self presentation quora

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

A Simple Way to Introduce Yourself

Andrea Wojnicki

Think: present, past, future.

Many of us dread the self-introduction, be it in an online meeting or at the boardroom table. Here is a practical framework you can leverage to introduce yourself with confidence in any context, online or in-person: Present, past, and future. You can customize this framework both for yourself as an individual and for the specific context. Perhaps most importantly, when you use this framework, you will be able to focus on others’ introductions, instead of stewing about what you should say about yourself.

You know the scenario. It could be in an online meeting, or perhaps you are seated around a boardroom table. The meeting leader asks everyone to briefly introduce themselves. Suddenly, your brain goes into hyperdrive. What should I say about myself?

Andrea Wojnicki , MBA, DBA, is an executive communication coach and founder of Talk About Talk, a multi-media learning resource to help executives improve their communication skills.

Partner Center

More From Forbes

Everything you need to know to improve your public speaking skills.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

How does one improve one's public speaking skills? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by John Ramos , wrote the book The Super Student's Guide to Presentations @ TheStudentPower.com, on Quora :

I used to get nervous every time I even heard the words "speak in public". The first time I ever felt the need of addressing a crowd was in high school, while participating in an electronics contest. The usual symptoms didn't take long to show up: palms are sweaty, knees weak / arms are heavy (thankfully no vomit on my sweater).

I've come a long way since then and my successes with public speaking made me fall in love with it:

I presented my final high school project several times in contests and won all of them . One of those would end up taking me to the Intel ISEF 2012 (the biggest Science and Engineering fair in the world).
I presented my research project (which I will finish in December as my Master's thesis) several times in conferences and research meetings, winning a couple of prizes as well .
I was invited to be part of several Young Scientist or Young Entrepreneur organizations (such as Intel ISEF Alumni and Junior Achievement) and I personally mentored groups of younger students who won prizes themselves.

My stand @ Intel ISEF 2012 Pittsburgh

My improvement as a speaker was the result of self-awareness and autodidacticism. I knew I had to improve, so I went ahead and practiced as much as I could. I quickly realized:

Changing Your Mentality is Step No. 1.

Some speakers climb on the stage and have already lost their audience. Their minds accept defeat as the outcome by default. Instead, you must think like a true public speaker:

If you're well prepared, if you worked hard to create a quality presentation, if you have something so say, there's very little that can go wrong .
The audience is not against you. They're with you. They want to be informed, entertained, or inspired. And no, they will not make fun of you or ask questions to undermine your presentation.
If you say something factually incorrect, forget your next topic, or stutter for a few seconds, it's ok. Seriously, it's ok to make mistakes. The best thing you can do is laugh it off and keep on going. The audience will understand.

Respect the Process, From the Idea to the Actual Speaking

A lot of speakers fail because they're not well prepared. It takes a lot of work to create a stellar presentation:

There's a lot of planning involved, especially if you're working with a team and tight deadlines. You have to figure out your communication strategy, research strategy, roles for each team member, goals and time management.
You have to conduct great research to arrive at the core of each topic. The only way to communicate the essential is to get rid of all the noise and select the best sources of information.
Your slides or posters are nothing without you, the speaker, yet they take a lot of work anyway. Content creation takes a lot of time and iterations to get right, but it's the difference between a mediocre and wow-inducing presentation .
A fluent speech, well-coordinated with your medium of choice, will not come out of your mouth effortlessly. Even Steve Jobs did several rehearsal rounds before presenting each iPhone or iPad. Rehearsing will turn even the most insecure speaker into someone who transmits confidence to the audience.

Take the Time to Rehearse

Novice speakers take the most benefit out of rehearsing thoroughly. That means going over the script several times until it's almost memorized.

This doesn't mean that you should memorize the whole script and recite it in front of the audience. You should add personality, gestures, and storytelling. But knowing exactly what you have to say and when to say it is a huge boost in self-confidence. It'll be almost automatic, despite of your nervousness level.

Rehearsing your presentation in front of your team or advisers (teachers, mentors, supervisors) is also the only way of getting honest feedback before the actual presentation . You'll then have more time to work on your weak spots and deliver a much better talk.

Labor Omnia Vincit (Work Always Prevails)

Of course, none of this advice will be of use if you don't get out of your comfort zone . You need to put yourself in the position in which you'll be presenting a lot:

Join science clubs or meetings if you're in that field.
Sign-up with organizations like Toastmasters , which promote the development of skills like public speaking and communication.
Participate in Startup Weekends or other entrepreneurial events that focus on sales, public speaking, and communicating ideas.
If you're working on any cool projects, be on the lookout for competitions or conferences where you can showcase them.

And most of all, recognize that it's a pleasure to be able to talk to people. Communication is hardwired in your brain - telling people about your ideas, convincing them, inspiring them, motivating them. It's all born with us.

Well, it worked for that 14 year old kid...

Presenting my research project at a medical conference in 2014

If you'd like to read more stuff that I write, visit The Student Power .

I wrote a book about public speaking for students; check out The Super Student's Guide to Presentations .

This question originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter , Facebook , and Google+ . More questions:

Public Speaking : How can I overcome my fear of speaking?
Self-Improvement : What can people start doing now that will help them a lot in about five years?
Presentations : What is the craftiest way to dodge a question during a presentation?

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

The self presentation theory and how to present your best self

Jump to section

What does self presentation mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangible or social benefits:

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

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

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

To facilitate social interaction:

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

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

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

Identity Construction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Perception and empathy

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

2. Motivation

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

3. A matching skill set

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

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

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

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

1. Get feedback from people around you

Ask a trusted friend or mentor to share what you can improve. Asking for feedback about specific experiences, like a recent project or presentation, will make their suggestions more relevant and easier to implement.

2. Study people who have been successful in your role

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

3. Be yourself

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

4. Be aware that you may mess up

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

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

5. Work with a coach

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

6. The identity is in the details

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

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

Transform your life

Make meaningful changes and become the best version of yourself. BetterUp's professional Coaches are here to support your personal growth journey.

Allaya Cooks-Campbell

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

Impression management: Developing your self-presentation skills

6 presentation skills and how to improve them, how to make a presentation interactive and exciting, how to give a good presentation that captivates any audience, how self-knowledge builds success: self-awareness in the workplace, 80 affirmations for confidence: combatting self-doubt with self-love, how to not be nervous for a presentation — 13 tips that work (really), self-promotion: how to showcase your skills and experience, how remote work will redefine future careers, according to gen z, teamwork skills self-appraisal comments: 40 example phrases, self-management skills for a messy world, ready to be inspired here are 11 self-motivation examples, 18 questions to ask in a performance self-evaluation, discover how the johari window model sparks self-discovery, how to send a reminder email that’s professional and effective, self directed learning is the key to new skills and knowledge, i stopped having dead people's goals, how returnship programs are a win/win for employers and professionals, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

Platform Overview
Integrations
Powered by AI
BetterUp Lead™
BetterUp Manage™
BetterUp Care®
Sales Performance
Diversity & Inclusion
Case Studies
Why BetterUp?
About Coaching
Find your Coach
Career Coaching
Communication Coaching
Life Coaching
News and Press
Leadership Team
Become a BetterUp Coach
BetterUp Labs
Center for Purpose & Performance
Leadership Training
Business Coaching
Contact Support
Contact Sales
Privacy Policy
Acceptable Use Policy
Trust & Security
Cookie Preferences

Search form

You are here.

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

It is interesting to note that each of the social influences on our sense of self that we have discussed can be harnessed as a way of protecting our self-esteem. The final influence we will explore can also be used strategically to elevate not only our own esteem, but the esteem we have in the eyes of others. Positive self-esteem occurs not only when we do well in our own eyes but also when we feel that we are positively perceived by the other people we care about.

Because it is so important to be seen as competent and productive members of society, people naturally attempt to present themselves to others in a positive light. We attempt to convince others that we are good and worthy people by appearing attractive, strong, intelligent, and likable and by saying positive things to others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 2003). The tendency to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status , is known as self-presentation , and it is a basic and natural part of everyday life.

A big question in relation to self-presentation is the extent to which it is an honest versus more strategic, potentially dishonest enterprise. The sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) developed an influential theory of self-presentation and described it as a mainly honest process, where people need to present the parts of themselves required by the social role that they are playing in a given situation. If everyone plays their part according to accepted social scripts and conventions, then the social situation will run smoothly and the participants will avoid embarrassment. Seen in this way, self-presentation is a transparent process, where we are trying to play the part required of us, and we trust that others are doing the same. Other theorists, though, have viewed self-presentation as a more strategic endeavor, which may involve not always portraying ourselves in genuine ways (e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982). As is often the case with two seemingly opposing perspectives, it is quite likely that both are true in certain situations, depending on the social goals of the actors.

Different self-presentation strategies may be used to create different emotions in other people, and the use of these strategies may be evolutionarily selected because they are successful (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). Edward Jones and Thane Pittman (1982) described five self-presentation strategies, each of which is expected to create a resulting emotion in the other person:

The goal of ingratiation is to create liking by using flattery or charm.
The goal of intimidation is to create fear by showing that you can be aggressive.
The goal of exemplification is to create guilt by showing that you are a better person than the other.
The goal of supplication is to create pity by indicating to others that you are helpless and needy.
The goal of self-promotion is to create respect by persuading others that you are competent.

No matter who is using it, self-presentation can easily be overdone, and when it is, it backfires. People who overuse the ingratiation technique and who are seen as obviously and strategically trying to get others to like them are often disliked because of this. Have you ever had a slick salesperson obviously try to ingratiate him- or herself with you just so you will buy a particular product, and you end up not liking the person and making a hasty retreat from the premises? People who overuse the exemplification or self-promotion strategies by boasting or bragging, particularly if that boasting does not appear to reflect their true characteristics, may end up being perceived as arrogant and even self-deluded (Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, & Cialdini, 1996). Using intimidation can also often backfire; acting more modestly may be more effective. Again, the point is clear: we may want to self-promote with the goal of getting others to like us, but we must also be careful to consider the point of view of the other person. Being aware of these strategies is not only useful for better understanding how to use them responsibly ourselves, it can also help us to understand that other people’s behaviors may often reflect their self-presentational concerns. This can, in turn, facilitate better empathy for others, particularly when they are exhibiting challenging behaviors (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985). For instance, perhaps someone’s verbally aggressive behavior toward you is more about that person being afraid rather than about his or her desire to do you harm.

Now that we have explored some of the commonly used self-presentation tactics, let’s look at how they manifest in specific social behaviors. One concrete way to self-promote is to display our positive physical characteristics. A reason that many of us spend money on improving our physical appearance is the desire to look good to others so that they will like us. We can also earn status by collecting expensive possessions such as fancy cars and big houses and by trying to associate with high-status others. Additionally, we may attempt to dominate or intimidate others in social interactions. People who talk more and louder and those who initiate more social interactions are afforded higher status. A businessman who greets others with a strong handshake and a smile, and people who speak out strongly for their opinions in group discussions may be attempting to do so as well. In some cases, people may even resort to aggressive behavior, such as bullying, in attempts to improve their status (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).

Self-promotion can also be pursued in our online social behaviors. For example, a study in Taiwan conducted by Wang and Stefanone (2013) used survey methodology to investigate the relationship between personality traits, self-presentation and the use of check-ins on Facebook. Interestingly, narcissism was found to predict scores on a measure of exhibitionistic, self-promoting use of Facebook check-ins, which included items like “I check in so people know that I am with friends,” and “I expect friends to like or leave comments on my check-in status on Facebook.”

Other studies have also found associations between narcissistic traits and self-promotional activity on Facebook. Mehdizadeh (2010), for example, found that narcissistic personality scores were positively correlated with the amount of daily logins on Facebook and the duration of each login. Furthermore, narcissistic traits were related to increased use of self-promotional material in the main photo, view photos, status updates, and notes sections of people’s Facebook pages.

Analysis of the content and language used in Facebook postings has also revealed that they are sometimes used by individuals to self-promote. Bazarova, Taft, Choi, and Cosley (2013) explored self-presentation through language styles used in status updates, wall posts, and private messages from 79 participants. The use of positive emotion words was correlated with self-reported self-presentation concern in status updates. This is consistent with the idea that people share positive experiences with Facebook friends partly as a self-enhancement strategy.

Online self-presentation doesn’t seem to be limited to Facebook usage. There is also evidence that self-promotional concerns are often a part of blogging behaviors, too. Mazur and Kozarian (2010), for example, analyzed the content of adolescents’ blog entries and concluded that a careful concern for self-presentation was more central to their blogging behavior than direct interaction with others. This often seems to apply to micro-blogging sites like Twitter. Marwick and Boyd (2011) found that self-presentational strategies were a consistent part of celebrity tweeting, often deployed by celebrities to maintain their popularity and image.

You might not be surprised to hear that men and women use different approaches to self-presentation. Men are more likely to present themselves in an assertive way, by speaking and interrupting others, by visually focusing on the other person when they are speaking, and by leaning their bodies into the conversation. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to be modest; they tend to create status by laughing and smiling, and by reacting more positively to the statements of others (Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keation, 1988).

These gender differences are probably in large part socially determined as a result of the different reinforcements that men and women receive for using particular self-presentational strategies. For example, self-promoting by speaking out and acting assertively can be more effective for men than it is for women, in part because cross-culturally consistent stereotypes tend to depict assertiveness as more desirable in men than in women. These stereotypes can have very important consequences in the real world. For instance, one of the reasons for the “glass ceiling” existing in some occupations (where women experience discrimination in reaching top positions in organizations) may be attributable to the more negative reactions that their assertive behaviors, necessary for career advancement, receive than those of their male colleagues (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

There are also some cultural differences in the extent to which people use self-presentation strategies in social contexts. For instance, when considering job interviews, Konig, Haftseinsson, Jansen, & Stadelmann (2011) found that individuals from Iceland and Switzerland used less self-presentational behavior than people from the United States. Differences in self-presentation have also been found in job interviews involving individuals from Ghana, Turkey, Norway, and Germany, with the former two groups showing higher impression management scores than the latter two (Bye et al., 2011).

So far we have been talking about self-presentation as it operates in particular situations in the short-term. However, we also engage in longer-term self-presentational projects, where we seek to build particular reputations with particular audiences. Emler & Reicher (1995) describe the unique capacity humans have to know one another by repute and argue that, accordingly, we are often engaged in a process of reputation management , which is a form of long-term self-presentation, where individuals seek to build and sustain specific reputations with important audiences . According to this perspective, our behaviors in current social situations may not only be to serve our self-presentational goals in that moment, but also be based on a consideration of their longer-term repercussions for our reputations. As many politicians, for example, know only too well, a poor decision from their past can come back to haunt them when their reputation is being assessed during a campaign.

The concept of reputation management can be used to help explain a wide variety of social and antisocial behaviors, including corporate branding (Smith, Smith, & Wang, 2010), sociomoral debate (Emler, Tarry, & St. James, 2007), and teenage criminal activity (Lopez-Romero & Romero, 2011). In the last example, it is argued that a lot of teenage antisocial behavior results from a desire to build a reputation for toughness and rebelliousness with like-minded peer audiences (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Similarly, antisocial and self-destructive online actions, like people posting to Facebook their involvement in illegal acts during riots, or individuals engaging in life-threatening activities in Internet crazes like Neknominate, may make more sense if they are considered partly as stemming from a desire to project a particular reputation to specific audiences. Perhaps the perceived social kudos from doing these things outweighs the obvious personal risks in the individuals’ minds at the time.

People often project distinct reputations to different social audiences. For example, adolescents who engage in antisocial activity to build reputations for rebelliousness among their peers will often seek to construct very different reputations when their parents are the audience (Emler & Reicher, 1995). The desire to compartmentalize our reputations and audiences can even spill over into our online behaviors. Wiederhold (2012) found that, with some adolescents’ Facebook friends numbering in the hundreds or thousands, increasing numbers are moving to Twitter in order to reach a more selective audience. One critical trigger for this has been that their parents are now often friends with them on Facebook, creating a need for young people to find a new space where they can build reputations that may not always be parent-friendly (Wiederhold, 2012).

Although the desire to present the self favorably is a natural part of everyday life, both person and situation factors influence the extent to which we do it. For one, we are more likely to self-present in some situations than in others. When we are applying for a job or meeting with others whom we need to impress, we naturally become more attuned to the social aspects of the self, and our self-presentation increases.

There are also individual differences. Some people are naturally better at self-presentation—they enjoy doing it and are good at it—whereas others find self-presentation less desirable or more difficult. An important individual-difference variable known as self-monitoring has been shown in many studies to have a major impact on self-presentation. Self-monitoring refers to the tendency to be both motivated and capable of regulating our behavior to meet the demands of social situations (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors are particularly good at reading the emotions of others and therefore are better at fitting into social situations—they agree with statements such as “In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons,” and “I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.” Low self-monitors, on the other hand, generally act on their own attitudes, even when the social situation suggests that they should behave otherwise. Low self-monitors are more likely to agree with statements such as “At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like,” and “I can only argue for ideas that I already believe.” In short, high self-monitors use self-presentation to try to get other people to like them by behaving in ways that the others find desirable, whereas low self-monitors tend to follow their internal convictions more than the demands of the social situation.

In one experiment that showed the importance of self-monitoring, Cheng and Chartrand (2003) had college students interact individually with another student (actually an experimental confederate) whom they thought they would be working with on an upcoming task. While they were interacting, the confederate subtly touched her own face several times, and the researchers recorded the extent to which the student participant mimicked the confederate by also touching his or her own face.

The situational variable was the status of the confederate. Before the meeting began, and according to random assignment to conditions, the students were told either that they would be the leader and that the other person would be the worker on the upcoming task, or vice versa. The person variable was self-monitoring, and each participant was classified as either high or low on self-monitoring on the basis of his or her responses to the self-monitoring scale.

As you can see in Figure 3.12 , Cheng and Chartrand found an interaction effect: the students who had been classified as high self-monitors were more likely to mimic the behavior of the confederate when she was described as being the leader than when she was described as being the worker, indicating that they were “tuned in” to the social situation and modified their behavior to appear more positively. Although the low self-monitors did mimic the other person, they did not mimic her more when the other was high, versus low, status. This finding is consistent with the idea that the high self-monitors were particularly aware of the other person’s status and attempted to self-present more positively to the high-status leader. The low self-monitors, on the other hand—because they feel less need to impress overall—did not pay much attention to the other person’s status.

High self-monitors imitated more when the person they were interacting with was of higher (versus lower) status. Low self-monitors were not sensitive to the status of the other. Data are from Cheng and Chartrand (2003).

This differential sensitivity to social dynamics between high and low self-monitors suggests that their self-esteem will be affected by different factors. For people who are high in self-monitoring, their self-esteem may be positively impacted when they perceive that their behavior matches the social demands of the situation, and negatively affected when they feel that it does not. In contrast, low self-monitors may experience self-esteem boosts when they see themselves behaving consistently with their internal standards, and feel less self-worth when they feel they are not living up to them (Ickes, Holloway, Stinson, & Hoodenpyle, 2006).

Key Takeaways

Our self-concepts are affected by others’ appraisals, as demonstrated by concepts including the looking-glass self and self-labeling.
The self-concept and self-esteem are also often strongly influenced by social comparison. For example, we use social comparison to determine the accuracy and appropriateness of our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
When we are able to compare ourselves favorably with others through downward social comparison, we feel good about ourselves. Upward social comparison with others who are better off than we are leads to negative emotions.
Social identity refers to the positive emotions that we experience as a member of an important social group.
Normally, our group memberships result in positive feelings, which occur because we perceive our own groups, and thus ourselves, in a positive light.
Which of our many category identities is most accessible for us will vary from day to day as a function of the particular situation we are in.
In the face of others’ behaviors, we may enhance our self-esteem by “basking in the reflected glory” of our ingroups or of other people we know.
If other people’s actions threaten our sense of self according to self-evaluation maintenance theory, we may engage in a variety of strategies aimed at redefining our self-concept and rebuilding our self-esteem.
The tendency to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status, is known as self-presentation, and it is a basic and natural part of everyday life. Different self-presentation strategies may be used to create different emotions in other people.
We often use self-presentation in the longer term, seeking to build and sustain particular reputations with specific social audiences.
The individual-difference variable of self-monitoring relates to the ability and desire to self-present.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Describe some aspects of your self-concept that have been created through social comparison.
Describe times when you have engaged in downward and upward social comparison and the effects these comparisons have had on your self-esteem. To what extent do your experiences fit with the research evidence here?
What are your most salient social identities? How do they create positive feelings for you?
Outline a situation where someone else’s behavior has threatened your self-concept. Which of the strategies outlined in relation to self-evaluation maintenance theory did you engage in to rebuild your self-concept?
Identify a situation where you basked in the reflected glory of your ingroup’s behavior or peformance. What effect did this have on your self-esteem and why?
Describe some situations where people you know have used each of the self-presentation strategies that were listed in this section. Which strategies seem to be more and less effective in helping them to achieve their social goals, and why?
Consider your own level of self-monitoring. Do you think that you are more of a high or a low self-monitor, and why? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages for you of the level of self-monitoring that you have?

Baldwin, M. W., & Holmes, J. O. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 1087-1098.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103 (1), 5-33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

Bauer, I., Wrosch, C., & Jobin, J. (2008). I’m better off than most other people: The role of social comparisons for coping with regret in young adulthood and old age. Psychology And Aging, 23 (4), 800-811. doi:10.1037/a0014180

Bazarova, N. N., Taft, J. G., Choi, Y., & Cosley, D. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology, 32 (2), 121-141. doi:10.1177/0261927X12456384

Beach, S. H., Tesser, A., Mendolia, M., Anderson, P., Crelia, R., Whitaker, D., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Self-evaluation maintenance in marriage: Toward a performance ecology of the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 10 (4), 379-396. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.379

Beer, A., Watson, D., & McDade-Montez, E. (2013). Self–other agreement and assumed similarity in neuroticism, extraversion, and trait affect: Distinguishing the effects of form and content. Assessment, 20 (6), 723-737. doi:10.1177/1073191113500521

Blanton, H., Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 420–430.

Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (1), 3–21.

Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, A. P. (1997). Health, coping and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory . Psychology Press.

Buunk, A. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Visser, A. (2002). The relevance of social comparison processes for prevention and health care. Patient Education and Counseling, 47 , 1–3.

Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Peiró, J. M., Nauta, A., & Gosalvez, I. (2005). Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54 (1), 61-80. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x

Bye, H., Sandal, G., van de Vijver, F. R., Sam, D., Çakar, N., & Franke, G. (2011). Personal values and intended self‐presentation during job interviews: A cross‐cultural comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60 (1), 160-182. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00432.x

Carter, L. (2012). Locus of control, internalized heterosexism, experiences of prejudice, and the psychological adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 73 .

Cheng, C., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-Monitoring Without Awareness: Using Mimicry as a Nonconscious Affiliation Strategy. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1170-1179. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1170

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 , 366–374.

Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison (pp. 159–172). New York, NY: Kulwer Academic/Plenum.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order . New York: Scribner’s.

Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (2), 280–291.

Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 55 (4), 580-587. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.580

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders . Boston, MA, US: Harvard Business School Press.

Emler, N. & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency: The collective management of reputation . Malden Blackwell Publishing.

Emler, N., Tarry, H. & St. James, A. (2007). Postconventional moral reasoning and reputation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 , 76-89.

Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology Of Popular Media Culture, 2 (3), 161-170. doi:10.1037/a003311

Festinger, L. U. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 , 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Fox, J. D., & Stinnett, T. A. (1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology In The Schools, 33 (2), 143-152.

Friedlander, M. L., & Schwartz, G. S. (1985). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 (4), 483-501. doi: 10.10370022-0167.32.4.483

Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., Whitson, J. A., Anicich, E. M., Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: The reciprocal relationship between power and self-labeling. Psychological Science, 24 (10), 2020-2029. doi:10.1177/0956797613482943

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (4), 530-555. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Oxford, England: Doubleday.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472-482.

Hardin, C., & Higgins, T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Helgeson, V. S., & Mickelson, K. (2000). Coping with chronic illness among the elderly: Maintaining self-esteem. In S. B. Manuck, R. Jennings, B. S. Rabin, & A. Baum (Eds.), Behavior, health, and aging . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. T., Loeb, I., & Moretti, M. (Eds.). (1995). Self-discrepancies and developmental shifts in vulnerability: Life transitions in the regulatory significance of others . Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary, J. P. Tangney, M. R. E. Leary, & J. P. E. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ickes, W., Holloway, R., Stinson, L. L., & Hoodenpyle, T. (2006). Self-Monitoring in Social Interaction: The Centrality of Self-Affect. Journal Of Personality, 74 (3), 659-684. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00388.x

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum

König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’ self‐presentational behavior across cultures: Less self‐presentation in Switzerland and Iceland than in the United States. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment,19 (4), 331-339.

Kulik, J. A., Mahler, H. I. M., & Moore, P. J. (1996). Social comparison and affiliation under threat: Effects on recovery from major surgery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (5), 967–979.

López-Romero, L., & Romero, E. (2011). Reputation management of adolescents in relation to antisocial behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research And Theory On Human Development, 172 (4), 440-446. doi:10.1080/00221325.2010.549156

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 , 302–318.

Marsh, H. W., Kong, C.-K., & Hau, K-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 337–349.

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313

Mazur, E., & Kozarian, L. (2010). Self-presentation and interaction in blogs of adolescents and young emerging adults. Journal Of Adolescent Research, 25 (1), 124-144. doi:10.1177/0743558409350498

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 13 (4), 357-364. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0257

Morse, S., & Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16 (1), 148–156.

Moses, T. (2009). Self-labeling and its effects among adolescents diagnosed with mental disorders. Social Science and Medicine, 68 (3), 570-578.

Nicholls, E., & Stukas, A. A. (2011). Narcissism and the self-evaluation maintenance model: Effects of social comparison threats on relationship closeness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (2), 201-212. doi:10.1080/00224540903510852

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Sterotyping and social reality . Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Perkins, K., Wiley, S., & Deaux, K. (2014). Through which looking glass? Distinct sources of public regard and self-esteem among first- and second-generation immigrants of color. Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20 (2), 213-219. doi:10.1037/a0035435

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary, J. P. Tangney, M. R. E. Leary, & J. P. E. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492–518). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Siero, F. W., Bakker, A. B., Dekker, G. B., & van den Berg, M. T. (1996). Changing organizational energy consumption behavior through comparative feedback. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16 , 235-246.

Smith, K., Smith, M., & Wang, K. (2010). Does brand management of corporate reputation translate into higher market value?. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18 (3), 201-221. doi:10.1080/09652540903537030

Snyder, C., Cheavens, J., & Sympson, S. (1997). Hope: An individual motive for social commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 , 107–118.

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56 (4), 685–707.

Szymanski, D. M., & Obiri, O. (2011). Do religious coping styles moderate or mediate the external and internalized racism-distress links? The Counseling Psychologist, 39 (3), 438-462. doi:10.1177/0011000010378895

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, L.M., Hume, I.R., and Welsh, N. (2010) Labelling and Self-esteem: The impact of using specific versus generic labels. Educational Psychology, 1 , 1-12

Tesser, A. (1980) Self–esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, 39 (1),

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21 , 181–227.

Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (8), 1023-1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208318067

Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Social comparison is basic to social psychology. American Journal of Psychology, 121 (1), 169–172.

Vrugt, A., & Koenis, S. (2002). Perceived self-efficacy, personal goals, social comparison, and scientific productivity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (4), 593–607.

Wang, S., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Showing off? Human mobility and the interplay of traits, self-disclosure, and Facebook check-ins. Social Science Computer Review, 31 (4), 437-457.

White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of self-motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 232-242.

Wiederhold, B. K. (2012). As parents invade Faceboo, teens tweet more. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (8), 385-386.

Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic And Applied Social Psychology, 18 (2), 229-242. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1802_8

Yakushko, O., Davidson, M., & Williams, E.N. (2009). Identity Salience Model: A paradigm for integrating multiple identities in clinical practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 46 , 180-192. doi: 10.1037/a0016080

Yeung, K., & Martin, J. (2003). The Looking Glass Self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81 (3), 843-879. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0048

25207 reads
Authors & Informations
About the Book
The History of Social Psychology
The Person and the Social Situation
Evolutionary Adaptation and Human Characteristics
Self-Concern
Other-Concern
Social Psychology in the Public Interest
Social Influence Creates Social Norms
Different Cultures Have Different Norms Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Social Cognition: Thinking and Learning about Others
Social Affect: Feelings about Ourselves and Others
Social Behavior: Interacting with Others Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
The Importance of Scientific Research
Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition
Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain
Observational Research
The Research Hypothesis
Correlational Research
Experimental Research
Factorial Research Designs
Deception in Social Psychology Experiments
Interpreting Research Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Chapter Summary
Our Knowledge Accumulates as a Result of Learning
Operant Learning
Associational Learning Video
Observational Learning Video
Schemas as Social Knowledge
How Schemas Develop: Accommodation and Assimilation
How Schemas Maintain Themselves: The Power of Assimilation Research Focus: The Confirmation Bias Research Focus: Schemas as Energy Savers Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Automatic versus Controlled Cognition Research Focus: Behavioral Effects of Priming
Salience and Accessibility Determine Which Expectations We Use
Cognitive Accessibility
The False Consensus Bias Makes Us Think That Others Are More Like Us Than They Really Are
Perceptions of What “Might Have Been” Lead to Counterfactual Thinking
Anchoring and Adjustment Lead Us to Accept Ideas That We Should Revise
Overconfidence
The Importance of Cognitive Biases in Everyday Life
Social Psychology in the Public Interest Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Affect Influences Cognition
The Power of Positive Cognition
Cognition About Affect: The Case of Affective Forecasting Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Cognition
Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept
Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity
Overestimating How Closely and Accurately Others View Us Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Self-Esteem The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Maintaining and Enhancing Self-Esteem Research Focus: Processing Information to Enhance the Self
The Looking-Glass Self: Our Sense of Self is Influenced by Others’ Views of Us
Social Comparison Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by Comparisons with Others Research Focus: Affiliation and Social Comparison
Upward and Downward Comparisons Influence Our Self-Esteem
Social Identity Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Groups We Belong To A Measure of Social Identity
Self-Presentation: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Audiences We Have Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about the Self
Attitudes Are Evaluations
Some Attitudes Are Stronger Than Others
When Do Our Attitudes Guide Our Behavior? Research Focus: Attitude-Behavior Consistency Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Choosing Effective Communicators
Creating Effective Communications
Spontaneous Message Processing
Thoughtful Message Processing
Which Route Do We Take: Thoughtful or Spontaneous?
Self-Perception Involves Inferring Our Beliefs from Our Behaviors Research Focus: Looking at Our Own Behavior to Determine Our Attitudes
Creating Insufficient Justification and Overjustification
The Experience of Cognitive Dissonance Can Create Attitude Change
We Reduce Dissonance by Decreasing Dissonant or by Increasing Consonant Cognitions
Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Attitudes, Behavior, and Persuasion
Nonverbal Behavior
Detecting Danger by Focusing on Negative Information Social Psychology in the Public Interest: Detecting Deception
Judging People by Their Traits
Combining Traits: Information Integration
The Importance of the Central Traits Warm and Cold
First Impressions Matter: The Primacy Effect Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Making Inferences about Personality
Detecting the Covariation between Personality and Behavior
Attributions for Success and Failure Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Are Our Attributions Accurate?
The Fundamental Attribution Error
The Actor-Observer Bias
Self-Serving Biases
Group-Serving Biases
Victim-Blaming Biases Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Perceiver Characteristics Research Focus: How Our Attributions Can Influence Our School Performance
Attributional Styles and Mental Health Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Person Perception
Informational Social Influence: Conforming to Be Accurate
Normative Social Influence: Conforming to Be Liked and to Avoid Rejection
Majority Influence: Conforming to the Group
Minority Influence: Resisting Group Pressure
The Size of the Majority
The Unanimity of the Majority
The Importance of the Task Research Focus: How Task Importance and Confidence Influence Conformity Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Reward Power
Coercive Power
Legitimate Power
Referent Power
Expert Power Research Focus: Does Power Corrupt?
Personality and Leadership
Leadership as an Interaction between the Person and the Situation Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Person Differences
Gender Differences
Cultural Differences
Psychological Reactance Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Influence
Physical Attractiveness
Why Is Physical Attractiveness So Important?
Why Does Similarity Matter?
Status Similarity
Affect and Attraction Research Focus: Arousal and Attraction Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Closeness and Intimacy
Communal and Exchange Relationships
Interdependence and Commitment
What Is Love? Research Focus: Romantic Love Reduces Our Attention to Attractive Others
Making Relationships Last
When Relationships End Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Liking and Loving
Reciprocity and Social Exchange
Social Reinforcement and Altruism: The Role of Rewards and Costs
Social Norms for Helping Research Focus: Moral Hypocrisy Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Positive Moods Increase Helping
Relieving Negative Emotions: Guilt Increases Helping
Personal Distress and Empathy as Determinants of Helping Research Focus: Personal Distress versus Empathy as Determinants of Helping Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Latané and Darley’s Model of Helping
Interpreting
Taking Responsibility
Implementing Action Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Some People Are More Helpful Than Others: The Altruistic Personality
Who Do We Help? Attributions and Helping
Reactions to Receiving Help
Cultural Issues in Helping
Increasing Helping Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Altruism
Is Aggression Evolutionarily Adaptive?
The Role of Biology in Aggression
Hormones Influence Aggression: Testosterone and Serotonin
Drinking Alcohol Increases Aggression
Negative Emotions Cause Aggression Research Focus: The Effects of Provocation and Fear of Death on Aggression
Can We Reduce Negative Emotions by Engaging in Aggressive Behavior? Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Social Learning and Modeling: Is Aggression Learned?
Violence Creates More Violence: Television, Video Games, and Handguns Research Focus: The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression
Why Does Viewing Violence Lead to Aggression? Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Individual Differences in Aggression
Gender Differences in Aggression
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Aggression
Communication, Interdependence, and Group Structure
Social Identity
The Stages of Group Development Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition
Person Variables: Group Member Characteristics
The Importance of the Social Situation: Task Characteristics
Social Loafing Research Focus: Differentiating Coordination Losses from Social Loafing Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Process Gains in Group versus Individual Decision Making
Process Losses Due to Group Conformity Pressures: Groupthink
Cognitive Process Losses: Lack of Information Sharing Research Focus: Poor Information Sharing in Groups
Cognitive Process Losses: Ineffective Brainstorming
Motivating Groups to Perform Better by Appealing to Self-Interest
Cognitive Approaches: Improving Communication and Information Sharing
Setting Appropriate Goals
Group Member Diversity: Costs and Benefits Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Social Groups
Spontaneous Social Categorization
The Benefits of Social Categorization
Liking “Us” More Than “Them”: Ingroup Favoritism
The Outcomes of Ingroup Favoritism
Ingroup Favoritism Has Many Causes
When Ingroup Favoritism Does Not Occur
Personality and Cultural Determinants of Ingroup Favoritism Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms
Reducing Prejudice through Intergroup Contact Research Focus: The Extended-Contact Hypothesis
Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Competition and Conflict
Social Fairness
How the Social Situation Creates Conflict: The Role of Social Dilemmas Learning Objectives
Characteristics of the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Variations on the Prisoner’s Dilemma
Resource Dilemma Games Research Focus: The Trucking Game
Who Cooperates and Who Competes? Research Focus: Self- and Other-Orientations in Social Dilemmas
Gender and Cultural Differences in Cooperation and Competition Key Takeaways Exercises and Critical Thinking
Task Characteristics and Perceptions
Privatization
The Important Role of Communication
The Tit-for-Tat Strategy
Formal Solutions to Conflict: Negotiation, Mediation, and Arbitration Key Takeaways Exercise and Critical Thinking
Thinking Like a Social Psychologist about Cooperation and Competition
Back Matter

This action cannot be undo.

Choose a delete action Empty this page Remove this page and its subpages

Content is out of sync. You must reload the page to continue.

New page type Book Topic Interactive Learning Content

Config Page
Add Page Before
Add Page After
Delete Page

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Focus on Self-Presentation on Social Media across Sociodemographic Variables, Lifestyles, and Personalities: A Cross-Sectional Study

Affiliations.

1 Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 5015 Bergen, Norway.
2 Centre for Evaluation of Public Health Measures, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0473 Oslo, Norway.
3 Department of Research and Innovation, Helse Fonna HF, 5525 Haugesund, Norway.
4 Department of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
5 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada.
6 Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0473 Oslo, Norway.
7 Department of Work, Section for Children, Families and Disabled, Social Services and Housing, 5014 Bergen, Norway.
8 Alcohol and Drug Research Western Norway, Stavanger University Hospital, 4036 Stavanger, Norway.
PMID: 36078843
PMCID: PMC9518022
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711133

Upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media such as feedback-seeking and strategic self-presentation may represent risk factors for experiencing negative mental health effects of social media use. The aim of this exploratory study was to assess how adolescents differ in upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media and whether these differences are linked to sociodemographic variables, lifestyle, or personality. The study was based on cross-sectional data from the "LifeOnSoMe" study performed in Bergen, Norway, including 2023 senior high school pupils (response rate 54%, mean age 17.4, 44% boys). Nine potentially relevant items were assessed using factor analysis, and latent class analysis was used to identify latent classes with distinct patterns of responses across seven retained items. The retained items converged into one factor, called "focus on self-presentation". We identified three groups of adolescents with a low, intermediate, and high focus on self-presentation. Associations between identified latent classes and covariates were assessed using regression analyses. Being a girl, higher extraversion, lower emotional stability, more frequent alcohol consumption, and having tried tobacco were associated with membership in the high-focus group. These results suggest some characteristics that are associated with a higher focus on self-presentation and that could inform targeted interventions.

Keywords: adolescent; feedback-seeking; self-presentation; social comparison; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Crude proportions for each class…

Crude proportions for each class across gender, age, and subjective socioeconomic status. Proportions…

Crude proportions for each class across physical activity, cigarettes (ever tried, yes/no), and…

Crude proportions for each class across alcohol consumption. Proportions based on most probable…

Crude proportions for each class across personality traits. Proportions based on most probable…

Results of the confirmatory factor…

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: One-factor model with the items “easier to…

Response probabilities on the self-presentation…

Response probabilities on the self-presentation scale across retained classes.

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding, linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Personality

Self-Presentation in the Digital World

Do traditional personality theories predict digital behaviour.

Posted August 31, 2021 | Reviewed by Chloe Williams

What Is Personality?
Find a therapist near me
Personality theories can help explain real-world differences in self-presentation behaviours but they may not apply to online behaviours.
In the real world, women have higher levels of behavioural inhibition tendencies than men and are more likely to avoid displeasing others.
Based on this assumption, one would expect women to present themselves less on social media, but women tend to use social media more than men.

Digital technology allows people to construct and vary their self-identity more easily than they can in the real world. This novel digital- personality construction may, or may not, be helpful to that person in the long run, but it is certainly more possible than it is in the real world. Yet how this relates to "personality," as described by traditional personality theories, is not really known. Who will tend to manipulate their personality online, and would traditional personality theories predict these effects? A look at what we do know about gender differences in the real and digital worlds suggests that many aspects of digital behaviour may not conform to the expectations of personality theories developed for the real world.

Half a century ago, Goffman suggested that individuals establish social identities by employing self-presentation tactics and impression management . Self-presentational tactics are techniques for constructing or manipulating others’ impressions of the individual and ultimately help to develop that person’s identity in the eyes of the world. The ways other people react are altered by choosing how to present oneself – that is, self-presentation strategies are used for impression management . Others then uphold, shape, or alter that self-image , depending on how they react to the tactics employed. This implies that self-presentation is a form of social communication, by which people establish, maintain, and alter their social identity.

These self-presentational strategies can be " assertive " or "defensive." 1 Assertive strategies are associated with active control of the person’s self-image; and defensive strategies are associated with protecting a desired identity that is under threat. In the real world, the use of self-presentational tactics has been widely studied and has been found to relate to many behaviours and personalities 2 . Yet, despite the enormous amounts of time spent on social media , the types of self-presentational tactics employed on these platforms have not received a huge amount of study. In fact, social media appears to provide an ideal opportunity for the use of self-presentational tactics, especially assertive strategies aimed at creating an identity in the eyes of others.

Seeking to Experience Different Types of Reward

Social media allows individuals to present themselves in ways that are entirely reliant on their own behaviours – and not on factors largely beyond their ability to instantly control, such as their appearance, gender, etc. That is, the impression that the viewer of the social media post receives is dependent, almost entirely, on how or what another person posts 3,4 . Thus, the digital medium does not present the difficulties for individuals who wish to divorce the newly-presented self from the established self. New personalities or "images" may be difficult to establish in real-world interactions, as others may have known the person beforehand, and their established patterns of interaction. Alternatively, others may not let people get away with "out of character" behaviours, or they may react to their stereotype of the person in front of them, not to their actual behaviours. All of which makes real-life identity construction harder.

Engaging in such impression management may stem from motivations to experience different types of reward 5 . In terms of one personality theory, individuals displaying behavioural approach tendencies (the Behavioural Activation System; BAS) and behavioural inhibition tendencies (the Behavioural Inhibition System; BIS) will differ in terms of self-presentation behaviours. Those with strong BAS seek opportunities to receive or experience reward (approach motivation ); whereas, those with strong BIS attempt to avoid punishment (avoidance motivation). People who need to receive a lot of external praise may actively seek out social interactions and develop a lot of social goals in their lives. Those who are more concerned about not incurring other people’s displeasure may seek to defend against this possibility and tend to withdraw from people. Although this is a well-established view of personality in the real world, it has not received strong attention in terms of digital behaviours.

Real-World Personality Theories May Not Apply Online

One test bed for the application of this theory in the digital domain is predicted gender differences in social media behaviour in relation to self-presentation. Both self-presentation 1 , and BAS and BIS 6 , have been noted to show gender differences. In the real world, women have shown higher levels of BIS than men (at least, to this point in time), although levels of BAS are less clearly differentiated between genders. This view would suggest that, in order to avoid disapproval, women will present themselves less often on social media; and, where they do have a presence, adopt defensive self-presentational strategies.

The first of these hypotheses is demonstrably false – where there are any differences in usage (and there are not that many), women tend to use social media more often than men. What we don’t really know, with any certainty, is how women use social media for self-presentation, and whether this differs from men’s usage. In contrast to the BAS/BIS view of personality, developed for the real world, several studies have suggested that selfie posting can be an assertive, or even aggressive, behaviour for females – used in forming a new personality 3 . In contrast, sometimes selfie posting by males is related to less aggressive, and more defensive, aspects of personality 7 . It may be that women take the opportunity to present very different images of themselves online from their real-world personalities. All of this suggests that theories developed for personality in the real world may not apply online – certainly not in terms of putative gender-related behaviours.

We know that social media allows a new personality to be presented easily, which is not usually seen in real-world interactions, and it may be that real-world gender differences are not repeated in digital contexts. Alternatively, it may suggest that these personality theories are now simply hopelessly anachronistic – based on assumptions that no longer apply. If that were the case, it would certainly rule out any suggestion that such personalities are genetically determined – as we know that structure hasn’t changed dramatically in the last 20 years.

1. Lee, S.J., Quigley, B.M., Nesler, M.S., Corbett, A.B., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 701-722.

2. Laghi, F., Pallini, S., & Baiocco, R. (2015). Autopresentazione efficace, tattiche difensive e assertive e caratteristiche di personalità in Adolescenza. Rassegna di Psicologia, 32(3), 65-82.

3. Chua, T.H.H., & Chang, L. (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 190-197.

4. Fox, J., & Rooney, M.C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161-165.

5. Hermann, A.D., Teutemacher, A.M., & Lehtman, M.J. (2015). Revisiting the unmitigated approach model of narcissism: Replication and extension. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 41-45.

6. Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319.

7. Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Frackowiak, T., Karwowski, M., Rusicka, I., & Oleszkiewicz, A. (2016). Sex differences in online selfie posting behaviors predict histrionic personality scores among men but not women. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 368-373.

Phil Reed, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Swansea University.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that could derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face triggers with less reactivity and get on with our lives.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Int J Environ Res Public Health

Focus on Self-Presentation on Social Media across Sociodemographic Variables, Lifestyles, and Personalities: A Cross-Sectional Study

Gunnhild johnsen hjetland.

1 Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 5015 Bergen, Norway

2 Centre for Evaluation of Public Health Measures, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0473 Oslo, Norway

Turi Reiten Finserås

Børge sivertsen.

3 Department of Research and Innovation, Helse Fonna HF, 5525 Haugesund, Norway

4 Department of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

5 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada

6 Centre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 0473 Oslo, Norway

Randi Træland Hella

7 Department of Work, Section for Children, Families and Disabled, Social Services and Housing, 5014 Bergen, Norway

Jens Christoffer Skogen

8 Alcohol and Drug Research Western Norway, Stavanger University Hospital, 4036 Stavanger, Norway

Associated Data

The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, as they contain sensitive information, and the ethical approval of the study does not include this option. The datasets will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media such as feedback-seeking and strategic self-presentation may represent risk factors for experiencing negative mental health effects of social media use. The aim of this exploratory study was to assess how adolescents differ in upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media and whether these differences are linked to sociodemographic variables, lifestyle, or personality. The study was based on cross-sectional data from the “LifeOnSoMe” study performed in Bergen, Norway, including 2023 senior high school pupils (response rate 54%, mean age 17.4, 44% boys). Nine potentially relevant items were assessed using factor analysis, and latent class analysis was used to identify latent classes with distinct patterns of responses across seven retained items. The retained items converged into one factor, called “focus on self-presentation”. We identified three groups of adolescents with a low, intermediate, and high focus on self-presentation. Associations between identified latent classes and covariates were assessed using regression analyses. Being a girl, higher extraversion, lower emotional stability, more frequent alcohol consumption, and having tried tobacco were associated with membership in the high-focus group. These results suggest some characteristics that are associated with a higher focus on self-presentation and that could inform targeted interventions.

1. Introduction

Social media are widely used, and the most popular social media platforms have up to 2.9 billion active users [ 1 ]. Social media “employ mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive platforms via which individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content” ([ 2 ], p. 1). Adolescents are particularly active users, with nearly half saying that they use social media “almost constantly” [ 3 ]. Among Norwegian 16–18-year-olds, nearly 100% are on social media [ 4 ], and 63% of boys and 84% of girls in senior high school spend a minimum of one hour on social media every day [ 5 ].

There is growing literature on the potential consequences of adolescents’ social media use [ 6 ]. Overall, meta-analyses point to a small negative effect of social media use on adolescents’ mental health and well-being [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. However, most of these studies have focused primarily on the duration and frequency of social media use [ 6 , 7 , 10 ] and provide little insight into how specific types of social media use may be differentially related to mental health and well-being [ 7 ]. Some studies have, however, demonstrated that the associations between social media use and mental health depend on the type of use [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], the motivations for use [ 16 ], and the emotional investment in social media [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. For example, some studies have indicated that passive use (e.g., scrolling through others’ content) leads to a decline in well-being, while active use (e.g., interacting with people on social media) improves or has no effect on well-being [ 21 , 22 ]. A recent study, however, showed that only 10% of their adolescent participants felt worse after passively using social media, while 46% felt better and 44% experienced no change in well-being, demonstrating the importance of person-specific effects of social media use [ 23 ]. Exploring differences in adolescents’ social media use may bring us closer to determining whether specific types of social media use are harmful and who might be at risk of experiencing negative effects of their social media use.

Self-presentation and social comparison on social media have gained research attention for their potential effects on mental health [ 7 , 13 , 16 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. The influential dual-factor model proposed by Nadkarni & Hofman [ 30 ] posits that, alongside the need for belonging, the need for self-presentation is a fundamental motivation for using social media. Self-presentation is the innate tendency of attempting to manage how other people perceive us [ 31 ] and entails putting up a desired image of oneself with the hope of gaining positive feedback and social approval from others [ 32 , 33 ]. As described in the hyperpersonal model [ 34 , 35 ], social media and other computer-mediated communication allow people to conceal undesirable characteristics and highlight desirable characteristics to a larger degree than in face-to-face communication—for example, by optimizing messages before sending or posting them or by carefully selecting and editing photos of oneself. In addition to providing more opportunities for self-presentation, social media also offer a range of opportunities for feedback on one’s self-presentation. On social media, feedback often comes in the form of likes, comments, and other indicators of approval or disapproval, such as having your content shared by others (e.g., “retweets”) or losing followers on your social media account. While face-to-face feedback is often ambiguous and open to interpretation, feedback on social media often represents quantifiable indicators of one’s social success [ 36 ], which can be directly compared to others’ success. In order to elicit a more favorable response, people may engage in strategic self-presentation, such as editing photos or deleting content that does not receive the desired number of likes [ 37 ]. Self-presentation on social media, which is motivated by getting positive feedback, referred to as feedback-seeking or status-seeking, has been associated with negative outcomes such as depressive symptoms [ 25 ], lower body satisfaction, and lower well-being [ 16 ]. Feedback-seeking may also influence some people to present themselves on social media in a way that does not correspond with their personality or physical appearance offline. Inauthentic self-presentation on social media has been associated with elevated levels of social anxiety and lower self-esteem [ 27 ].

Although not necessarily resorting to inauthentic self-presentation, people tend to emphasize desirable characteristics on social media [ 38 ], resulting in social media being dominated by idealized and unrealistic presentations of peoples’ lives (and looks). Consequently, social media are fertile grounds for upward social comparison. Social comparison is the tendency to compare one’s abilities and opinions to other people to gain information about how we are doing relative to others [ 39 ]. Upward social comparison happens when one compares oneself to someone who is viewed as better in some respect, which may be particularly prevalent on social media. One study found that social media users generally assumed that other users have more friends, are happier, and have better lives than themselves [ 40 ]. Furthermore, by following a large number of people on social media, the reference group to which adolescents compare themselves may include a very large number of people and even high-status celebrities and “influencers” [ 41 ]. Upward social comparison has been associated with more depressive symptoms [ 25 , 42 ] and body dissatisfaction among adolescents [ 28 ] and with suicidal ideation among young adults [ 13 , 29 ]. One recent study found that increased levels of feedback-seeking and social comparison were associated with more depressive symptoms, anxiety, and reduced well-being among adolescents [ 43 ].

In summary, aspects of self-presentation on social media such as feedback-seeking, strategic self-presentation, and social comparison may represent risk factors for experiencing negative effects of social media use. Importantly, self-presentation on social media is not inherently negative; it has been shown to have positive effects under certain conditions. Experimental studies have shown that viewing one’s own social media profile, which often portrays oneself in a positive way, leads to increased self-esteem [ 44 , 45 ] and an improved ability to cope with negative feedback [ 46 ]. This may be seen in connection with self-affirmation theory, which posits that a threat to people’s image of themselves as a “good or lovable person” results in them trying to restore their self-integrity [ 47 , 48 ]. As such, posting positive content about oneself on social media may be a way to try to restore a sense of worth. In order to result in self-affirmation, however, the content needs to be accurate [ 46 ]. Another potential benefit of social media is when they enable the expression of aspects of the self that are perceived as unwanted in offline social settings, thus allowing people to engage in a more authentic self-presentation online than offline [ 49 ].

Given the associations of feedback-seeking, strategic self-presentation, and upward social comparison with mental health and well-being, individual differences in upwards social comparison and aspects of self-presentation may underlie some of the heterogeneity in the effects of social media use on well-being. Previous studies have pointed to some characteristics that are related to self-presentation and social comparison on social media. Firstly, adolescent girls have been found to report higher levels of feedback-seeking and social comparison than boys [ 25 , 43 ]. They have also been shown to post more self-focused images (“selfies”) than adolescent boys, to be more focused on their physical appearance, and to be more concerned about peer-feedback [ 50 ]. Additionally, some studies suggest that personality is associated with aspects of self-presentation on social media. According to the Five Factor Model of personality, personality characteristics cluster into five traits that predict people’s behavior in a wide range of contexts [ 51 , 52 ]: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Agreeableness is associated with greater concern regarding getting along with other people, and conscientiousness is associated with striving for achievement and self-discipline [ 53 ]. Both imply that they would be cautious in how they present themselves online [ 54 ], as the opposite could result in hurting their likeability and their status. Conscientiousness and agreeableness have been negatively associated with attention-seeking [ 54 ]. Extraversion is associated with seeking social attention [ 55 ], and it has been shown that extroverts place importance on looking popular on social media [ 56 ]. Neuroticism is associated with low emotional stability, and being high on this trait means you are more susceptible to negative emotions [ 53 ]. People with high neuroticism are more sensitive to rejection, which may lead them to seek acceptance through social media [ 54 ]. Neuroticism is also associated with the tendency to present an idealized or inauthentic version of oneself [ 27 ]. Finally, openness to experience is associated with open-mindedness, novelty-seeking, and curiosity [ 52 ]. Openness has been associated with overall social media use [ 57 ], but it is unclear whether it is associated with self-presentation.

Aspects of self-presentation on social media have also been related to lifestyle variables. Nesi & Prinstein [ 37 ] found that feedback-seeking on social media was associated with substance abuse and risky sexual behavior, and they hypothesized that those high in feedback-seeking engage in risky offline behaviors that are considered popular among peers in an attempt to increase their social status [ 37 ]. Other lifestyle factors such as physical exercise have not been investigated specifically in relation to aspects of self-presentation, but higher social media use in general is associated with higher sedentary time among adolescents [ 58 , 59 ]. Problematic social media use, measured using addiction criteria, has been associated with lower levels of physical activity among girls and with higher levels of physical activity among boys [ 60 , 61 ].

Increased knowledge about individual differences in self-presentation on social media and how these differences relate to other aspects of adolescents’ lives may help identify those at risk of negative effects of their social media use. The aim of the present study was to explore how adolescents differ in upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation and to assess whether such differences were associated with sociodemographic variables, lifestyle, and personality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study design and setting.

The present study (OSF preregistration doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BVPS8) was based on cross-sectional data from the “LifeOnSoMe” study, an online survey conducted in Bergen, Norway in 2020. Bergen is the second-largest city and a municipality in Vestland county in Western Norway, with a population of around 300,000. All senior high school pupils in the municipality of Bergen aged 16 years or older were invited to complete the survey. The survey was completed during school hours in collaboration with school personnel. Pupils from 12 schools participated, while 2 schools did not have the capacity to prioritize the survey and declined participation. Thus, a total of 3959 pupils were invited to participate in the survey, of which 2116 agreed to participate (54%). Those with missing data on gender and/or age were excluded from the analyses (n = 71), and those reporting non-binary gender were excluded due to privacy concerns (n = 13). Upon analysis, nine responses were excluded, as they were duplicates (i.e., they completed the survey twice), leaving a total number of respondents of 2023.

2.2. Variables

2.2.1. social media use: background information.

To assess the participants’ frequency of social media use, we asked them the following question: “How often do you use social media?” The response alternatives were “almost never”, “several times a month, but rarer than once a week”, “1–2 times per week”, “3–4 times per week”, “5–6 times per week”, “every day”, “several times each day”, and “almost constantly”. For the purpose of the present study, we differentiated between “daily or less” (21%), “many times a day” (51%), and “almost constantly” (28%). To assess participants’ duration of social media use, we asked the following question: “On the days that you use social media, approximately how much time do you spend on social media?” There were seven response alternatives ranging from “less than 30 min” to “more than 5 h”. For the purpose of this study, we differentiated between “<2 h” (28%), “2–4 h” (36%), “4–5 h” (21%), and “>5 h” (14%).

2.2.2. Self-Presentation and Upward Social Comparison Inclination Scale (SPAUSCIS)

The items used to assess upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation were developed based on focus group interviews with senior high school pupils [ 62 ]. The topic of the focus group interviews was the role of social media in relation to adolescents’ mental health and well-being. Based on the focus group interviews, a new battery of questions related to different aspects of social media use covering 13 topics was developed [ 62 ]. To assess the relevance, wording, and content validity of the included items, a resource group consisting of adolescents (n = 7, age range 16–19) tested the questionnaire, and questions were revised based on their feedback. The final questionnaire was piloted in a senior high school outside of Bergen in 2020 (n = 513) [ 43 ]. In the present study, the items potentially most relevant to upward social comparison and self-presentation were used and collectively called the “Self-presentation and Upward Social Comparison Inclination Scale” (SPAUSCIS). The development of the items is also described elsewhere [ 43 ]. The items included in the SPAUSCIS were:

I use a lot of time and energy on the content I post on social media
It is important to me that my posts receive many likes and/or comments
It is important to me to have many followers on social media
I delete posts on social media that do not receive enough likes and/or comments
I retouch images of myself to look better before I post them on social media
It’s easier to be myself on social media
What others post on social media (images/status updates/stories) makes me feel less content with myself and my life
The response I get for what I post (images/status updates/stories) impacts how I feel
I don’t care about how many likes or comments I receive on social media

The response categories were “not at all”, “very little”, “sometimes/partly true”, “a lot”, and “very much”, coded 1–5.

2.2.3. Sociodemographic and Background Variables

The participants reported their age and gender, which education program they attended, and their country of birth. In Norway, pupils can choose a study preparation program to achieve a general university admissions certification or a vocational education program leading to vocational competence in skilled trades. Subjective socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed using the following question: “How well off do you consider your own family to be compared to others?” The response categories ranged from 0 (“Very poor”) to 10 (“Very well off”). For this study, age was recoded so that all participants of 18 years of age or more (max 21) were combined into one group (18+). SES was recoded to a tripartite variable of low SES (scores 0–4; 6.2%), medium SES (5–7, 51.3%), and high SES (8–10, 42.4%).

2.2.4. Lifestyle Factors

The participants indicated how often they exercised each week, following this description of exercise: “By exercise we mean that you go for a walk, go skiing, swimming, or other exercise activities/sports”. The response alternatives were: “Never”, “less than once a week”, “once a week”, “2–3 times a week”, “4–6 times a week”, and “about every day”. The variable was dichotomized to “low/moderate exercise” (2–3 times a week or less; 57%) and “high exercise” (4–6 times a week or more; 43%).

The participants were asked how often they drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, and used snus (under-lip smoke-less tobacco). The participants indicated how often they normally drink over a two-week period, and a variable with four levels was created: never tried alcohol (“Never”; 24%), less often than once in two weeks (“Rarely”; 28%), one to two times in two weeks (“Regularly”; 41%), and more often than two times in two weeks (“Often”; 7%). For cigarettes and snus, the response alternatives were combined, and the variables dichotomized in order to compare those who had tried cigarettes (39%) or snus (36%) with those who had not (61% for cigarettes and 64% for snus).

2.2.5. Personality

Personality was assessed using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) [ 63 ]. The TIPI measures the Big Five personality dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences using ten items measuring two opposing traits for each dimension. The ten items are preceded by the heading “I see myself as”, followed by trait descriptive adjectives. The response categories range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Each participant received a total score for each personality trait by recoding the reverse-scored items and taking the average of the two items. The Spearman Brown coefficient, which is a measure of reliability recommended for scales with two items [ 64 ], was 0.71 for extraversion, 0.30 for agreeableness, 0.55 for conscientiousness, 0.63 for emotional stability, and 0.34 for openness to experience. For the purpose of this study, we created tripartite variables for each personality trait denoting a low (1st–33rd percentile), moderate (34th–66th percentile), and high (67th–100th percentile) score on each trait. In our sample, the proportion scoring low, moderate, and high was 32%, 35%, and 33% for extraversion, 25%, 33%, and 41% for agreeableness, 29%, 38%, and 33% for conscientiousness, 28%, 34%, and 37% for emotional stability, and 28%, 44%, and 28% for openness.

2.3. Analysis

2.3.1. structural validity of the spauscis.

Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the number of underlying factors in the SPAUSCIS, and internal validity was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, using the “jmv” package in R [ 65 ]. A confirmatory analysis (CFA) was performed using the “lavaan” package in R [ 66 ].

2.3.2. Identifying the Number of Classes and the Description of Retained Classes

Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify classes of participants sharing similar response patterns on the items of the SPAUSCIS [ 67 ]. LCA is person-centered and model-based, assumes a parametric statistical model, and uses the observed data to estimate parameter values for the selected model [ 68 ]. Several statistical criteria were used to establish the most appropriate number of latent classes. For the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), lower values indicate a better model fit [ 69 ]. Relative entropy (range 0–1) assesses the quality of classification, where a higher value indicates better discrimination between the classes, and the Lo–Mendell–Rubin ad hoc adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR-LR) indicates whether a given model performs better than a model with k-1 classes. The LCA was performed using the “poLCA” package in R [ 70 ], while relative entropy and LMR-LR were calculated using Mplus [ 71 ].

2.3.3. Class Belongingness and Covariates

Multinominal logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between class membership and sociodemographic variables, lifestyle, and personality, and it is expressed in relative risk ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The multinominal logistic regression was performed using the “nnet” package in R [ 72 ]. The associations were estimated separately for each covariate. Gender is likely to be an important confounding variable, as it has been shown to be related to both upward social comparison and self-presentation [ 73 , 74 , 75 ] and to several of the covariates [ 76 , 77 , 78 ]. Therefore, the multinominal logistic regressions were run with and without controlling for gender.

2.3.4. Missing Data

There were some missing data for the self-presentation data (from 2.8% on “followers important” to 4.9% on “I don’t care”). For the CFA, listwise deletion is the default [ 66 ]. In the LCA, cases with missing values are retained, and class membership is estimated based on the available information [ 70 ]. In all analyses of associations, pairwise deletion was used to retain as many of the data as possible.

The mean age of the sample was 17.36 years (SD 0.85), and 56% were girls ( Table 1 ).

Sociodemographic and background variables across gender. The p -values refer to differences between boys and girls.

	Boys (N = 899, 44%)	Girls (N = 1124, 56%)	Total (N = 2023)	-Value
*
Mean (SD)	17.32 (0.85)	17.38 (0.85)	17.36 (0.85)	0.133

1	16 (1.8%)	8 (0.7%)	24 (1.2%)	0.005
2	493 (55.2%)	566 (50.5%)	1059 (52.9%)
3	384 (43.0%)	547 (48.8%)	931 (45.2%)

Study preparation	674 (75.2%)	966 (86.0%)	1640 (81.2%)	<0.001
Vocational	222 (24.8%)	157 (14.0%)	379 (18.8%)	<0.001

Norway	819 (91.3%)	1005 (89.4%)	1824 (90.2%)	0.154
Other country	78 (8.7%)	119 (10.6%)	197 (9.8%)	0.154

Mean (SD)	7.43 (1.76)	6.98 (1.75)	7.18 (1.77)	<0.001

Note: SES = socioeconomic status, range 0–10. * Linear model ANOVA. § Pearson’s Chi square test.

Table 2 shows the frequency and duration of social media use in total and separately for boys and girls. There were significant differences between boys and girls in terms of frequency and duration of use. A total of 83% of the girls indicated that they used social media several times each day or “almost constantly”, compared to 74 among boys.

Frequency and duration of social media use across gender. The p -values refer to differences between boys and girls.

	Boys (N = 899)	Girls (N = 1124)	Total (N = 2023)	-Value

Daily or less	226 (25.51%)	190 (16.95%)	416 (20.73%)	<0.001
Many times a day	439 (49.55%)	582 (51.92%)	1021 (50.87%)
Almost constantly	221 (24.94%)	349 (31.13%)	570 (28.40%)

<2 h	320 (36.32%)	246 (22.02%)	566 (28.33%)	<0.001
2–4 h	326 (37.00%)	402 (35.99%)	728 (36.44%)
4–5 h	134 (15.21%)	284 (25.43%)	418 (20.92%)
>5 h	101 (11.46%)	185 (16.56%)	286 (14.31%)

Note. Differences between groups assessed using Pearson’s Chi square test.

3.1. Structural Validity of the SPAUSCIS

The correlation matrix including the nine items revealed that the items “It is easier to be myself on social media” and “I don’t care about how many likes or comments I receive on social media” had no correlations with other items >0.30, suggesting that these items should be excluded. The correlation matrix is available as Supplementary Materials (Table S1) . The seven remaining self-presentation items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with no rotation, using principal axis factoring, as the data had a non-normal distribution. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.86, verifying the sampling adequacy of the analysis [ 79 ]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (X 2 (21) = 6993, p < 0.001) supported the factorability of the correlation matrix. The eigenvalue was 3.59 for one factor and dropped to 0.27 for two factors, strongly suggesting a unidimensional scale. With one factor, the model explained 51% of the variance.

A CFA was completed with the seven retained items. Items 2 (likes important) and 3 (followers important) and items 6 (others posts impact feelings) and 7 (response impacts feelings) had highly correlated error terms, and these correlations were allowed in the final model. The CFA resulted in a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.999, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.050 (95%CI 0.039–0.062, p = 0.489), and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.021, all signaling good fit [ 80 ]. The loadings of items 1–7 varied from 0.60 (item 6: “others’ posts affect feelings”) to 0.92 (item 2: “likes are important”), with a mean of 0.77 ( Figure 1 ). The seven items of the SPAUSCIS tap into upward social comparison and different aspects of self-presentation, which we collectively refer to as “focus on self-presentation”.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g001.jpg

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: One-factor model with the items “easier to be myself” and “I don’t care” deleted. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, SPAUSCIS = Self-presentation and Upward Social Comparison Inclination Scale.

3.2. Number and Characteristics of Latent Classes

In the LCA, models with 1–7 latent classes were run with 50 repetitions each and with random starting values to assess model identifiability [ 81 ]. Table 3 shows the fit for models with 1–5 latent classes. AIC, BIC, and relative entropy all improved up to three classes, after which they decreased only slightly. The LMR-LR indicated a statistically significant improvement of the model when moving from a 2-class to a 3-class model and no improvement when moving to a 4-class model. Based on these fit criteria and a visual inspection of the meaningfulness of models with 2, 3, 4, and 5 classes, a 3-class solution was chosen.

AIC, BIC, relative entropy, and LMR-LR for 1–6 classes in the latent class analysis.

Number of Classes	AIC	BIC	Relative Entropy	LMR-LR
1	34,358.99	34,526.14	-	-
2	29,549.39	29,914.30	0.904	< 0.001

4	27,902.47	28,547.89	0.878	< 0.759
5	27,687.25	28,495.43	0.877	< 0.759

Note. Data in italics indicate the best fitting model relative to the other models tested. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; LMR-LR = Lo–Mendell–Rubin ad hoc adjusted likelihood ratio test.

The classes represent response patterns across the seven items. The predicted class membership by modal posterior probability was 42% in class 1, 33% in class 2, and 25% in class 3. Figure 2 shows the distribution of most probable responses for each item in each of the three latent classes. Table 4 shows the probability of endorsing (i.e., responded “sometimes/partly true” or higher) the items for each class. In the first class, there were low probabilities of endorsing the items. The highest probabilities were found for items 1, 6, and 7 (8%, 21%, and 9%, respectively). In class 2, the probabilities of endorsing the items ranged from 5–46%, where items 1, 2, and 6 had the highest probabilities of endorsement (38%, 38%, and 46%, respectively). In class 3, there were high probabilities of endorsement of all items (29–99%). In this class, the items with the highest probabilities of endorsement were items 2 and 3 (99 and 95%), followed by item 6 (81%). Based on the conditional probability results of classes 1, 2, and 3, we named class 1 “Low focus on self-presentation”, class 2 “Intermediate focus on self-presentation”, and class 3 “High focus on self-presentation”.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g002.jpg

Response probabilities on the self-presentation scale across retained classes.

The probability of endorsing (i.e., responding “sometimes/partly true”, “a lot”, or “very much”) each of the SPAUSCIS items across retained classes.

Class 1 (n = 839, 42%)	Class 2 (n = 671; 33%)	Class 3 (n = 513; 25%)
7.5%	38.3%	80.4%
<1.0%	38.7%	98.8%
<1.0%	24.0%	94.5%
<1.0%	5.7%	50.4%
<1.0%	5.1%	29.3%
20.9%	46.0%	81.1%
8.6%	27.7%	76.5%

3.3. Class Belongingness and Covariates

Table 5 , Table 6 and Table 7 shows the results of the multinominal logistic regression, both with and without controlling for gender. Figure 3 , Figure 4 , Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the estimated proportions across sociodemographic, lifestyle, and personality variables (not controlled for gender).

Comparison of class belongingness across sociodemographic variables.

	Class 2 vs. Class 1 (Intermediate vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 1 (High vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 2 (High vs. Intermediate Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender


Boy	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Girl	2.99 (2.42–3.59) ****	-	7.48 (5.77–9.70) ****	-	2.50 (1.91–3.27) ****	-

16	0.97 (0.69–1.36)	1.04 (0.73–1.47)	0.99 (0.69–1.43)	1.11 (0.75–1.65)	1.03 (0.70–1.51)	1.08 (0.73–1.59)
17	1.01 (0.81–1.25)	1.06 (0.84–1.32)	0.96 (0.76–1.25)	1.04 (0.81–1.34)	0.96 (0.75–1.22)	0.99 (0.77–1.26)
18	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.

Low	1.22 (0.78–1.90)	0.97 (0.61–1.53)	1.47 (0.92–2.35)	1.00 (0.61–1.66)	1.20 (0.74–1.95)	1.04 (0.64–1.69)
Intermediate	1.14 (0.92–1.41)	1.02 (0.82–1.27)	1.41 (1.12–1.77) ***	1.17 (0.92–1.50)	1.23 (0.97–1.57)	1.15 (0.90–1.46)
High (ref)	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.

Note: 95 CI = 95% confidence interval; Ref = reference (base) class for comparison of two classes, RRR = relative risk ratio. *** p < 0.005, **** p < 0.001.

Comparison of class belongingness across lifestyle variables.

	Class 2 vs. Class 1 (Intermediate vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 1 (High vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 2 (High vs. Intermediate Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender

Low/moderate	1.13 (0.92–1.39)	0.96 (0.77–1.18)	1.54 (1.23–1.93) ****	1.15 (0.90–1.47)	1.36 (1.07–1.72) *	1.21 (0.95–1.54)
High	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.

Never	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Rarely	1.48 (1.12–1.96) **	1.43 (1.09–1.91) *	1.48 (1.07–2.04) *	1.39 (0.98–1.96)	1.00 (0.70–1.42)	0.97 (0.68–1.39)
Regularly	2.44 (1.87–3.19) ****	2.25 (1.71–2.96) ****	3.11 (2.30–4.19) ****	2.70 (1.96–3.72) ****	1.27 (0.93–1.75)	1.20 (0.87–1.66)
Often	1.53 (0.96–2.44)	1.71 (1.06–2.76) *	2.64 (1.65–4.23) ****	3.25 (1.95–5.42) ****	1.73 (1.04–2.87) *	1.90 (1.13–3.19) *

No	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Yes	1.58 (1.28–1.96) ****	1.77 (1.42–2.21) ****	1.94 (1.54–2.43) ****	2.34 (1.83–3.00) ****	1.22 (0.97–1.54)	1.32 (1.04–1.67) *

No	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Yes	1.57 (1.26–1.95) ****	1.75 (1.40–2.19) ****	2.24 (1.77–2.82) ****	2.69 (2.09–3.46) ****	1.42 (1.13–1.80) ***	1.54 (1.21–1.95) ****

Note: 95 CI = 95% confidence interval; Ref = reference (base) class for comparison of two classes, RRR = relative risk ratio. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.005, **** p < 0.001.

Comparison of class belongingness across personality variables.

	Class 2 vs. Class 1 (Intermediate vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 1 (High vs. Low Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender	Class 3 vs. Class 2 (High vs. Intermediate Focus on Self-Presentation)	Controlled for Gender

Low	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Intermediate	1.49 (1.15–1.91) ***	1.58 (1.22–2.05) ****	1.54 (1.17–2.03) ***	1.71 (1.28–2.31) ****	0.92 (0.68–1.25)	0.96 (0.70–1.31)
High	2.04 (1.57–265) ****	2.16 (1.65–2.83) ****	2.04 (1.54–2.71) ****	2.25 (1.66–3.05) ****	0.95 (0.73–1.23)	0.98 (0.75–1.28)

Low	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Intermediate	1.07 (0.81–1.40)	0.95 (0.71–1.25)	1.08 (0.81–1.45)	0.87 (0.63–1.19)	1.02 (0.78–1.34)	0.97 (0.73–1.27)
High	1.20 (0.92–1.55)	0.97 (0.74–1.27)	1.05 (0.79–1.39)	0.73 (0.53–0.99) *	0.90 (0.67–1.20)	0.78 (0.58–1.05)

Low	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Intermediate	1.15 (0.89–1.48)	1.09 (0.84–1.42)	1.01 (0.77–1.32)	0.92 (0.69–1.23)	0.91 (0.68–1.21)	0.89 (0.66–1.19)
High	1.29 (0.99–1.67)	1.15 (0.88–1.51)	0.85 (0.64–1.13)	0.71 (0.52–0.96)	0.69 (0.52–0.90) **	0.64 (0.49–0.85) ***

Low	2.11 (1.61–2.75) ****	1.45 (1.09–1.93) *	5.95 (4.39–8.06) ****	3.24 (2.34–4.49) ****	2.85 (2.03–4.02) ****	2.20 (1.54–3.14) ****
Intermediate	1.61 (1.27–2.05) ****	1.29 (1.00–1.65) *	3.21 (2.40–4.30) ****	2.19 (1.61–2.98) ****	1.70 (1.18–2.46) ***	1.45 (1.00–2.10)
High	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.

Low	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Intermediate	1.15 (0.89–1.48)	1.15 (0.88–1.49)	0.87 (0.67–1.14)	0.87 (0.65–1.16)	0.98 (0.74–1.29)	0.97 (0.73–1.28)
High	1.19 (0.90–1.58)	1.28 (0.96–1.71)	0.91 (0.68–1.23)	1.03 (0.75–1.42)	0.90 (0.68–1.19)	0.94 (0.71–1.25)

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g003.jpg

Crude proportions for each class across gender, age, and subjective socioeconomic status. Proportions based on most probable class belongingness. The error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g004.jpg

Crude proportions for each class across physical activity, cigarettes (ever tried, yes/no), and snus (ever tried, yes/no). Proportions based on most probable class belongingness. The error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g005.jpg

Crude proportions for each class across alcohol consumption. Proportions based on most probable class belongingness. The error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-11133-g006.jpg

Crude proportions for each class across personality traits. Proportions based on most probable class belongingness. The error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

3.3.1. Sociodemographic Factors

Girls were more likely to be in higher classes (i.e., a higher focus on self-presentation) compared to lower classes for all class comparisons (see Table 5 ). Those with intermediate SES were more likely than those with high SES to be in class 3 compared to class 1. This association became non-significant when controlling for gender. There was no statistically significant difference in age across classes.

3.3.2. Lifestyle

Compared to those who had never tried alcohol, those who consumed alcohol more than twice in two weeks were more likely to be in higher classes for all class comparisons when controlling for gender ( Table 6 ). Those who consumed alcohol 1–2 times in two weeks were more likely to be in classes 2 and 3 compared to class 1, while those who consumed alcohol less than once in two weeks were more likely to be in class 2 compared to class 1. Those who had tried cigarettes or snus were more likely to be in higher classes for all class comparisons. Those with low/moderate physical activity were more likely to be in class 3 compared to class 1, but this association became non-significant when controlling for gender.

3.3.3. Personality

Compared to low extraversion, those with intermediate or high extraversion were more likely to be in classes 2 and 3 compared to class 1 ( Table 7 ). When controlling for gender, those with high agreeableness (vs. low agreeableness) had a lower likelihood of belonging to class 3 compared to class 1. For conscientiousness, those with high scores had a lower likelihood of being in class 3 compared to class 1 (when controlling for gender) and class 2. Compared to high emotional stability, those with low or intermediate emotional stability were more likely to be in higher classes compared to lower classes for all class comparisons. When controlling for gender, the increased likelihood of being in class 3 vs. class 2 for those with intermediate emotional stability became non-significant. There were no statistically significant differences for agreeableness across classes.

4. Discussion

In this exploratory study, we assessed differences among adolescents’ upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media and whether these differences were related to gender, age, SES, lifestyle factors, or personality. Over 2000 Norwegian senior high school pupils participated in the study. The results showed that feedback-seeking, strategic self-presentation, and social comparison on social media could be combined into one factor, referred to here as “focus on self-presentation”. The experience of it being easier to be oneself on social media did not correlate with the other aspects of self-presentation measured in this study and was excluded from the SPAUSCIS. It is possible that this item taps into other aspects of social media use. For example, some people may be less shy and withdrawn online than offline [ 82 , 83 , 84 ], or aspects of the self that are hidden or suppressed in offline interactions can be more freely expressed on social media [ 85 ].

The latent class analysis identified three groups of adolescents who varied in their focus on self-presentation. We named the classes “low focus on self-presentation” (class 1), “some focus on self-presentation” (class 2), and “high focus on self-presentation” (class 3). Group membership was associated with gender, lifestyle factors, and personality traits, where being a girl, having intermediate and high extraversion, having low and intermediate emotional stability, consuming alcohol, and having tried cigarettes and snus increased the likelihood of a higher focus on self-presentation. There was some indication that those with high agreeableness and high conscientiousness were less likely to have a high focus on self-presentation. The associations between focus on self-presentation and SES and between focus on self-presentation and low/moderate physical activity both became non-significant when controlling for gender. Focus on self-presentation was not related to age or the personality trait of openness to new experiences.

Using the same items as those in the present study, Skogen et al. [ 43 ] found a higher score on the items among adolescent girls than boys. Our results corroborate these findings, using a larger and more heterogeneous sample (pupils from twelve schools in rural and central areas). Class 1 (low focus on self-presentation) was dominated by boys, while class 2 (intermediate focus on self-presentation) and class 3 (high focus on self-presentation) were characterized by successively larger estimated proportions of girls. On a similar note, studies have shown that females both post selfies and retouch selfies before posting them to a greater degree than males [ 12 , 86 ]. The higher proportion of girls in class 2 and 3 can be understood in the context of the stronger tendency among adolescent females to have a relational orientation and increased reactivity to interpersonal stressors compared to males [ 87 , 88 ]. Some studies suggest that the association between social media use and negative mental health outcomes is stronger among females [ 20 , 89 ]. The increased focus on self-presentation may be one contributing factor to this relationship.

There was some evidence for a relationship between SES and group membership, with an increased relative risk of having a high focus on self-presentation for those with intermediate as compared to high SES. This relationship, however, became non-significant when controlling for gender. To the authors’ knowledge, no other studies have assessed the relationship between self-presentation and SES, but SES has been related to other aspects of social media use and, more generally, to screen use. For instance, low SES has been associated with social media addiction among children and adolescents [ 90 ], and access to media devices in the bedroom is more common among adolescents from low-income families compared to high-income families [ 91 ]. Overall, our sample was characterized by relatively high SES, and studies on more diverse populations should be conducted to better illuminate the relationship between focus on self-presentation and SES.

The lack of an association between age and group membership may be due to the limited age range of the participants in this study. Social media use is common from a young age, and among Norwegian children, one-fourth of boys and one-third of girls already use Snapchat at the age of 9–10 years [ 4 ]. Adolescents’ online self-presentation has been shown to change with age [ 92 ] and to be influenced by identity development [ 93 ]. Among 13–18-year-olds, Fullwood et al. [ 92 ] showed that younger adolescents were more likely than older adolescents to present an idealized or false version of themselves online and to experiment with multiple self-presentations. Among emerging adults, Michikyan [ 93 ] found that those high in identity confusion were less realistic, less truthful, and more socially desirable in their self-presentation online than those high in identity coherence.

We found that the personality traits extraversion and emotional stability were associated with class membership. Those with high extraversion were more likely to have a higher focus on self-presentation than those with low extraversion. These findings correspond to the findings of Zywica & Danowski [ 56 ], who found that a larger proportion of extraverts relative to introverts reported that it was important to look popular on Facebook. Associations between extraversion and other aspects of social media use may also be related to the present findings. For instance, meta-analytic evidence has shown that extraversion is positively associated with the amount of social media use [ 94 ], the number of friends on social media [ 95 ], and using social media for social interaction [ 96 ]. One may speculate that extraverts use social media to fulfil their social needs and that they consequently consider social media as an important part of their social lives and become more focused on how they appear online compared to introverts.

Emotional stability was even more strongly associated with class membership than extraversion, where the estimated proportions of low, intermediate, and high emotional stability shifted substantially with an increasing focus on self-presentation. The proportion of intermediate and low emotional stability increased with a higher focus on self-presentation, and high emotional stability decreased. This can be seen in the context of the results of Twomey & O’Reilly [ 27 ], who showed that neuroticism (i.e., low emotional stability) was associated with individuals’ tendency to present an idealized or inauthentic version of themselves online. Neuroticism has also been associated with posting more status updates [ 97 ]. More generally, emotional stability is negatively associated with the amount of social media use [ 94 , 96 ].

For agreeableness and conscientiousness, those with high scores were somewhat less likely to have a high focus on self-presentation. This is in line with a study of undergraduate students, where agreeableness and conscientiousness were associated with a lower likelihood of using social media to seek attention from others [ 54 ]. There was no relationship between class membership and openness to new experiences. High scores on openness have been associated with more social media use in studies of adults [ 57 , 96 ], but as social media use is ubiquitous among adolescents, this personality trait may be a more important predictor of social media use among older people [ 57 ].

Finally, our results show that those who consumed alcohol more frequently and those who had tried smoking and snus had increased probabilities of having an intermediate or high focus on self-presentation. This finding mirrors the findings of Nesi & Prinstein [ 37 ], who demonstrated that digital status seeking (i.e., efforts to obtain likes and comments) was longitudinally associated with substance use. The authors of that study hypothesized that digital status seekers are at risk of engaging in risky offline behaviors that are considered popular among peers in an attempt to increase their social status [ 37 ]. For physical activity, there were increased probabilities of a high focus on self-presentation for those with low/moderate physical activity compared to those with high physical activity, although not when controlling for gender. To our knowledge, no studies have looked specifically at self-presentation on social media and physical activity; however, studies have shown that low physical activity is associated with smartphone addiction [ 60 , 61 ] and, more generally, with high overall screen times [ 58 , 59 ].

4.1. Implications

Grouping adolescents by their focus on self-presentation may be one way to bring structure to the heterogeneity of adolescents’ social media use, but further work is needed to assess whether the three-class solution in the present study is relevant in other populations. Further work is also needed to assess how focus on self-presentation is related to important adolescence outcomes such as mental health, satisfaction with life, and educational attainment. Importantly, social media use is likely to differ in other areas in addition to self-presentation; however, focus on self-presentation seems to be a meaningful dimension that warrants further study. The present results can help identify groups of adolescents that are of risk of experiencing negative effects of their social media use. Our results suggest that, among adolescents, being a girl, high extraversion, and low emotional stability are associated with an increased risk of being highly focused on self-presentation. Public health interventions promoting healthy social media use could target these groups in particular. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that the act of self-presenting on social media, such as posting selfies, triggers an increased dependence on social approval in the form of likes and comments [ 98 ]. Thus, it is possible that efforts to reduce self-presentation behavior on social media could potentially reduce someone’s dependence on social approval. However, positive self-presentation, defined as showing positive aspects of the self online, has been shown to increase subjective well-being, possibly because it supports a positive self-image [ 99 ] and self-affirmation [ 46 ]. Thus, the relationship between the act of self-presenting on social media, one’s focus on self-presentation, and well-being is complex and needs further investigation.

The present study did not consider how focus on self-presentation may vary across different social media platforms. For example, self-presentation on social media can vary depending on the perceived target audience [ 100 , 101 ]. In a qualitative study by Taber & Whittaker [ 101 ], university students explained that they were more authentic and less socially desirable on social media accounts where only their close friends could access their content. Furthermore, how one self-presents on social media can be influenced by the level of anonymity, the durability of the content (e.g., ephemeral vs. permanent content; [ 102 ]), and the visibility of the content [ 100 ]. It is unclear whether one’s focus on self-presentation, beyond how one self-presents, varies across platforms, but it is likely that some social media platforms augment users’ focus on self-presentation—for example, platforms with visual content and feedback from others as central features. Thus, it is possible that some of the gender differences in focus on self-presentation are based on gender differences in platform preference, above and beyond any differences in focus on self-presentation between boys and girls in the first place.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

A strength of the present study is the use of survey items developed based on focus interviews with the target group, increasing the likelihood that the items were relevant to the participants. The data collection is recent, and the study included a large number of participants, allowing for a meaningful investigation of the focus on self-presentation on social media and its covariates.

The study also has some important limitations. First, the items measuring focus on self-presentation are not part of an established scale. However, a pilot study using the same items showed the same factor structure and supported a unidimensional scale, and the sum score was associated with mental health and well-being [ 43 ]. The same study also showed that a higher proportion of those with a high score on the scale used highly visual social media, such as Snapchat and Instagram, compared to those with low scores [ 43 ]. Second, the reliability was low for some of the TIPI scales, specifically for agreeableness and openness to experience, and the results should be interpreted with this in mind. TIPI has, however, shown good convergence with multi-item personality inventories and good test-retest reliability [ 63 ]. Further, the study is cross-sectional, which means that we are unable to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect. Furthermore, the participant rate was somewhat low (54%). It is possible that those highly invested in social media completed the survey to a larger extent than those not invested in social media, thus causing a bias in the results. Hence, the estimated proportions of the latent classes should be interpreted with caution. However, associations are less vulnerable to bias caused by low participation rates than prevalence [ 103 ], and the associations between class membership and covariates may be considered valid despite a relatively low participation rate.

As participants were recruited through their school, adolescents not attending school did not have the opportunity to participate in the study. However, the rate of school attendance among Norwegian adolescents is very high, with 94% of 16–18-year-olds attending senior high school [ 104 ]. The participants were drawn from a limited geographical area, and the results may not be generalizable to other countries or cultures. For example, Kolesnyk et al. [ 105 ] found that the deceptive self-presentation of physical attractiveness (e.g., retouching images to increase attractiveness) was lower in countries with more gender equality.

Only one of the self-presentation items asked explicitly about visual self-presentation, specifically about the retouching of photos to look better. Self-presentation may entail photos of oneself but also photos of friends or activities, sharing music and movies, posting opinions, etc. Future studies should consider if self-presentation through posting photos of oneself differs from other forms of self-presentation—for example, due to links with appearance-related concerns [ 106 , 107 , 108 ]. Furthermore, we used the word “retouching”, which may not fully reflect the range of ways adolescents edit their photos. For example, built-in image filters on applications such as Snapchat are frequently used by adolescents but may not have been captured by the question about retouching. Retouching may have been interpreted as more elaborate and advanced photo-editing. Future studies are likely to benefit from combining quantitative findings with qualitative data to obtain a fuller picture of adolescents’ focus on self-presentation on social media. Lastly, the present study did not distinguish between different social media platforms. This is a limitation, as some items, such as the importance of likes and comments, are not relevant to all platforms. Future studies could explore whether focus on self-presentation differs across social media platforms.

5. Conclusions

In this exploratory study, we showed that feedback-seeking, strategic self-presentation, and social comparison on social media converged into one factor, referred to here as “focus on self-presentation”. Using a data-driven approach, we identified three groups of adolescents with a low, intermediate, and high focus on self-presentation. Being a girl, higher extraversion, lower emotional stability, more frequent alcohol consumption, and having tried tobacco were associated with membership in the high-focus group. There was some indication that those with high agreeableness and high conscientiousness were less likely to have a high focus on self-presentation, while SES and physical activity were associated with focus on self-presentation in crude models but not after controlling for gender. Importantly, the current study included a rather homogenous sample in terms of SES, and the relationship between focus on self-presentation and SES should be further investigated in more diverse populations. Further work is also needed to assess how focus on self-presentation is related to important adolescence outcomes such as mental health, satisfaction with life, and educational attainment. However, given the association of aspects of self-presentation with negative mental health outcomes shown in previous research, efforts to reduce the focus on self-presentation could be warranted. The present results suggest some characteristics that are associated with a higher focus on self-presentation and that could inform targeted interventions. The high focus on self-presentation found among girls could explain previous findings of stronger associations between social media use and negative mental health outcomes among girls compared to boys. Importantly, specific social media affordances and the act of self-presentation may augment one’s focus on self-presentation, and gender differences in terms of focus on self-presentation may be partly related to differences in platform preference among girls and boys. The nature of these complex associations warrants further investigation, and efforts should be made to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the pupils that participated in the survey, as well as Bergen municipality and Vestland County Council for their collaboration and help with the study. We would like to thank the resource group that contributed with inputs and discussions regarding the focus group interviews and the questionnaire development.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph191711133/s1 , Table S1: The correlation matrix (non-parametric) of candidate self-presentation items.

Funding Statement

The present study is associated with a larger innovation project led by the Bergen municipality in Western Norway related to the use of social media, mental health, and well-being. The innovation project is funded by a program initiated by the Norwegian Directorate of Health and aims to explore social media as a platform for health promotion among adolescents. Hjetland’s postdoc position is funded by the DAM Foundation and supported by the Norwegian Council for Mental Health (grant number 2021/FO347287). Finserås’ postdoc position is funded by the Research Council of Norway (project number 319845). This work was also partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centers of Excellence funding scheme, project number 262700. The funding sources were not involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the writing of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.J.H. and J.C.S.; methodology, G.J.H. and J.C.S.; formal analysis, G.J.H. and J.C.S.; investigation, G.J.H., R.T.H. and J.C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.J.H. and J.C.S.; writing—review and editing, G.J.H., T.R.F., B.S., I.C., R.T.H. and J.C.S.; visualization, G.J.H.; project administration, J.C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The data collection was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (REK) in Norway (REK #65611).

Informed Consent Statement

Eligible participants were informed about the purpose of the study and provided informed electronic consent upon participation. Participants were also informed that participation was voluntary. All of the invited participants were 16 years of age or older and were therefore deemed competent to consent on their own behalf.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Conditionally
Newsletter Signup

All products are independently selected by our editors. If you buy something, we may earn an affiliate commission.

So You Want to Learn How to Squirt During Sex

By Erica Sloan

hose squirting out water in a grassy field

Even in the year 2024, the concept of squirting during sex is often met with wide eyes and whispers. Which makes sense: It has all the ingredients of a sexual enigma—the glossy sheen of mystery, the allure of taboo, the surprise and delight of unpredictability. But the truth is, squirting is neither super rare nor the end-all, be-all of sexual happenings (just being real). What it is , though, is a uniquely pleasurable experience for plenty of people with vulvas.

The misconceptions around squirting mostly stem from a lack of conclusive research on the topic—which may not shock you, since we’re talking about (1) sex and (2) female anatomy. “I always say we know more about the surface of Mars than we do about what’s really going on in women’s bodies [or that of anyone with a vulva],” Nan Wise, PhD , cognitive neuroscientist, AASECT-certified sex therapist, and author of Why Good Sex Matters , tells SELF. As a result, she says it’s hard to claim that every person with a vulva can learn how to squirt ( research puts the number of adult women who have ever squirted at 4 in 10), but a lot of experts believe it’s possible, even if it comes more naturally to some.

As for what that liquid actually is, where it originates, and what makes it spray…or dribble or spew? Read on to learn what some very innovative science is beginning to reveal about squirting, plus how to make your next sex-counter wetter n’ wilder.

First things first: Squirting and female ejaculation are not the same thing.

Technically speaking, “female ejaculate” consists of less than 10 milliliters of fluid (roughly two teaspoons) that looks like “watered-down milk,” Dr. Wise says. Whereas squirting (which can coincide with female ejaculation) is the release of more than 10 milliliters—and often much more—of fluid that can shoot, spray, or gush into the air, like your own personal hot spring.

Another key distinction: Female ejaculate is thought to come from the glandular tissue wrapping around the urethra (the tube where you pee from)—which, depending on whom you ask, is called either the paraurethral glands, Skene’s glands, “female” prostate, or, as Dr. Wise and other sex researchers now suggest, just the prostate (hooray for gender-neutral organs!). This tissue likely plays a similar role to a “male” prostate, as female ejaculate contains many of the same components as semen, minus the sperm. Squirt fluid, by contrast, is now known to originate in the bladder , thanks to a fascinating 2022 study involving five women whose bladders were filled with an indigo liquid; when they got down to sexy stuff and squirted, the fluid was totally blue.

You’re probably wondering then: Is squirting just peeing? Not exactly—though it’s a hotly debated question. The liquid that gushes out when you squirt contains components of urine like urea and creatinine, but it’s also been shown to have chemicals created in the prostate. Anecdotally, squirt is also typically clear and odorless, which has led many experts to suspect it is a distinct fluid from pee—potentially a diluted version (and containing more urine if you don’t pee before sex).

Regardless of what’s in the squirt, though, the act of squirting is distinct from peeing too. Squirting is a result of arousal or, more typically, orgasm, and it generally feels really good—whereas involuntarily peeing during sex (a.k.a. coital incontinence ) can occur at any point of play and tends to have a negative effect on your sex life.

While the line between peeing and squirting may be a little fuzzy, one thing is clear: We’re doing no one any favors by conflating the two. That just stigmatizes what is actually a very normal (and often super hot) part of having sex for many people with a vulva. In fact, a 2021 study found that the squirt-is-pee narrative was a big contributor to feelings of embarrassment and shame—the last thing anyone should feel when their body is literally erupting with pleasure.

What does squirting feel like?

One thing that complicates the pee-versus-something-else debate is that the sensation that happens right before squirting can feel a lot like needing to pee, says Dr. Wise. It’s a reason why sex educator Marla Renee Stewart , resident sex expert for Lovers , always recommends that people pee before masturbating or having sex because “you want to be able to squirt in peace without thinking about peeing.”

Squirting has also been associated with a “ deeper ” or more intense orgasm (though it’s worth noting that squirting doesn’t always sync up with climax and can happen with sexual arousal too). Research assessing people’s feelings about squirting has found that most women (nearly 80%) say it enhances pleasure and boosts their sex life—but that’s not to say squirting will necessarily improve your orgasms if you don’t currently do it. To be totally clear, whether you gush like a geyser or experience no semblance of spritz, you can have fantastic orgasms.

So can I learn how to squirt during sex?

Again, it’s a controversial topic, but the experts we spoke with say it certainly doesn’t hurt to try. What’s important to clarify for yourself first is why you want to learn: If you feel pressured to do so—whether by a partner or because of any societal narrative that equates squirting with how “good” you are at sex—then it’s important to take a step back and remind yourself that your pleasure is the priority, Dr. Wise says. But if you’re curious to explore squirting as a way to feel even better in bed, scroll on.

Your pelvic floor, that hammock of muscles running from your pubic bone to your tailbone, is intimately involved in orgasm; research suggests that the stronger it is, the more easily and the more powerfully you can climax. And there’s likely a similar connection with squirting: Research also shows that the stronger the contractions of your pelvic floor during sex, the more likely you are to squirt, Stewart says.

COVID Cases Are Rising Again. Here's How to Stop It From Ruining Your Summer

By Katie Camero

This Is What a Mid-40s Face Without Any Work Done Looks Like

By Jenna Ryu

How to Rehydrate Quickly When You're So, So Hot

That means it’s a good idea to get into some pelvic floor training if you haven’t squirted before, but you’re looking to get there. Kegels are certainly an option, so long as you’re doing them correctly , as are using Kegels trainers or vaginal weights and practicing deep belly breathing to allow your pelvic floor to relax in between orgasmic contractions.

The more you explore your own body and get comfortable with the way you come, the easier orgasm gets, Dr. Wise says. It’s why she and Stewart are both staunch advocates of regular self-pleasure , whether you’re looking to squirt or just amp up the way you finish.

Masturbating sufficiently helps “lay down the pleasure pathways,” Dr. Wise says, referring to the connections between the nerve endings in your vulva and the parts of your brain that allow you to feel sexually satisfied. As you strengthen those associations, “orgasm becomes more likely to find you,” she says.

You can certainly get handsy with yourself , but sex toys can take things up a notch too. (Might we suggest toys that cater to the clitoris or G-spot ?)

Here’s where things get juicy: Once you’re comfortable with masturbating to the point of orgasm, you’re ready to give squirting an official try. It’s not a bad idea to get yourself a sex blanket (or put something down on your bed that you don’t mind getting wet) before you dive in.

The scant research we have on what actually prompts squirting suggests that you’ll want to try stimulating your G-spot , the erogenous zone that’s typically located a couple of inches up the anterior (a.k.a. belly-side) wall of the vagina. (The whole concept of a specific spot is a little misleading; most sex experts agree that it’s more of a general area that allows you to stimulate an internal part of the clitoris instead.)

With a finger, penis, or dildo, you’ll want to apply pressure to that part of the vaginal wall “with vigorous, repetitive” motions, Dr. Wise says, adding that you can also bear down (yep, kinda like you’re trying to poop!) with your pelvic floor muscles while you go after that spot to potentially up your chances. As for why that might work? When you’re massaging the G-zone, you may also be “enrolling” the prostate glands nearby, Dr. Wise says. And the extra flex of your pelvic floor may push against the bladder too, says Stewart. Though research hasn’t fully confirmed these mechanics, TBH.

Stewart also recommends getting the external part of your clitoris involved—that sensitive nub at the top of your vulva. (After all, this button and the G-spot are part of the same network of pleasure-producing nerves.) Even just clitoral stimulation can bring you to an intense orgasm that gets your pelvic floor muscles cranking…which could have you squirting, she says. (If it sounds enticing to you, why not go for a best-of-both-worlds approach with a rabbit vibrator that offers inside and outside vibes?)

This is super important: You don’t want to be clenching anything down there when you’re about to finish, since it’s possible you could prevent your natural squirting response, Dr. Wise says. Again, the feeling right before squirting happens is often compared to needing to pee—but if you also know that you haven’t peed in a while, you might be concerned (understandably so) about regular ol’ pee coming out on its own or alongside your squirt, and so you might just hold it all in. (Again, it’s a good idea to make a habit of peeing before sex!)

Stewart recommends taking deep breaths as things start to heat up, which can help your pelvic floor muscles relax, so you’re less likely to stop the waterworks before they start.

Telling you not to get worked up about squirting when you’re probably reading this article with the express purpose of squirting seems a little silly. But we have to say it: Much like having sex solely as a means to an orgasm, focusing only on squirting can suck the pleasure right out of the experience—which defeats the whole point. Not to mention, overthinking during sex can make squirting even more elusive, according to both experts. The less you can chase waterfalls, the more likely you are to become one!

What’s a Sex Blanket? Plus 14 Comfortable, Discreet Options to Consider
Anorgasmia Might Explain Why You’re Not Orgasming When You Want to
How to Try Edging, the Sex Technique That Takes Teasing to a Whole New Level

SELF does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Any information published on this website or by this brand is not intended as a substitute for medical advice, and you should not take any action before consulting with a healthcare professional.

6 Trader Joe’s Meal Prep Hacks That’ll Get Lunch Ready, Stat

Microsoft 365 Life Hacks > Presentations > How to introduce yourself in a presentation

How to introduce yourself in a presentation

A well-executed presentation should captivate your audience and listeners. The first step to gaining their attention is creating an engaging introduction. Learn why presentation introductions are important and how to properly execute one for your presentation.

Why are presentation introductions important?

Presentation delivery impacts your audience’s reception and listening skills. A dull delivery can deter listeners and potentially leave them disinterested. Conversely, an effective delivery can engage your audience, promote active listening, and stimulate substantive discussion.

Presentation introductions also help to establish the outline of your presentation and give the audience an idea of what is to come. Introductions play a crucial role in captivating listeners from the onset and building momentum. They address who you are, why the audience should be invested, state the topic, establish credibility, preview the main points, and establish the cadence and tone of your presentation. Before you dive into the content of your presentation, ensure you establish an effective introduction to captivate your audience.

Tell your story with captivating presentations

Powerpoint empowers you to develop well-designed content across all your devices

How to begin a presentation introduction

To establish rapport with your audience, here are some tips to effectively introduce yourself and your presentation:

Be clear and concise

A succinct introduction makes it easier for your audience to follow. Keep your introduction simple, short, and include only necessary information. State your name and topic clearly so your audience knows you from the beginning. Avoid unnecessary details or lengthy anecdotes in your introduction to keep things focused and to the point.

Provide pertinent background information

In addition to your name and topic, highlight anything else that is relevant. You can include your education, work background, qualifications, and other information. Most importantly, ensure the information you disclose is directly relevant to yourself and presentation.

Create a hook or attention getter

Once you’ve established your name and topic, create an engaging hook or attention getter. Your introduction can be funny, clever, or it can captivate your audience. Have fun creating an introduction, but be sure to align your tone and delivery to your audience.

Outline your presentation

Let your audience know what your will be discussing. Establish a roadmap of your presentation: outline your contents, topics, and main points in an easily digestible format. This makes it easier for your audience to follow your presentation and prepare for its contents.

Practice and refine

Once you’ve created a solid introduction, rehearse your introduction until the delivery is organic and smooth. Confidence is key for an optimal delivery. Speak clearly, practice eye contact, and use storytelling to engage your audience.

Be authentic

Above all, be yourself—authenticity helps you build trust and connection with your audience. Carry you character, speech, and personality into your presentation to draw in your audience.

A successful introduction establishes tone, cadence, topic, and showcases your personality. Gain your audience’s attention and effectively deliver your presentation with an effective introduction. For more ways to engage your audience and improve presentation delivery , learn more presentation tips .

Get started with Microsoft 365

It’s the Office you know, plus the tools to help you work better together, so you can get more done—anytime, anywhere.

Topics in this article

How to add citations to your presentation

Conduct research and appropriately credit work for your presentation. Understand the importance of citing sources and how to add them to your presentation.

How to work on a group presentation

Group presentations can go smoothly with these essential tips on how to deliver a compelling one.

How to create a sales presentation

Engage your audience and get them interested in your product with this guide to creating a sales presentation.

7 tips for creating and presenting a webinar

Everything you need to achieve more in less time

Get powerful productivity and security apps with Microsoft 365

Explore Other Categories

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Self-Presentation in Social Media: Review and Research Opportunities

2021, Review of Communication Research

This paper reviews existing research on self-presentation in social media in order to inform future research. Social media offer seemingly limitless opportunities for strategic self-presentation. Informed by existing self-presentation theories, a review of research on self-presentation in social media revealed three significant context and audience variables that were conceptualized in a model. First, three affordances of social media-anonymity, persistence, and visibility-were discussed, as research has revealed the moderating effects of these affordances between self-presentation goal and the self-presentational content shared in social media. For example, one might expect that social media users are more likely to present their actual selves under conditions of less anonymity, more persistence, and more visibility. On the other hand, the freedom associated with more anonymous, less persistent, and less visible social media may lead to idealized self-presentation. The second finding revealed the impact of other-generated content in the form of likes, comments, tags, and shares on social media users' self-presentation content, mediated by how they choose to manage such content. The third theme concerned the moderating effect of context collapse on the relationship between goals and self-presentation content. The composition of an impression manager's audience from one platform to the next varies across social media platforms, impacting and often complicating the attainment of self-presentation goals in the midst of merging networks of people. Social media users have adopted varying ways to navigate the complexities of context collapse in their pursuit of self-presentation. Although we have learned much from this body of literature, a more comprehensive theory of self-presentation in the hypermedia age is needed to further advance this area of research.

Related Papers

New Media and Mass Communication

Mariah Muda , Rahmat Ghazali

Self-presentation Strategies in Social Media

Waelxaah Dan Nyongesa

The rapid growth in the use of social networking sites popularly known as social media has opened up new avenues for interaction among people and organizations across the globe. Giving users the freedom to control personal information on their profiles has resulted in unprecedented gains for both corporations and individuals. The information shared on these platforms has not only transformed the manner of socialization but also created opportunities for people to showcase different abilities and capacities.

e-Journal of New Media

Osman Solmaz

This study aimed to lay out an up-to-date literature review on self-presentation and impression management (Goffman, 1959) in social networking sites (SNSs) through a descriptive analysis method. Following an introduction to the concepts, and the significance of self-presentation research, the current state of the discourse has been discussed under four themes: the debate of actual versus idealized selves in SNSs, resources for self-presentation in SNSs, online self-presentation typology and strategies, and determinants of online self-presentation. The review indicated that impression management typology was found to be a useful analytical framework for future research. However, it was reported that users employed various self-presentation tactics to create a favorable impression on others as well. It was also revealed that personality traits, technical features of SNSs, audience size and diversity, culture, and other-provided information were among the determinants of self-presentation. Finally, it was shown that self-presentation in SNSs merits focused attention as more research is needed to gain a solid understanding of to what extent actual selves are presented online. The study concluded with a call for further research in the investigation of the presentation of self in educational settings including second language teaching and learning contexts.

Journal of Internet Social Networking and Virtual Communities

Jamel-Eddine Gharbi

Computers in Human Behavior

Simone Moran

IJAR Indexing

This study investigates self-presentation strategies among Face book Participants, exploring how participants manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of presenting the impression they desire. Thirty-four individuals participated in semi-structured interviews about their Face book experiences and perceptions of each other profile and were asked to describe the impression being projected and give a adjective to it. This helped in capturing the impression being ?given? and ?impression being received? by others. Qualitative data analysis suggests that participants attended to small cues online, mediated the tension between impression management pressures and the desire to present an authentic sense of self through tactics such as creating a profile that reflected their \"ideal self,\" and attempted to establish the veracity of their identity claims. This study provides empirical support for Social Information Processing theory in a naturalistic context.

Kate Thirlaway

On social network sites (e.g. Facebook), individuals self-present to multiple audiences simultaneously twenty-four hours a day. Prior research has inferred this results in a lowest common denominator effect (LCDE) whereby people constrain their online presentation to the standards of their strictest audience. However, this existing work neglects to address differences in the 'value' (social/economic) of the audience. Through the lens of self-presentation theory, we argue that it is not the strictest audience that constrains behavior but the strongest (i.e. that which has the highest score for standards and value combined). We call this the strongest audience effect (SAE). The aim of this research is to examine and contrast the LCDE and SAE. A survey of young Facebook users (n=379) provides support for the SAE when compared to LCDE, with the strength of the strongest audience predicting behavioral constraint and also social anxiety. Additional insights are generated into whic...

Ivan Perkov

This paper presents a sociological theoretical framework for the study of self-presentation in social networks. Theoretically, the paper draws on the sociological classics of E. Goffman and M. Castells and work from other academic fields in which self-presentation and social networks have been explored as social phenomena. The first part of the paper provides a contextual framework for the development of information technology and the growth of social network users, and offers some terminological clarifications. Then, the sociological approaches to the phenomena of social networks and self-presentation are analysed within the framework of the dramaturgical approach. The spatio-temporal framework created by the emergence of the Internet is questioned, and self-presentation is examined in this context. The notion of the exhibition site that defines the new form of appearance on social network platforms, the temporal status of the contemporary form of self-presentation on social networks and the asynchronous character of communication implied by this self-presentation are also analysed.

Jian Raymond Rui , Michael Stefanone

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Dayanara Dawn Bustillos

Kiff van Bruekelen

Jian Raymond Rui

Brian Mallon

rommani sen shitak

Indus Foundation International Journals UGC Approved , Abdullah Ali Alassiri

Economic Consultant

Anna Shutaleva

Information Systems Frontiers

Michelle Richey

Self-Presentation on Facebook

Faryal Sohail

Frontiers in Psychology

Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology

Lucie Merunková

Proceedings of the ACM: HCI (PACM HCI)

Jessica Vitak

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Anna Morgan-Thomas

Kim Hua Tan , Husnita Habsah

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Teresa Gil-Lopez

Jacqueline Pike , Brian Butler

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Melanie Keep (nee Nguyen)

Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy

Elena - Madalina Vatamanescu

Moumita Biswas

Oren Gil-Or

Josh Morales

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and …

Devan Rosen

Patrick Bateman

Journal of Consumer Research

Anna Alexandra Ndegwa

A Simple Way to Introduce Yourself

Partner Center

More From Forbes

The self presentation theory and how to present your best self

What does self presentation mean?

Tangible or social benefits:

To facilitate social interaction:

Identity Construction:

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

Transform your life

Allaya Cooks-Campbell

Impression management: Developing your self-presentation skills

Search form

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

Key Takeaways

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Focus on Self-Presentation on Social Media across Sociodemographic Variables, Lifestyles, and Personalities: A Cross-Sectional Study

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Self-Presentation in the Digital World

Seeking to Experience Different Types of Reward

Real-World Personality Theories May Not Apply Online

Self-Presentation

Self-Presentation History and Modern Usage

Self-Presentation Goals

Self-Presentation Avenues

Self-Presentation Pitfalls

References:

Focus on Self-Presentation on Social Media across Sociodemographic Variables, Lifestyles, and Personalities: A Cross-Sectional Study

Turi Reiten Finserås

Randi Træland Hella

Jens Christoffer Skogen

Associated Data

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Variables

2.2.2. Self-Presentation and Upward Social Comparison Inclination Scale (SPAUSCIS)

2.2.3. Sociodemographic and Background Variables

2.2.4. Lifestyle Factors

2.2.5. Personality

2.3. Analysis

2.3.2. Identifying the Number of Classes and the Description of Retained Classes

2.3.3. Class Belongingness and Covariates

2.3.4. Missing Data

3.1. Structural Validity of the SPAUSCIS

3.2. Number and Characteristics of Latent Classes

3.3. Class Belongingness and Covariates

3.3.1. Sociodemographic Factors

3.3.2. Lifestyle

3.3.3. Personality

4. Discussion

4.1. Implications

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Materials

Funding Statement

Author Contributions

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

So You Want to Learn How to Squirt During Sex

First things first: Squirting and female ejaculation are not the same thing.

What does squirting feel like?

So can I learn how to squirt during sex?

How to introduce yourself in a presentation

Why are presentation introductions important?

Tell your story with captivating presentations

How to begin a presentation introduction

Be clear and concise

Provide pertinent background information

Create a hook or attention getter

Outline your presentation

Practice and refine

Be authentic

Get started with Microsoft 365