how they think they are perceived by others. As in impression motivation, self-presentational behaviors can often be aimed at dispelling undesired impressions that others hold about an individual.

When people believe that others have or are likely to develop an undesirable impression of them, they will typically try to refute that negative impression by showing that they are different from how others believe them to be.

When they are not able to refute this negative impression, they may project desirable impressions in other aspects of their identity (Leary, 2001).

Implications

In the presence of others, few of the behaviors that people make are unaffected by their desire to maintain certain impressions. Even when not explicitly trying to create a particular impression of themselves, people are constrained by concerns about their public image.

Generally, this manifests with people trying not to create undesired impressions in virtually all areas of social life (Leary, 2001).

Tedeschi et al. (1971) argued that phenomena that psychologists previously attributed to peoples’ need to have cognitive consistency actually reflected efforts to maintain an impression of consistency in others’ eyes.

Studies have supported Tedeschi and their colleagues’ suggestion that phenomena previously attributed to cognitive dissonance were actually affected by self-presentational processes (Schlenker, 1980).

Psychologists have applied self-presentation to their study of phenomena as far-ranging as conformity, aggression, prosocial behavior, leadership, negotiation, social influence, gender, stigmatization, and close relationships (Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981).

Each of these studies shows that people’s efforts to make impressions on others affect these phenomena, and, ultimately, that concerns self-presentation in private social life.

For example, research shows that people are more likely to be pro-socially helpful when their helpfulness is publicized and behave more prosocially when they desire to repair a damaged social image by being helpful (Leary, 2001).

In a similar vein, many instances of aggressive behavior can be explained as self-presentational efforts to show that someone is willing to hurt others in order to get their way.

This can go as far as gender roles, for which evidence shows that men and women behave differently due to the kind of impressions that are socially expected of men and women.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324. Gergen, K. J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley.

Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.

Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.

• Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.

Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (Vol. 21). London: Harmondsworth.

Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259.

Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165-180.

Jones E E (1964) Ingratiation. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.

Leary M R (1995) Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Leary, M. R.. Impression Management, Psychology of, in Smelser, N. J., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.

Leary M R, Tchvidjian L R, Kraxberger B E 1994 Self-presentation may be hazardous to your health. Health Psychology 13: 461–70.

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.

• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540- 563.

Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, culture & society, 9(2), 115-128.

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549-555.

Further Information

• Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, organizations and society, 38(3), 195-213.
• Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
• Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking‐Glass self: Goffman as symbolic interactionist. Symbolic interaction, 28(2), 147-166.

Dr Manju Antil (Counselling Psychologist and Psychotherapist)

With a passion for understanding how the human mind works, I use my expertise as a Indian psychologist to help individuals nurture and develop their mental abilities to realize lifelong dreams. I am Dr Manju Antil working as a Counseling Psychologist and Psychotherapist at Wellnessnetic Care, will be your host in this journey. I will gonna share psychology-related articles, news and stories, which will gonna help you to lead your life more effectively. So are you excited? Let go

• Neurodevelopmental disorders
• Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders
• Bipolar and related disorders
• Depressive disorders
• Anxiety disorders
• Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders
• Trauma- and stressor-related disorders
• Dissociative disorders
• Somatic symptom and related disorders
• Feeding and eating disorders
• Elimination disorders
• Psychological therapies
• Sexual dysfunctions
• Gender dysphoria
• Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders
• Substance-related and addictive disorders
• Neurocognitive disorders and Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
• Personality disorders
• Applied Social Psychology
• Relationship Advice
• sociology and psychology
• Mind and Cognitive Process
• Rorschach Inkblot Test
• Counselling Psychology
• Free Psych Ebooks
• Video Gallery
• Psychology Today
• Appointment
• Take A Test
• Dr Manju Antil
• Photo Gallary

Goffman’s Self-Presentation Theory: Insights and Applications in Social Psychology| Applied Social Psychology| Dr Manju Rani

Erving Goffman’s self-presentation theory is a foundational concept in social psychology, offering insights into how individuals present themselves in everyday interactions. Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, introduced this theory in his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), where he conceptualized social interactions as theatrical performances. This theory is a key framework for understanding how people consciously or unconsciously manage their image in social situations, depending on the context, audience, and desired outcomes.

1.1 Overview of Erving Goffman’s Contributions

Goffman’s contributions to sociology and psychology extended beyond self-presentation. His work touched on topics such as stigma, total institutions, and face-to-face communication. However, self-presentation remains one of his most enduring legacies. This concept plays a crucial role in applied social psychology, as it helps explain the underlying motivations behind human behaviour in various social contexts, from the workplace to social media interactions.

2. The Concept of Self-Presentation

At the heart of Goffman’s theory lies the idea that individuals are constantly performing for an audience, striving to control the impressions others form of them. This performance can vary based on the environment, audience, and specific social norms guiding the interaction.

2.1 The "Front Stage" and "Back Stage" Metaphor

Goffman introduced the metaphor of a theatrical performance to describe human interactions. The "front stage" refers to the public face that individuals present in social settings, while the "back stage" is where they retreat to prepare or relax away from the gaze of others. On the front stage, individuals perform roles that are shaped by the expectations of the audience and societal norms, while the back stage is reserved for moments of privacy where they can step out of their roles.

2.2 Impression Management as a Core Concept

Central to Goffman’s theory is the concept of impression management , which refers to the process by which individuals attempt to influence the perceptions of others. Whether consciously or unconsciously, people manage the impressions they create through their appearance, speech, body language, and actions. In applied social psychology, this concept is crucial for understanding how individuals navigate various social roles and relationships.

3. Key Elements of Self-Presentation Theory

Goffman’s theory includes several key elements that help explain how people present themselves and how these presentations are influenced by the social environment.

3.1 Social Roles and Social Scripts

In social interactions, individuals perform roles based on societal expectations, much like actors following a script. These social scripts provide guidelines for how to behave in specific situations, such as a job interview, a date, or a family gathering. Goffman’s theory highlights how people internalize and enact these roles, adjusting their performance based on feedback from others.

3.2 The Importance of Audience in Self-Presentation

Goffman emphasized the role of the audience in shaping self-presentation. Just as actors tailor their performances to fit the expectations of their audience, individuals modify their behavior based on the people they interact with. The same person may act differently in front of friends, colleagues, or strangers, depending on the social context and the desired outcome of the interaction.

3.3 Strategic Disclosure and Concealment of Information

Self-presentation often involves the strategic disclosure or concealment of information. Individuals may choose to highlight certain aspects of their identity or experience while downplaying or hiding others, depending on what will create the most favorable impression. For example, in a professional setting, one might emphasize their competence and reliability while concealing personal challenges.

4. Dramaturgy in Social Life

Goffman’s theatrical metaphor, known as dramaturgy , is a powerful tool for understanding social interactions. This perspective frames individuals as actors who use various strategies to present themselves to others.

4.1 The Theatrical Metaphor: Actors, Audience, and Props

In Goffman’s view, social life is like a stage where individuals are actors performing for an audience. The "props" in this performance can include clothing, accessories, or even language and gestures that help convey the desired image. These performances are often shaped by the setting and the roles people are expected to play.

4.2 Managing Impressions in Everyday Life

Goffman’s theory suggests that people are constantly managing impressions in their everyday lives, whether consciously or not. From the way they dress to how they speak, individuals aim to control how they are perceived by others. This constant management of impressions is a key part of navigating social life and maintaining relationships.

5. The Role of Social Norms in Self-Presentation

Social norms play a significant role in shaping how individuals present themselves. These unwritten rules guide behavior and define what is considered acceptable or unacceptable in different social contexts.

5.1 How Social Norms Guide Behavior in Different Contexts

Social norms vary depending on the situation, and individuals adjust their behavior accordingly. In formal settings, such as a business meeting, the norms may require a professional demeanor, while in informal settings, such as a casual gathering, the norms may allow for more relaxed behavior. Goffman’s theory emphasizes how these norms influence self-presentation.

5.2 Social Norms and Identity Performance

Identity performance is closely tied to social norms, as individuals often conform to these norms to fit into their social roles. For example, a teacher may adopt a formal and authoritative manner in the classroom, even if their natural personality is more relaxed. This adjustment is a form of impression management that aligns with societal expectations.

6. Applications of Self-Presentation in Social Psychology

Goffman’s self-presentation theory has wide-ranging applications in social psychology, particularly in understanding how people manage their image in different contexts.

6.1 Self-Presentation in Online Environments and Social Media

The rise of social media has brought new challenges and opportunities for self-presentation. In online environments, individuals have more control over the image they present, carefully curating their posts, photos, and interactions. However, the pressure to maintain a certain image can also lead to stress and anxiety, particularly when the online persona differs from the individual’s true self.

6.2 Self-Presentation in Professional Settings

In professional settings, impression management is crucial for career success. People often engage in self-promotion, emphasizing their skills, achievements, and qualifications to create a favorable impression on employers and colleagues. This strategic presentation is essential in job interviews, networking events, and workplace interactions.

6.3 Self-Presentation in Romantic and Friendship Relationships

In personal relationships, self-presentation plays a key role in forming connections. Individuals may present different aspects of their personality depending on the stage of the relationship and the desired outcome. For instance, early in a romantic relationship, people often highlight their best qualities while concealing less favorable traits.

7. The Psychological Impacts of Self-Presentation

While self-presentation can be a useful tool for navigating social interactions, it can also have psychological effects.

7.1 Effects of Self-Presentation on Self-Esteem

The need to constantly manage impressions can impact self-esteem, particularly when individuals feel that they are not living up to the image they present. This dissonance between the "front stage" self and the "back stage" self can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

7.2 Anxiety and Cognitive Dissonance in Self-Presentation

The pressure to maintain a certain image can also cause anxiety, especially in situations where individuals fear that their true self will be revealed. Cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs or behaviors, can arise when the image a person presents does not align with their internal sense of self.

8. Impression Management Techniques

Individuals use various strategies to manage the impressions they create. Goffman identified several common techniques in his analysis of self-presentation.

8.1 Ingratiation

Ingratiation involves using flattery or other forms of positive reinforcement to gain favor with others. People often use this technique to appear more likable or cooperative, particularly in situations where they want to be accepted by a group.

8.2 Self-Promotion

Self-promotion is a strategy where individuals emphasize their accomplishments and positive qualities to create a favorable impression. This technique is common in professional settings, where individuals seek to showcase their competence and expertise.

8.3 Supplication and Exemplification

Supplication involves presenting oneself as needy or vulnerable to gain sympathy or help from others. Exemplification, on the other hand, involves demonstrating integrity and high moral standards to earn respect and admiration.

9. Self-Presentation and Social Identity Theory

Goffman’s self-presentation theory can be linked to social identity theory, which explores how individuals derive their sense of self from their group memberships.

9.1 Linking Goffman’s Ideas to Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel, suggests that people identify with certain social groups and derive part of their self-concept from these affiliations. Goffman’s theory complements this by explaining how individuals present themselves in ways that align with their group identities, managing impressions to fit in with group norms.

9.2 Identity, Group Membership, and Social Roles

In applied social psychology, Goffman’s ideas help explain how individuals navigate the tension between personal identity and group membership. People often adjust their self-presentation to align with the expectations of their social groups, whether in the workplace, at home, or in social gatherings.

10. Criticisms of Self-Presentation Theory

Despite its influential status, Goffman’s self-presentation theory has faced some criticisms.

10.1 Overemphasis on Social Performance

Critics argue that Goffman’s theory places too much emphasis on the performative aspects of social interaction, suggesting that all behavior is a calculated performance. This perspective may overlook more spontaneous or genuine aspects of human behavior that do not involve conscious impression management.

10.2 Limitations in Addressing Non-Conscious Behavior

Another criticism is that Goffman’s theory does not adequately address non-conscious behaviors. Many social interactions involve automatic, habitual behaviors that do not involve conscious impression management, which is not fully accounted for in the dramaturgical framework.

11. Case Studies of Self-Presentation in Social Psychology

Several case studies highlight how Goffman’s self-presentation theory applies to real-world social interactions.

11.1 Workplace Scenarios: Managing Professional Image

In workplace settings, individuals often engage in impression management to navigate professional relationships. For example, employees may present themselves as competent and dedicated to gain the trust of their superiors, while also managing their image among colleagues.

11.2 Political Leaders and Public Perception

Political leaders are constantly engaged in self-presentation, as their public image plays a crucial role in their success. They often craft speeches, public appearances, and social media profiles to create a favorable impression on their audience.

11.3 Social Media Influencers and Digital Impression Management

Social media influencers provide a modern example of Goffman’s self-presentation theory in action. Influencers carefully curate their online personas to attract followers, using a range of strategies to manage their image and maintain engagement with their audience.

12. Cultural Influences on Self-Presentation

Self-presentation is not universal; it varies significantly across cultures, influenced by different social norms and values.

12.1 Variations in Self-Presentation Across Cultures

Cultural norms play a key role in shaping how individuals present themselves. In collectivist cultures, for example, self-presentation may emphasize group harmony and conformity, while in individualistic cultures, people may focus more on personal achievement and uniqueness.

12.2 Cross-Cultural Research and Goffman’s Theory

Cross-cultural research in social psychology has explored how Goffman’s ideas apply in different cultural contexts. These studies have found that while the basic principles of self-presentation hold across cultures, the specific strategies and norms guiding behaviour can vary widely.

13. The Evolution of Self-Presentation in a Digital Age

The rise of digital communication has transformed self-presentation, creating new opportunities and challenges for managing impressions.

13.1 Changing Dynamics in Virtual Environments

In online environments, individuals have greater control over their self-presentation, but they also face new pressures. The ability to edit and curate digital content allows for more deliberate impression management, but it can also lead to a disconnect between one’s online persona and real-life identity.

13.2 Social Media and the Performance of Multiple Selves

Social media platforms enable individuals to present different versions of themselves to different audiences. For example, someone might present a professional image on LinkedIn, while maintaining a more casual or playful persona on Instagram. This ability to manage multiple selves is a key aspect of digital self-presentation.

14. Ethical Considerations in Self-Presentation

The strategic nature of self-presentation raises important ethical questions, particularly around issues of authenticity and deception.

14.1 Authenticity vs. Deception in Social Interactions

One of the central ethical dilemmas in self-presentation is the balance between authenticity and deception. While it is natural to present oneself in a favorable light, there is a fine line between managing impressions and misleading others. This is particularly relevant in online environments, where individuals can easily manipulate their image.

14.2 Ethical Boundaries in Managing Impressions

In professional and personal relationships, maintaining ethical boundaries in impression management is crucial. Overemphasizing certain qualities or concealing important information can lead to mistrust and damaged relationships, highlighting the importance of transparency in social interactions.

15. Conclusion

Erving Goffman’s self-presentation theory remains a powerful framework for understanding social interactions and the ways individuals manage their image in different contexts. From everyday encounters to the complexities of social media, the theory provides valuable insights into how people navigate the expectations of others while maintaining their sense of self.

15.1 Revisiting Goffman’s Influence on Social Psychology

Goffman’s work continues to influence the field of social psychology, particularly in the study of social identity, group dynamics, and online behavior. His theory provides a useful lens for exploring the nuances of human behavior and the ways people adapt to different social roles and expectations.

15.2 The Future of Self-Presentation Research

As technology continues to evolve, so too will the study of self-presentation. Future research may focus on how digital environments shape self-presentation strategies and the psychological effects of maintaining multiple personas across different platforms. Goffman’s insights will remain relevant as scholars continue to explore the complexities of social behavior in an increasingly interconnected world.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Book your appointment with Dr Manju Antil

• Photo Gallery (Dr. Manju Antil)| Wellnessnetic Care

CLICK HERE FOR OUR LATEST UPDATE

Popular Posts

• FACTORS AFFECTING ADJUSTMENT Henry Smith (1961) in a conclusive statement stated that a good adjustment is one that is both realistic and satisfactory. At least in the l...

SUBSCRIBE AND GET LATEST UPDATES

Search This Blog

• Blog Archives

• Book Appointment
• BTS Updates
• Clinical Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Depressive disorder
• Disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorders
• Health Alert
• Human Behaviour
• Mental Health
• Mental Health Intake Form
• Mind and Cognitive Processes
• Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
• Paraphilic disorders
• Personality
• Personality Assessment
• Psychology Jobs
• Psychology Notes
• Psychotherapeutic Intervention
• Psychotherapy
• Sleep and wake disorders
• Somatic symptoms and related disorders
• Special Disabilities
• Substance related and addictive disorder
• Take a Test
• Trending Topic
• UGC Net Psychology

Connect With Us On Social Media

Featured post, therapeutic guidelines for working with clients with personality disorders| psychotherapeutic intervention| psychological therepies| dr manju rani| wellnessnetic care.

Personality disorders (PDs) are characterized by enduring patterns of behavior, cognition, and inner experience that deviate markedly from t...

Subscribe To

Most trending.

• Anxiety disorders (7)
• Applied Social Psychology (20)
• Bipolar and related disorders (5)
• Book Appointment (4)
• BTS Updates (9)
• Clinical Psychology (63)
• Counseling Psychology (84)
• Creativity (18)
• Depressive disorder (12)
• Disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorders (1)
• Dissociative disorders (1)
• Elimination disorders (1)
• Feeding and eating disorders (1)
• Gender dysphoria (1)
• Health Alert (28)
• Human Behaviour (122)
• Law School (3)
• Mental Health (57)
• Mental Health Intake Form (6)
• Mind and Cognitive Processes (85)
• Neurodevelopmental disorders (2)
• Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (1)
• Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (1)
• Paraphilic disorders (1)
• Personality (35)
• Personality Assessment (23)
• Personality disorders (1)
• Psychological therapies (39)
• Psychology Jobs (10)
• Psychology Notes (64)
• Psychology Today (114)
• Psychotherapeutic Intervention (13)
• Psychotherapy (11)
• Relationship Advice (30)
• Rorschach Inkblot Test (7)
• Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (1)
• Sexual dysfunctions (2)
• Sleep and wake disorders (2)
• sociology and psychology (74)
• Somatic symptoms and related disorders (1)
• Special Disabilities (9)
• Substance related and addictive disorder (1)
• Take a Test (13)
• Trauma- and stressor-related disorders (1)
• Trending Topic (101)
• UGC Net Psychology (68)
• Video Gallery (4)
• Psychologist Manju Antil
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Wellnessnetic Care (Mental Health Intake Form)

Blog Archive

• ►  December (103)
• ►  November (12)
• Therapy Types: Supportive, Re-educative, and Recon...
• Understanding Hopelessness Theory: Treatment and P...
• Types of Learning and Proven Methods: A Comprehens...
• Goffman’s Self-Presentation Theory: Insights and A...
• Emotions: Definition, Differentiation, and Mechani...
• Understanding Motivation: A Key to Human Behavior|...
• Social Psychological Roots of Social Anxiety and D...
• Navigating Self-Presentation and Hopelessness: The...
• Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)| Applied Social P...
• Origins of Psychological Disorders in the Context ...
• Health Belief Model (HBM) in the Context of Social...
• Groupthink: The Double-Edged Sword of Team Cohesio...
• ►  September (16)
• ►  July (17)
• ►  June (4)
• ►  April (1)
• ►  March (1)
• ►  February (1)
• ►  January (3)
• ►  December (7)
• ►  November (2)
• ►  October (1)
• ►  September (5)
• ►  August (4)
• ►  July (7)
• ►  June (12)
• ►  May (23)
• ►  April (36)
• ►  March (11)
• ►  February (17)
• ►  January (11)
• ►  December (16)
• ►  November (9)
• ►  October (3)
• ►  August (8)
• ►  May (3)
• ►  February (3)
• ►  January (14)
• ►  December (15)
• ►  November (3)
• ►  October (4)
• ►  September (1)
• ►  August (6)
• ►  July (25)

Contact Form

• Term and Condition

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 Concepts

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-Esteem : 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.

Please note that some of the links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase a product through one of these links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of high-quality content and allows me to continue providing valuable information.

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.

Being Skeptical

The text highlights the detrimental effects of blind allegiance and the importance of skepticism in critical thinking. It emphasizes the significance of challenging beliefs, seeking…

Read More »

Emotional Style

Emotional Style encompasses our individual ways of experiencing and expressing emotions, influencing our emotional traits, states, and moods. Richard Davidson defines six dimensions of Emotional…

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory emphasizing human interaction and symbols' role in society. It explores how people create and interpret meanings, shaping social reality…

Social Facilitation Theory

Social Facilitation Theory examines how the presence of others affects individual performance, enhancing outcomes in familiar tasks while potentially impairing performance in complex ones. Originating…

Sugar, Health, and Special Interest

The content discusses the health risks associated with excessive sugar consumption, linking it to obesity and chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. It highlights…

Group Development Stages (Tuckman Model)

The Tuckman Model, introduced in 1965, outlines group development stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. The model offers a lens to observe the evolution…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from psychology fanatic.

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

Continue reading

Self-Presentation Theory (SPT)

Self-presentation theory: a review, introduction.

Self-presentation theory explains how individuals use verbal and non-verbal cues to project a particular image in society (Goffman, 1959). The theory draws on dramaturgy metaphors, such as backstage and frontstage, as a lens to explore human behaviour in everyday life (Goffman, 1959). Using dramaturgy as an analytical tool dates back to Nicholas Evreinov’s (1927) research on theatrical instincts, as well as Kenneth Burke’s (1969) work evaluating and scrutinising dramatic action (Shulman, 2016). Continuing this discourse, Erving Goffman (1959) offered a rich vein of theoretical concepts in sociology by drawing on theatre metaphors. While sociology research at that time focused on broader societal forces and structures, self-presentation theory emphasised individual behaviours and offered a lens to evaluate how performers interact with others to achieve personal goals (Goffman, 1959). Key to self-presentation theory is the notion of impression management and the routines that individuals play to manage an audience’s perception. As a result, self-presentation is crucial in developing one’s social identity. Thus, the theory paved the way for a better understanding of identity development through the performance acts of individuals in society.

Drawing on Goffman’s (1959) theorisation, self-presentation is defined as individuals’ actions to control, shape, and modify the impressions other people have of them in a particular setting. In other words, individuals’ " performance is socialised, moulded, and modified to fit into the understanding and expectations of the society in which it is presented " (Goffman, 1959:p44). Hence, self-presentation holds a strategic value to individuals as impressions influence how others assess, treat, and reward them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). For instance, in a workplace setting, impressions may shape personal success and career progression (Gardner & Martinko, 1988).

Self-presentation theory draws on the traditions of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1986). Goffman suggests six key principles of the theory (Goffman, 1959; Shulman, 2016). First, individuals are performers who express their self to society. In practice, individuals highlight a persona and project a particular image to others. Such a projection is a means to show their identity and who they are to the society. Second, individuals want to put forward a credible image. They do so by being truthful and authentic in the way they present themselves. They showcase their expertise in a particular domain. Third, individuals take special care to avoid presenting themselves " out of character ". They strive to ensure that their performance or communication aligns with their role and identity in society. Fourth, if a performance is inadequate and not up to the mark, individuals address or repair it by engaging in restorative actions. Such actions ensure that their desired image is not tarnished. Fifth, self-presentation occurs in social places, known as regions of performance. Such regions in everyday life include the workplace, social gatherings, and social media. As such, they are "platforms" for self-presentation. Sixth, individuals work in teams and manage the impression of the collective to achieve common goals.  In other words, a performance may not always occur alone, but can take place in concert with other individuals.

Individuals enact self-presentation because they are motivated to maximise rewards and minimise punishment (Leary & Kowalski, 1990;Schlenker, 1980). More specifically, motivations include the desire to (i) enhance self-esteem, (ii) develop a self-identity, and (iii) generate social and material benefits (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In practice, people may strive to project an image that will result in praise and compliments, positively shaping one’s self-esteem (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In contrast, individuals may avoid presenting an image that draws criticism and a lack of self-worth (Cohen, 1959). More specifically, a central motivation for self-presentation is to build an identity in society to foster a unique perception in the minds of others (Schlenker, 1980). Further, self-presentation is an adequate mechanism to foster rewards that can be social, including, trust, affection, and friendship. It can generate material benefits, such as financial gain (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).

Goffman (1959) uses the dramaturgical metaphor to explain the self-presentation theory and states that " the theatre metaphor is the ‘structure of the social encounter’ that occurs in all social life " (Adams & Sydie, 2002:p170). Drawing on dramaturgical metaphors, self-presentation comprises backstage and frontstage strategies akin to a theatre performance (Cho et al., 2018). These strategies are summarised in Table 1. Backstage relates to reflecting, practising, and taking adequate measures to prepare oneself (Goffman, 1959). Such practices occur in private and offer individuals a more comfortable atmosphere in which to prepare without the pressure from society, such as norms and expectations to behave in a certain way (Jeacle, 2014). The theory suggests the significance of rehearsal, which focuses on preparation work for the frontstage (Siegel, Tussyadiah & Scarles, 2023). For instance, individuals can practise and adjust their presentation at home before a formal client meeting.

Table 1: Self-presentation strategies

In contrast, frontstage comprises the " setting ", which includes the layout and objects in a particular room that set the scene for expression and action (Goffman, 1959). The setting is a place that is usually stable and unmovable, but at times can be relocated such as a circus (Goffman, 1959). Another key aspect of the frontstage is the " personal front ", which relates to personal characteristics such as sex, age, and facial expressions (Goffman, 1959). These characteristics are signals that are either fixed or vary over time (Goffman, 1959). Fixed characteristics are, for instance, one’s ethnic background, whereas characteristics that change include gestures based on one’s mood. The theory suggests that the personal front can be better understood through the lens of appearance and manner. The former relates to one’s temporal state such as work or leisure. The latter expresses the interaction role that one is likely to pursue in a given situation, like being professional and sincere (Goffman, 1959). Usually, there exists a coherence between the appearance and manner, although, at times, they may be misaligned (Goffman, 1959). For instance, a person of high status may behave in a way considered down to earth (Goffman, 1959).

Individuals can enact certain routines as part of their self-expression on the frontstage. At times, these routines can become institutionalised when an individual takes on specific roles in society (Goffman, 1959). The theory highlights the following routines: idealisation, mystification, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, ingratiation, identification, basking in reflected glory, downward comparison, upward comparison, remaining silent, apology, and corrective action (Schütz, 1998).

Idealisation relates to individuals performing an ideal accredited impression in society (Goffman, 1959). Idealisation is common in social stratification research: individuals strive to go higher up the ladder in the social strata and adjust their self-presentations to reflect that ideal state and value system. In practice, individuals gain insight into the sign equipment required to showcase idealisation, and subsequently use it to project the accredited social class. Mystification is pursued by reducing contact and increasing social distance with the audience to create a sense of awe (Goffman, 1959). It is a means of limiting familiarity with others. For instance, mystification was used by Kings and Queens to foster an impression of power. The audience responded in a way that respected their mystic and sacred identity.

Self-promotion is pursued to create a credible image of oneself in the minds of others (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Schau & Gilly, 2003). Such a form of persuasion is relevant in various circumstances, such as job interviews, influencer marketing, and presidential speeches. For instance, a candidate applying for a digital marketing role may share reflections on their expertise in search engine optimisation. An influencer focusing on health and fitness may share online videos of their exercise regimes. A presidential candidate may talk about their vast political experience to project their leadership qualities. Therefore, self-promotion focuses on projecting oneself as an expert and capable person in a particular domain (Bande et al., 2019). However, the theory suggests the issue of misrepresentation: behaviours that represent a false front (Goffman, 1959). Individuals may use credible vehicle signs for the wrong reasons, such as deception and fraud (Goffman, 1959).

Exemplification strategy focuses on creating an impression of oneself as virtuous and honourable (Bonner, Greenbaum & Quade, 2017; Gardner, 2003; Schütz, 1997). In other words, exemplification relates to creating an identity that rests on the notion of morality and ethics. For instance, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) may publish posts on social media supporting charities, which projects a righteous image. Further, individuals regularly take a stand against harmful organisational behaviours, such as those engaging in child labour.  While sharing their views on social media, those individuals exemplify a high moral ground and justify why organisations engaging in transgressions need to be held accountable. However, an exemplification strategy has its potential dangers. The society may question the motive behind such actions and consider it a means to cover up previous unethical deeds (Stone et al., 1997).  

Supplication is based on showing oneself as vulnerable and frail to draw adequate support and help from others (Christopher et al., 2005; Korzynski, Haenlein & Rautiainen, 2021) . The ingratiation strategy relates to creating a likable and attractive impression in a particular place offline, such as one’s workplace, and online on social media (Bolino, Long & Turnley, 2016; Gross et al., 2021). For instance, an individual can project themselves to be professional and collegial in the workplace to foster goodwill and social approval.

The identification strategy puts emphasis on associating oneself with a particular community to create a specific image in society (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). For instance, some consumers may link themselves to the Harley-Davidson community to create a rebellious and adventurous image (Schembri, 2009). Tattoos, leather jackets, and riding on Harley motorcycles in packs reinforce their identification (Schembri, 2009). A strategy that slightly overlaps with identification work is " basking in reflected glor y" (Cialdini et al., 1976). In this case, an individual associates themselves with another person who has a positive impression in society and thus leverages those associations (Schütz, 1998).

Downward comparison focuses on projecting oneself as superior and in a positive light to the detriment of others (Wills, 1981). One may witness downward comparison in politics as one presidential candidate expresses how their vision and proposed policies are superior compared to another candidate. Upward comparison, however, is the practice of comparing oneself with someone better to improve one’s self-evaluations and perceptions (Collins, 1996).

Remaining silent may be a particular practice for individuals to be neutral and not face any criticism or backlash (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Finally, particularly when one is responsible for an adverse event or has engaged in a wrong action, they may share an apology, defined as " repenting and promising moral behaviour in the future " (Hart, Tortoriello & Richardson, 2020:p2).  They may suggest putting corrective measures in place so that it does not happen again in the future (Schütz, 1998).

Figure 1 offers a generic framework of self-presentation theory, comprising frontstage and backstage strategies that help attain specific outcomes (Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). The backstage and frontstage are inter-related. Backstage strategies often involve preparation, desk research, and due diligence to gain insight into a particular performance (Jacobs, 1992). As such, backstage is an unofficial channel for individuals to gain the necessary skills, attributes, and contextual understanding to perform certain routines (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). Subsequently, individuals enact frontstage strategies involving those practised routines and impressions in a social context (Schütz, 1997).

To ensure adequate self-presentation, the theory suggests various means by which impression management can be pursued in the right way and includes defensive and protective practices (Goffman, 1959) as well as maintaining the definition of the situation (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). Defensive practices pursued by performers are a means for individuals and teams to safeguard their own performance. It requires discipline, whereby individuals have " presence of mind ". Disciplined individuals are resilient to unexpected circumstances and are sufficiently agile to ensure the performance attains its goal. In addition, individuals can enact circumspection by adequately preparing to offer a high-quality performance (Goffman, 1959). This involves taking time to design the performance and enacting foresight and prudence. Individuals may even show loyalty and devotion to other team members to ensure the overall impression does not fail (Goffman, 1959). When individuals reveal secrets or problems to outsiders, it damages the image of the team.

Protective practices, however, are pursued by audience members to help the performers manage their impressions (Goffman, 1959). They do so by not intruding on the back or frontstage. In practice, etiquette is maintained by not involving oneself in others' personal matters. Permission and consent are exercised to gain access. For instance, salespersons usually introduce themselves first and ask permission to discuss a product or service. However, the audience can exercise extra understanding and empathy when performance is not up to the mark for a person learning their trade (Goffman, 1959).

Finally, by maintaining a definition of the situation, individuals can develop an " agreed upon, subjective understanding of what will happen in a given situation or setting, and who will play which roles in the action " (Crossman, 2019). As a result, the concept defines the social order and gives symbolic meaning to human interactions that occur in everyday life (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). When the definition of the situation is not maintained or broken, the performance becomes ineffective and may even collapse (Tiilikainen et al., 2024).

Institutions shape how performers present themselves in everyday life. Goffman (1983:p1) used the terminology - interaction order – to explain the " loose coupling between interaction practices and social structure " and how " the workings of the interaction order can easily be viewed as the consequence of systems of enabling conventions, in the sense of ground rules for a game, the provisions of a traffic code or the rules of syntax of a language ". As such, the interaction order offers rules and norms that shape one’s behaviour in society. At an extreme level, institutions can have high levels of dominance and control, which Goffman (1961) defines as total institutions, which are often applied in prisons, military organisations, and even hospitals. Total institutions exert control over individuals’ daily routines, movements, and even identities (Goffman, 1961). The theoretical properties of total institutions include role dispossession i.e., " the process through which new recruits are prevented from being who they were in the world they inhabited prior to entry" (Shulman, 2016:p103). This involves trimming or programming, which relates to individuals being " shaped and coded into an object that can be fed into the administrative machinery of the establishment, to be worked on smoothly by routine operations " (Goffman, 1986:p16). Individuals in a total institution are forced to give up their identity kit i.e., personal belongings that give meaning to who they are in society (Shulman, 2016).

Theoretical developments

Since Goffman’s original work, scholars have advanced the theoretical properties of self-presentation. Specifically, in sharp contrast to total institutions, Scott (2011:p3) suggested the notion of reinventive institutions, defined as "a material, discursive or symbolic structure in which voluntary members actively seek to cultivate a new social identity, role or status. This is interpreted positively as a process of reinvention, self-improvement or transformation. It is achieved not only through formal instruction in an institutional rhetoric, but also through the mechanisms of performative regulation in the interaction context of an inmate culture" . Reinventive institutions are much more relevant in modern life, whereby individuals want to go through a transformation of their self and create a new identity (Scott, 2011). In other words, they want to let go of their previous self in pursuit of a reinvigorated new persona. Illustrative cases of reinventive institutions include spiritual communities and lifestyle groups (Shulman, 2016). Individuals are not forced to enter these communities; rather, they do so entirely voluntarily (Scott, 2010). These institutions are self-organising, i.e., the community members keep a check on each other to maintain the collective norms (Huber et al., 2020).

In contrast to Goffman’s original theorisation of self-presentation in face-to-face, offline interactions, research work has extended the theory to evaluate online impression management (Bareket-Bojmel, Moran & Shahar, 2016; Ranzini & Hoek, 2017; Rui & Stefanone, 2013). In practice, individuals use technology features such as text, images or videos to signal and manage their online image. This contrasts with non-verbal signals, such as body language, which are often common in offline interactions.  Online impression management can be managed more conveniently as individuals can develop, change, or edit informational cues in a way that suits their purpose (Sun, Fang & Zhang, 2021). However, individuals’ digital footprint may remain over time online, and it can be viewed and accessed by others anytime (Hogan, 2010). This relates to the problem of " stage breach ", where data about individuals’ private lives are retrievable on search engines and social media platforms (Shulman, 2016). As such, the internet has caused the blurring of boundaries between back and frontstage, a phenomenon dubbed as " collapsed contexts " (Davis & Jurgenson, 2014), defined as " a flattening of the spatial, temporal, and social boundaries that otherwise separate audiences on social networking sites " (Duguay, 2016:p892).  In response, individuals may use privacy filters or even delete content posted in the past that may negatively influence their image in society (DeAndrea, Tong & Lim, 2018).

Due to the advent of social media, Hogan (2010) extended Goffman’s theorisation by differentiating between "performances" and "exhibitions" that occur online. Performances, similar to Goffman’s dramaturgy metaphor, occur in real-time, such as in chat rooms, online meetings, and live streams. In this case, the situation is synchronous, and performances are time-bound (Hogan, 2010). However, exhibitions do not occur in real time, and individuals use technology artifacts afforded by social media to curate content (Hogan, 2010). These include posting a status update, uploading a photo album, or sharing a pre-recorded, edited video. As a result, exhibitions occur in asynchronous situations.

Overall, self-presentation theory provides a dramaturgy analytical lens for researchers to evaluate human behaviour in face-to-face and online interactions that involve synchronous and/or asynchronous situations. It offers a range of back and frontstage strategies that individuals and teams enact to manage their impressions in society, also suggesting that the broader institutional environment shapes how they behave in everyday life. Table 2 summarises the key conceptual definitions of self-presentation theory.

Table 2: Key concepts and definitions

Applications

Self-presentation theory is primarily anchored in sociology. However, other disciplines, such as management, marketing, and information systems, have extended the application of the theory in their respective contexts, such as work, social media, and branding. As such, the sociology discipline sheds light on the theoretical aspects of self-presentation, including its strategies, motivations, and application of the theory in everyday life (Goffman, 1959; Lewis & Neighbors, 2005; Schütz, 1998; Vohs, Baumeister & Ciarocco, 2005). Based on the theory, management scholars have investigated the application of self-presentation at work at two levels: individual and organisational (Bolino et al., 2008; Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Cook et al., 2024; Windscheid et al., 2018). At an individual level, self-presentation theory has been extensively applied to evaluate job interviews and performance appraisals (Kim et al., 2023; Moon et al., 2024). The theory is highly appropriate when determining individuals’ success or failure in securing work in organisations, as well as their job performance and career success (Gioaba & Krings, 2017; Bolino et al., 2008). For instance, leaders and managers who engage in appropriate self-presentation are more likely to generate " buy-in " and support from colleagues about their suggestions and action plans (Gardner & Martinko, 1988) . Research has even investigated how employees manage their impressions when interacting with colleagues on social media (Sun, Fang & Zhang, 2021; Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard & Berg, 2013). This is crucial yet challenging because employees simultaneously have to manage their work and personal identities on social media (Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard & Berg, 2013). In addition, research looked into how entrepreneurs managed their impression after the failure of their business (Kibler et al., 2021; Shepherd & Haynie, 2011). They do so to retain their credibility for future entrepreneurial ventures (Kibler et al., 2021). 

At an organisational level, empirical work has examined organisational impression management (Benthaus, Risius & Beck, 2016; Carter, 2006; Schniederjans, Cao & Schniederjans, 2013). This is defined as " any action that is intentionally designed and carried out to influence an audience’s perceptions of the organisation " (Bolino et al., 2008:p1095). Studies have explored how organizational impression management strategies focus on assertive strategies to create a positive public image, such as sharing recent achievements (Mohamed, Gardner & Paolillo, 1999). In contrast, reactive strategies are used to manage crisis situations that tarnish the reputation of an organisation (Jin, Li & Hoskisson, 2022; Rim & Ferguson, 2020). Studies have also investigated how impression management of particular individuals (such as CEOs) shapes organisational image and performance (Cowen & Montgomery, 2020; Im, Kim & Miao, 2021). In contrast, research examined how organisational factors (e.g., culture) shape employee conduct in the workplace in a way that aligns with the values and norms expected in the organisation (Ashford et al., 1998).

In contemporary marketing, the metaphor of dramaturgy, which is central to impression management, has been used in retail and service research to investigate how to enhance customer experience (Bitner, 1992). In practice, the front and backstage have been effectively used to offer guidelines and implications to improve retail and service environments (Grove, Fisk & John, 2000). The marketing field even provides insight into how brands play a role in self-presentation (Ferraro, Kirmani & Matherly, 2013; Lee, Ko & Megehee, 2015). In particular, consumers often use and purchase brands that relate to a specific self-concept they strive to build and maintain (Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2022; Clark, Slama & Wolfe, 1999). In other words, brands offer consumers identity artifacts or props to express themselves. For instance, research by Jiménez-Barreto et al. (2022) finds that consumers find cool brands (original, iconic, and popular brands) valuable to construct their cool identity. This phenomenon is pertinent to luxury brands, which enable consumers to project a classy, high-status image in society (Kim & Oh, 2022). However, such consumer practices may backfire. Other people (or observers) may have negative perceptions of consumers using brands in a conspicuous or attention-seeking way (Ferraro, Kirmani & Matherly, 2013) and perceive them as having dark personalities, including narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Razmus, Czarna & Fortuna, 2023). Observers even perceive consumers who use luxury brands to have lower levels of warmth (Cannon & Rucker, 2019). Managing impressions in marketing applies to buyer-seller relationships (Fisk & Grove, 1996). For example, sales professionals are often required to project an expert image. Impression management is also core to business-to-business marketing management, for instance, to remain resilient in crises (Alo et al., 2023; Lan & Sheng, 2023).

Information systems researchers have effectively investigated how technology can be used in the self-presentation process (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012; Ma & Agarwal, 2007; Shi, Lai & Chen, 2023). The theoretical integration of self-presentation and technology is particularly relevant due to the advent of the internet, social media, metaverse, and artificial intelligence. For instance, Ma and Agarwal (2007) examined how technology artifacts afforded by virtual communities, such as avatars, nicknames, digital photographs and personal pages, enable users to enact self-presentation to create their identity. They find that when people have perceived verified identities, defined as " perceived confirmation from other community members of a focal person’s belief about (their) identities " (p. 46), it encourages the person to share knowledge with others in the virtual community. It even increases their satisfaction level with the community. Another study study found that the desire for online self-presentation, defined as the " extent to which an individual wants to present his or her preferred image in a virtual community of interest, " encourages individuals to purchase digital items, such as avatars and image files (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012:p1235). These digital items are artifacts for self-expression and communication (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012). The authors argue that the desire for online self-presentation in virtual communities is influenced by three factors: self-efficacy, norms, and involvement. They suggest that individuals who believe in their own capability to adequately develop a desired perception of themselves in the virtual community are more likely to engage in self-presentation work. Also, if the virtual community norms (rules and expectations) are conducive to self-presentation, the desire for self-presentation is stimulated. Further, if individuals are involved with the virtual community, i.e., they can relate to the community members, feel a strong affinity with them, and invest time and resources in the community, then it increases one’s desire for self-presentation. Chen and Chen (2020) suggest that the perceived value of those digital items encourages users to make a purchase. Yet in another study, Oh, Goh and Phan (2023) offer interesting insights and show that social media users are more inclined to share positive news to their network as part of their image-building process, as opposed to negative or controversial news. The reason is that sharing positive news reinforces one’s positive self-identity. In fact, such sharing behaviours are particularly relevant for users with a broader social network as they have a higher disposition to maintain a positive self-image (Oh, Goh & Phan, 2023).

Self-presentation theory has been applied to effectively explore human deception (DeAndrea et al., 2012; Toma, Hancock & Ellison, 2008). Individuals may apply impression management strategies to falsely show themselves favourably to achieve their desired goals (Petrescu, Ajjan & Harrison, 2023). Research shows that individuals whose motivation to produce a positive impression in a group is low are likely to present themselves in an authentic way (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Similarly, if individuals are highly motivated to create a favourable image, they are not likely to use deception in a group unless they possess the self-efficacy to engage in deceptive work (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Meanwhile, those with low self-efficacy will probably pursue evasive self-presentation practices, such as stalling or repressing information (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Self-efficacy in the context of impression management means the extent to which an individual can control and manage their impression. It is subject to the requirements or demands of self-presentation in a particular social context, and the capabilities one possesses to achieve those demands (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Figure 2 offers a framework that highlights deceptive self-presentation work in groups.

Importantly, with the advancements in digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence and deepfakes, individuals can develop content that may look real even though it is not (Mustak et al., 2023; Vasist & Krishnan, 2023). As a result, it has become extremely challenging to differentiate between authentic and fabricated content. This is further exacerbated as individuals can use digital tools, such as video filters, to project a misleading identity (Herring et al., 2024).

Limitations

Sociologists suggest that self-presentation theory, rooted in symbolic interactionism, focuses on micro-level interpretations of signs and meanings but offers a limited understanding of the broader societal factors and powers that influence individuals’ lives (Shulman, 2016). Moreover, management studies criticise the analytical ability of a theatre metaphor to explore impression management within organisations (Shulman, 2016). While self-presentation theory may be a useful framework, the extent to which a theatre’s characteristics relate to an organisation has been questioned (Shulman, 2016). This limitation is acknowledged by Goffman, who states in his book that " the perspective employed in this report is that of the theatrical performance; the principles derived are dramaturgical ones ... In using this model I will attempt not to make light of its obvious inadequacies. The stage presents things that are make-believe; presumably life presents things that are real ." (Goffman, 1959). Ongoing management research is attending to this limitation by investigating how employees manage their impression towards their co-workers and supervisors in organisations (Huang, Paterson & Wang, 2024).

Along the same lines, scholars have questioned the validity of a " performance " in self-presentation and whether such rituals are relevant in today’s society (Williams, 1986). The theory focuses on face-to-face interactions to manage impressions (Williams, 1986). Blumer (1972) suggests that the theory " stems from the narrowly constructed area of human group life ….limited the area of face-to-face association with a corresponding exclusion of the vast sum of human activity falling outside such association ." However, ongoing scholarly work is addressing this limitation by evaluating self-presentation in online environments, such as social media (Klostermann et al., 2023; Seidman, 2013). Self-presentation theory focuses heavily on the individual, and its applications to teams have received comparatively limited attention and extension (Blumer, 1972). As a result, recent research has looked into impression management on teamwork and team satisfaction (Schiller et al., 2024).

Scholars suggest that although Goffman’s conceptualisation of the interaction order offers a unique yet descriptive theoretical property, it provides limited knowledge of how the interaction order evolves over time and the explanatory variables that could suggest how and why the change occurred (Colomy & Brown, 1996). Importantly, Goffman’s conceptualisation of total institutions has received criticism in terms of its theoretical scope and generalisability, as not all organisations, such as mental hospitals, exert extreme control (Lemert, 1981). The total institution does not consider differences in " organisational goal, professional ideology, staff personality " (Weinstein, 1982:p269). Thus, research has looked into the application of impression management under different institutional environments, uncertainties in the business environment, and organisational motives (Ahmed, Elsayed & Xu, 2024; Busenbark, Lange & Certo, 2017).

Click to subscribe to our YouTube Channel.

Varqa Shamsi Bahar (Business School, Newcastle University)

How to Cite

Bahar, V.S. (2024) Self-Presentation Theory: A review . In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book . Available at https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400

Theory Profile

Discipline Psychology Unit of Analysis Individual, teams

Operationalised Qualitatively / Quantitatively Level Micro-level

Theory Tags

ISBN: 978-1-7396044-0-0

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

• About TheoryHub
• Submissions
• YouTube Channel

TheoryHub © 2020-2024 All rights reserved

• 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.

Social Psychology

Introduction to Social Psychology and Self-Presentation

What you’ll learn to do: recognize aspects of social psychology, including the fundamental attribution error, biases, social roles, and social norms, in your daily life.

Social psychology is the study of how people affect one another’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In this section, you’ll learn about how our attitudes about others and our perception of our self can be deceiving. You’ll examine situational forces that have a strong influence on human behavior including social roles, social norms, and scripts. You’ll learn about 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.

Learning Objectives

• Describe situational versus dispositional influences on behavior
• Give examples of the fundamental attribution error and other biases, including the actor-observer bias and the self-serving bias
• Explain the just-world phenomenon
• Describe social roles, social norms, and scripts and how they influence behavior
• Explain the process and the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

CC licensed content, Original

• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

CC licensed content, Shared previously

• Self-presentation. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-2-self-presentation . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Image of people holding hands. Authored by : Scott Maxwell. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2137735924/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

study guides for every class

That actually explain what's on your next test, self-presentation theory, from class:, social psychology.

Self-presentation theory is the concept that individuals actively manage how they present themselves to others in order to create specific impressions and achieve desired social outcomes. This involves the strategic use of behaviors, appearances, and interactions to influence how one is perceived, highlighting the importance of impression management in social situations. The theory suggests that people are motivated by a need for social acceptance and validation, which drives them to craft their public personas in various contexts.

congrats on reading the definition of Self-Presentation Theory . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• Self-presentation can involve both verbal and non-verbal communication, including body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.
• People often adapt their self-presentation strategies depending on the context, such as being more formal in professional settings compared to casual interactions.
• Online platforms have transformed self-presentation, allowing individuals to curate their images through photos, posts, and profiles that can be strategically crafted.
• Self-presentation can lead to different outcomes; successful impression management may enhance social relationships, while failures can result in social rejection or negative evaluations.
• Different cultures may have varying norms around self-presentation, affecting how individuals manage their impressions based on societal expectations.

Review Questions

• Self-presentation theory explains that individuals modify their behaviors based on the social context to create favorable impressions. For instance, someone might act more reserved at a formal event but be more expressive at a casual gathering. This adaptability is driven by a desire for social acceptance and validation, leading people to consciously alter their appearances, communication styles, and even body language to align with situational expectations.
• Online platforms significantly impact self-presentation strategies by allowing users to carefully curate their images and control the information shared with others. Unlike face-to-face interactions where immediate feedback occurs, online environments enable individuals to edit and selectively showcase aspects of their lives. This often results in a more polished persona, as people may choose only the most flattering photos or highlight achievements, which contrasts with the spontaneous nature of in-person interactions where authentic selves are often revealed more readily.
• Evaluating self-presentation theory across cultural contexts reveals that norms surrounding self-expression can significantly differ. In collectivist cultures, individuals may prioritize group harmony over personal expression, leading to more subdued self-presentation strategies. In contrast, individualistic cultures might encourage more assertive self-disclosure and personal branding. Understanding these cultural differences helps clarify why some people appear more reserved or boastful than others in social settings, emphasizing the complexity of interpersonal relationships shaped by cultural expectations surrounding impression management.

Related terms

Impression Management : The process through which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them in social interactions.

Social Identity : The part of an individual's self-concept derived from their perceived membership in social groups, influencing how they present themselves.

Role Theory : The framework that examines how individuals perform social roles and adhere to societal expectations based on their identities.

" Self-Presentation Theory " also found in:

Subjects ( 3 ).

• Communication Technologies
• Language and Popular Culture
• Professional Presentation

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

Reader's guide

Entries a-z, subject index.

• Self-Presentation
• Edited by: Roy F. Baumeister & Kathleen D. Vohs
• In: Encyclopedia of Social Psychology
• Chapter DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781412956253.n494
• Subject: Social Psychology (general)
• Keywords: impression management ; self-presentation
• Show page numbers Hide page numbers

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.

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 selfpresentation more broadly as a pervasive aspect of [Page 836] 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-presentation. 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 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.

[Page 837] 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.

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 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, selfpresentations can fail when people lack the cognitive resources to present effectively because, for example, [Page 838] 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.

• self-presentation
• impression management
• Deception (Lying)
• Ego Depletion
• Impression Management
• Phenomenal Self
• Self-Defeating Behaviors
• Self-Perception Theory
• Social Desirability Bias

Further Readings

• Self-Promotion
• Action Identification Theory
• Adaptive Unconscious
• Apparent Mental Causation
• Approach-Avoidance Conflict
• Authenticity
• Auto-Motive Model
• Behavioral Contagion
• Choking Under Pressure
• Controlled Processes
• Decision Making
• Delay of Gratification
• Drive Theory
• Excitation-Transfer Theory
• Extrinsic Motivation
• Feedback Loop
• Free Will, Study of
• Grim Necessities
• Guilty Pleasures
• Helplessness, Learned
• Home-Field Advantage and Disadvantage
• Hormones and Behavior
• Implementation Intentions
• Intrinsic Motivation
• Ironic Processes
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Locus of Control
• Mental Control
• Meta-Awareness
• Mindfulness and Mindlessness
• Modeling of Behavior
• Nonconscious Processes
• Overjustification Effect
• Procrastination
• Reasoned Action Theory
• Regulatory Focus Theory
• Risk Taking
• Rubicon Model of Action Phases
• Self-Awareness
• Self-Control Measures
• Self-Defeating Behavior
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Discrepancy Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Handicapping
• Self-Regulation
• Social Facilitation
• Social Learning
• Social Loafing
• Stereotype Threat
• Stress Appraisal Theory (Primary and Secondary Appraisal)
• Temporal Construal Theory
• Theory of Planned Behavior
• Antisocial Behavior
• Aversive Racism
• Bobo Doll Studies
• Catharsis of Aggression
• Cheater-Detection Mechanism
• Conflict Resolution
• Displaced Aggression
• Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis
• GRIT Tension Reduction Strategy
• Hostile Masculinity Syndrome
• Intimate Partner Violence
• Media Violence and Aggression
• Milgram's Obedience to Authority Studies
• Moral Hypocrisy
• Narcissistic Reactance Theory of Sexual Coercion
• Sexual Harassment
• Social Exclusion
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Terrorism, Psychology of
• Threatened Egotism Theory of Aggression
• Anticipatory Attitude Change
• Attitude Change
• Attitude Formation
• Attitude Strength
• Attitude–Behavior Consistency
• Balance Theory
• Brainwashing
• Cognitive Consistency
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Dual Attitudes
• Effort Justification
• Elaboration Likelihood Model
• Forced Compliance Technique
• Forewarning
• Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion
• Implicit Attitudes
• Motivated Reasoning
• Polarization Processes
• Satisficing
• Collective Self
• Collectivistic Cultures
• Cultural Animal
• Cultural Differences
• Culture of Honor
• Erotic Plasticity
• Ethnocentrism
• Independent Self-Construals
• Interdependent Self-Construals
• Moral Development
• Mortality Salience
• Objectification Theory
• Pornography
• Relational Models Theory
• Sexual Economics Theory
• Terror Management Theory
• Affect Heuristic
• Affect Infusion
• Affect-as-Information
• Ambivalence
• Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Affect
• Buffering Effect
• Companionate Love
• Decision and Commitment in Love
• Embarrassment
• Emotional Contagion
• Emotional Intelligence
• Facial Expression of Emotion
• Facial-Feedback Hypothesis
• Fear Appeals
• Forgiveness
• Hedonic Treadmill
• Independence of Positive and Negative Affect
• Intergroup Anxiety
• Intergroup Emotions
• Mere Exposure Effect
• Moral Emotions
• Nonconscious Emotion
• Opponent Process Theory of Emotions
• Positive Affect
• Romantic Love
• Social Anxiety
• Stress and Coping
• Unrequited Love
• Visceral Influences
• Affordances
• Dominance, Evolutionary
• Ecological Rationality
• Error Management Theory
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Genetic Influences on Social Behavior
• Kin Selection
• Sexual Selection
• Sexual Strategies Theory
• Sociobiological Theory
• Sociobiology
• Brainstorming
• Bystander Effect
• Close Relationships
• Cohesiveness, Group
• Communal Relationships
• Contact Hypothesis
• Contingency Model of Leadership
• Deindividuation
• Diffusion of Responsibility
• Discontinuity Effect
• Distributive Justice
• Entitativity
• Group Cohesiveness
• Group Decision Making
• Group Dynamics
• Group Identity
• Group Performance and Group Productivity
• Group Polarization
• Groups, Characteristics of
• Ingroup-Outgroup Bias
• Intergroup Relations
• Jigsaw Classroom
• Minimal Group Paradigm
• Minority Social Influence
• Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Other–Total Ratio
• Outgroup Homogeneity
• Procedural Justice
• Realistic Group Conflict Theory
• Ringelmann Effect
• Risky Shift
• Robbers Cave Experiment
• Roles and Role Theory
• Rumor Transmission
• Scapegoat Theory
• Self-Categorization Theory
• Self-Stereotyping
• Social Compensation
• Social Dominance Orientation
• Social Identity Theory
• Social Impact Theory
• Social Justice Orientation
• Social Power
• Socioeconomic Status
• System Justification
• Territoriality
• Token Effects
• Binge Eating
• Biopsychosocial Model
• Health Psychology
• Sexual Desire
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Psychophysiology
• Tend-and-Befriend Response
• Testosterone
• Bennington College Study
• History of Social Psychology
• Logical Positivism
• Reductionism
• Thematic Apperception Test
• Door-in-the-Face Technique
• Foot-in-the-Door Technique
• Forced Compliance
• Informational Influence
• Ingratiation
• Ingratiator's Dilemma
• Inoculation Theory
• Normative Influence
• Norms, Prescriptive and Descriptive
• Reciprocity Norm
• Reference Group
• Resisting Persuasion
• Scarcity Principle
• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
• Sleeper Effect
• Stealing Thunder
• Supplication
• Attachment Theory
• Complementarity, of Relationship Partners
• Dependence Regulation
• Empathic Accuracy
• Equity Theory
• Exchange Relationships
• Interdependence Theory
• Interpersonal Cognition
• Marital Satisfaction
• Matching Hypothesis
• Need to Belong
• Nonverbal Cues and Communication
• Propinquity
• Romantic Secrecy
• Self-Disclosure
• Self-Evaluation Maintenance
• Self-Expansion Theory
• Similarity-Attraction Effect
• Social Exchange Theory
• Social Support
• Social Value Orientation
• Transactive Memory
• Triangular Theory of Love
• Behavioral Economics
• Fast and Frugal Heuristics
• Hindsight Bias
• Hot Hand Effect
• Hyperbolic Discounting
• Illusion of Transparency
• Illusory Correlation
• Integrative Complexity
• Law of Small Numbers
• Loss Aversion
• Mental Accounting
• Mere Ownership Effect
• Naive Cynicism
• Naive Realism
• Omission Neglect
• Overconfidence
• Planning Fallacy
• Pluralistic Ignorance
• Preference Reversals
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Prospect Theory
• Public Goods Dilemma
• Recency Effect
• Representativeness Heuristic
• Sequential Choice
• Simulation Heuristic
• Simultaneous Choice
• Social Dilemmas
• Spreading of Alternatives
• Autobiographical Narratives
• Big Five Personality Traits
• Bogus Pipeline
• Content Analysis
• Control Condition
• Critical Social Psychology
• Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation
• Deception (Methodological Technique)
• Demand Characteristics
• Discursive Psychology
• Dynamical Systems Theory
• Ecological Validity
• Experimental Condition
• Experimental Realism
• Experimentation
• Experimenter Effects
• Falsification
• Identity Status
• Implicit Association Test
• Individual Differences
• Lost Letter Technique
• Meta-Analysis
• Mundane Realism
• Nonexperimental Designs
• Operationalization
• Order Effects
• Path Analysis
• Placebo Effect
• Quasi-Experimental Designs
• Research Methods
• Self-Reports
• Semantic Differential
• Social Relations Model
• Sociometric Status
• Structural Equation Modeling
• Twin Studies
• Achievement Motivation
• Agreeableness
• Attachment Styles
• Authoritarian Personality
• Babyfaceness
• Central Traits Versus Peripheral Traits
• Control Motivation
• Defensive Pessimism
• Extraversion
• Gender Differences
• Implicit Personality Theory
• Introversion
• Masculinity/Femininity
• Narcissistic Entitlement
• Need for Affiliation
• Need for Closure
• Need for Cognition
• Need for Power
• Neuroticism
• Personalities and Behavior Patterns, Type A and Type B
• Personality and Social Behavior
• Power Motive
• Rejection Sensitivity
• Self-Complexity
• Self-Concept Clarity
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Esteem Stability
• Self-Monitoring
• Sensation Seeking
• Benevolent Sexism
• Discrimination
• Prejudice Reduction
• Stereotypes and Stereotyping
• Symbolic Racism
• Counterregulation of Eating
• Altruistic Punishment
• Cooperation
• Decision Model of Helping
• Empathy–Altruism Hypothesis
• Helping Behavior
• Negative-State Relief Model
• Positive Psychology
• Prosocial Behavior
• Reciprocal Altruism
• Religion and Spirituality
• Search for Meaning in Life
• Volunteerism
• Actor–Observer Asymmetries
• Barnum Effect
• Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing)
• Contingencies of Self-Worth
• Downward Social Comparison
• Egocentric Bias
• Escape Theory
• Executive Function of Self
• Exemplification
• Identity Crisis
• Illusion of Control
• Introspection
• Looking-Glass Self
• Misattribution of Arousal
• Name Letter Effect
• Personal Space
• Positive Illusions
• Psychological Entitlement
• Self-Affirmation Theory
• Self-Attribution Process
• Self-Concept
• Self-Deception
• Self-Enhancement
• Self-Reference Effect
• Self-Serving Bias
• Self-Verification Theory
• Social Comparison
• Spotlight Effect
• Symbolic Self-Completion
• Value Priorities
• Accessibility
• Accountability
• Alcohol Myopia Effect
• Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic
• Assimilation Processes
• Associative Networks
• Attribution Theory
• Attributional Ambiguity
• Attributions
• Automatic Processes
• Availability Heuristic
• Bad Is Stronger Than Good
• Base Rate Fallacy
• Belief Perseverance
• Blaming the Victim
• Confirmation Bias
• Consciousness
• Contrast Effects
• Correspondence Bias
• Correspondent Inference Theory
• Counterfactual Thinking
• Defensive Attribution
• Depressive Realism
• Diagnosticity
• Dilution Effect
• Discounting, in Attribution
• Distinctiveness, in Attribution
• Dual Process Theories
• Expectancy Effects
• Expectations
• Eyewitness Testimony, Accuracy of
• False Consciousness
• False Consensus Effect
• False Uniqueness Bias
• Fundamental Attribution Error
• Gain–Loss Framing
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Halo Effect
• Heuristic Processing
• Hostile Attribution Bias
• Hostile Media Bias
• Just-World Hypothesis
• Justice Motive
• Kelley's Covariation Model
• Lay Epistemics
• Meaning Maintenance Model
• Metacognition
• Mind-Wandering
• Moral Reasoning
• Motivated Cognition
• Person Perception
• Person-Positivity Heuristic
• Personality Judgments, Accuracy of
• Positive–Negative Asymmetry
• Primacy Effect, Attribution
• Primacy Effect, Memory
• Responsibility Attribution
• Risk Appraisal
• Shifting Standards
• Social Categorization
• Social Cognition
• Social Cognitive Neuroscience
• Social Projection
• Spontaneous Trait Inferences
• Subliminal Perception
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Theory of Mind
• Thin Slices of Behavior
• Three-Dimensional Model of Attribution
• Value Pluralism Model
• Applied Social Psychology
• Consumer Behavior
• Environmental Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Peace Psychology
• Political Psychology
• Sociological Social Psychology

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

Four Selves, Two Motives, and a Substitute Process Self-Regulation Model

Cite this chapter.

• Roy E. Baumeister &
• Dianne M. Tice  

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Social Psychology ((SSSOC))

1728 Accesses

27 Citations

In this chapter, we present an outline of self-presentation theory: the basic units, the main motives, and the causal processes. We propose, first, that there are two types of self-presentational motive, one aimed at impressing or manipulating the audience, the other aimed at claiming a certain public identity and reputation. Second, we distinguish the four main conceptual units that constitute the various selves of self-presentation. These are the public self, the self-concept, the actual or behavioral self, and the ideal self. Finally, we discuss self-presentation in the context of how people control their own behavior, including analysis of how self-presentational processes can replace other causal processes.

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

Introduction to the Self-Determination Construct

A self-determination perspective on self-regulation across the life span, human agentic theories and the development of self-determination.

Baer, R., Hinkle, S., Smith, F., & Fenton, M. (1980). Reactance as a function of actual versus projected autonomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 38 , 416–422.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumeister, R. F. (1982a). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin , 91 , 3–26.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982b). Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. Journal of Personality , 50 , 29–45.

Baumeister, R. F., Cooper, J., & Skib, B. A. (1979). Inferior performance as a selective response to expectancy: Taking a dive to make a point. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37 , 424–432.

Baumeister, R. F, & Jones, E. E. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the target’s knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 , 608–618.

Baumeister, R. E, Shapiro, J. R, & Tice, D. M. (1985). Two kinds of identity crisis. Journal of Personality , 53 , 407–424.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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. R, & Tice, D. M. (1985). Self-esteem and responses to success and failure: Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality , 53 , 450–467.

Bern, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.

Google Scholar  

Bond, C. F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 42 , 1042–1050.

Bond, C. R, & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin , 94 , 265–292.

Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance . New York: Academic Press.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. R. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 47 , 1310–1324.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. R (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229–266). New York: Academic Press.

Pazio, R. H., Effrein, E. A., & Falender, V. J. (1981). Self-perceptions following social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 41 , 232–242.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 58 , 203–210.

Gaes, G. G., Kalle, R. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). Impression management in the forced compliance situation. Two studies using the bogus pipeline. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 14 , 493–510.

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist , 35 , 603–613.

Greenwald, A. G., & Breckler, S. J. (1985). To whom is the self presented? In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 126–145). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gur, R. C., & Sackheim, H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37 , 147–169.

Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und zeit . [Being and time]. Tuebingen, W. Germany: Max Nei-meyer Verlag.

Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page & R. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55–90). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (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., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior . Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

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.

Jones, E. E., Rhodewalt, R, Berglas, S., & Skelton, J. A. (1981). The effects of strategic self-presentation on subsequent self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 41 , 407–421.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review , 84 , 231–259.

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.

Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.

Schlenker, B. R. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32 , 1030–1037.

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). New York: Academic Press.

Schlenker, B. R., Forsyth, D. R., Leary, M. R., & Miller, R. S. (1980). Self-presentational analysis of the effects of incentives on attitude change following counterattitudinal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 , 553–577.

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of the self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin , 86 , 549.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , 526–537.

Tedeschi, J. T., and Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life . New York: McGraw-Hill.

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.

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self completion . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wright, R. A., & Brehm, S. S. (1982). Reactance as impression management: A critical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 42 , 608–618.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 44106, USA

Roy F. Baumeister

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Baumeister, R.E., Tice, D.M. (1986). Four Selves, Two Motives, and a Substitute Process Self-Regulation Model. In: Baumeister, R.F. (eds) Public Self and Private Self. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_3

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4613-9566-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4613-9564-5

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