Our Electric Personalities

Posted on February 08, 2019 by Suzanne Bourner LLb Hons MSc Psych, One of Thousands of Performance Coaches on Noomii.

Today we find ourselves less bound to the physical presence of our colleagues and social interactions, as the internet has, and continues to change the way we work, learn, shop and socialise. This essay considers how the internet assists in sharing otherwise hidden elements of an individual’s identity and enables stigmatised individuals to express and even to cultivate a more genuine version of their identities. We begin by considering psychological concepts of self and identity from a traditional perspective, focusing upon the collective self as a backdrop to the development of symbolic interactionism. Various theories of contrasting selves are presented drawing importantly on the concept of a ‘true’ or private self, followed by the distinction between traditional theories which posit stable identity concepts in contrast to social constructionist theories highlighting a more flexible identity. This is followed by discussion around the conventional problems relating to both concealable and non-concealable stigma and primarily the threat which stigma traditionally represents to identity and its formation. These concepts of identity and stigma are then examined in the context of the post-modern and uniquely differentiating environmental aspects of the internet.

Two central questions are asked re the nature of human identity. The first is whether there is a core self which exists over and above social interaction. The second is whether the self operates as a truly individualised concept (Allport, 1924, p. 24) or whether identity and self is based instead on consideration of social perceptions. Wundt and other psychologists such as Durkheim, Muscovici and Tajfel theorised firmly in the direction of the importance of the collective self which emerges alongside social interaction (Farr, 1983). In relation to this, Identity theory has long considered the idea that individuals have various senses of self which exist in reference to society. William James not only opined that a person has as many identities as there are people who know him, but also drew upon two distinct but reciprocal concepts of self: ‘I’ in reference to the subject as seen by the individual, and ‘me’ in reference to the object of others perception (leary & Tangney, 2011) Thus, according to ‘symbolic interactionism’ (Stryker, 1987) the self arises out of social interface (Mead, 1934) and entails Cooleys idea of a looking glass self where forming a sense of self includes seeing ourselves as how we ‘perceive’ that others see us (Tice 1992). Importantly, Rogers and others conceptualised that our current selves also contain elements which are not expressed socially yet still represent important identity defining factors and is what constitutes the ‘true self’. (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002). Theories relating to a hidden or true self were considered further by Baumeister and Tice (1986) in identification of the discrepancy between the public and private self. These theories paint traditional social psychological assumptions of identity as being as much a product of society as of the individual with many contemplating the essentialist idea of a ‘true’ or private self in addition to an ‘actual’ or public one. Traditional theory therefore explains identity not only as having some hidden or future elements, but also as existing in reference to the world, as asserting itself in the interpersonal relationship, as being unitary and core (Turkle, 2011) and importantly, as being stable throughout life. However, the assumption of stability of identity has been challenged by the arrival of the internet and social constructionist approaches. More recent theory explains identity today as being multiple, variable, flexible and unstable (Gergen, 1985: Cresswell, 2011).

There are many reasons as to why parts of the self may not be expressed, particularly in relation to stigmatization of both concealable and non-concealable differences (Goffman, 1963). The effects upon stigmatized individuals have been noted as damaging and far reaching, with severe effects upon health and mental well-being (Link & Phelan, 2001). Stigma is described by Crocker et al, (1998) as occurring when a person is believed to have “some attribute or characteristic that conveys a social identity that is devaluated in a particular social context”. Accordingly, stigma is therefore considered as a construct which relies upon relationships and social context. It is held that stigmas affect individuals via various mediums including discrimination, self-fulfilling prophecies, automatic stereotype activation behaviour and threat to identity (Major & O’brien, 2005). In focusing on the impact upon identity, it has been seen that where a person feels their group is devalued then this threatens the aspect of the self associated with membership of that devalued group (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Additionally, where the stigmatizing aspect is invisible such as sexual orientation (rather than visible such as obesity) stigmatised identities are less able to align themselves with similar identities around them removing the ability to satisfy important social and personal identity needs (Fiske, 1993). Thus, the individuals’ need to belong, the need to gain certainty about oneself and the need to gain self-esteem (Brewer, 1991) are potentially not fulfilled in those with concealable stigmas (Frable, 1993). Furthermore, those with concealable stigmatising features are more likely to hear adverse comments, reinforcing the negative effects within that person’s self-esteem. The result is that individuals with concealable versus un-concealable stigmas have felt isolated and unable to share their identity socially, thus creating conflict between the public persona and private (or true) identity (Frable, 1993).

McKenna, Gleeson and Green (2002) highlight four important differences between face to face and internet interaction which pinpoint the uniqueness of the internet environment and its impact in relation to identity and stigmatised individuals. Firstly, anonymity is a possibility on the internet, indeed Identity need not be disclosed. The internet presents the ability for un-concealable stigmas to be concealed and thus for elaboration of parts of the self which may have remained unexplored due to shyness. Similarly, and yet conversely, stigmatized identities who are often forced to conceal a stigma, can feel empowered to reveal their true selves and stigmatising features in online interactions (albeit unconsciously (McKenna, 2006) and to find and join community groups on the internet. Both forms of stigmatised groups therefore are able to use cyberspace to escape the restrictions illustrated by traditional identity and stigma theory and enjoy related life benefits such as increased positive affect and self-esteem. Stigmatised groups therefore become free to construct identities which cast aside characters and ‘selves’ which they had previously maintained for public or face-to-face relationships. (Mckenna & Bargh, 2000).

Secondly, not only those individuals who are stigmatized through disability, but also those who are perceived by society as being less physically attractive may also be able to explore their identity and come closer to their true or private selves on line. Communicating in the absence of physical attributes and cues can allow for stereotype free development of relationships. The Halo effect, where individuals who are attractive are automatically seen as being better liked, helped by others, more intelligent and kinder (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002) is not observed in on line interactions. People with perceived physical disadvantages (whether it be extreme beauty or disability) therefore are less likely to be discriminated against and are able to express relevant, strategic or positive parts of their selves. Here lies the idea that it is possible for the internet to nurture a person’s true self, at the same time as enabling them to hide portions of it (Ben Ze’ev, 2005).

Thirdly, Internet relationships are capable of being less spontaneous and less confrontational. Stigmatised groups such as those with concealed (or non-concealed) developmental or communication affecting disorders such as autism, or simply low self-esteem may therefore find solace in the ability to choose the time and pace of interactions. This process on line may reduce stress and allow time for an individual to strategically create an identity which is helpful, yet considerably different to the one they have in face to face relationships. The identity of less confident or disabled individuals can therefore thrive on line and become akin to that of an active, positive, confident individual, capable of carrying out practical social activities and in creating helpful social bonds.

Fourthly, the internet also facilitates the ability to easily find others who share important or stigmatised elements of identity. This is of great importance to those with concealable stigmas who may be unable to associate with similar others due to other individuals’ concealment of the same for fear of exposing their own stigmas. Benefits are thus derived from the ability to share formerly hidden parts of identity with similar others and receive all important social validation (McKenna & Bargh, 1998).

These four pivotal distinctions between on line and face to face interactions illustrate an environment where both concealed and unconcealed stigmatised identities are able to carry out development of their true selves (McKenna & Bargh, 2000) placing importance on social interaction in identity development. With visible stigmas this may be through increased concealment opportunities creating the occasion to demonstrate or develop other aspects of the self. Whilst with invisible stigmas, on line communication or communicative identification with a larger group (Reid & Deaux, 1996) reduces isolation and facilitates identity demarginalization and well-being (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). It is important to note however that aside from simply enabling marginalised identities to be recreated or revealed, such changes to identity as created on line, do not simply generate an additional virtual persona or ‘masking effect’ which may then pander to a problematic stigmatised society (Cain, 1991). Rather, it has been seen that such on line interactions which permit the individual to express their identity more genuinely (Turkle, 1999) also induce a spill over effect into ‘real life’. In a 1998 study (Mckenna & Bargh) found that participants with marginalised concealed identities having created a ‘truer’ persona in on line groups, and in adherence with self-completion theory (Golwitzer, Wicklund & Hilton, 1982) returned to real life and continued their new identities. Therefore, alongside placing greater importance on social identity within the persona of the stigmatised individual, the internet also promotes flexibility of persona alongside demarginalization of stigmatised identity, thus challenging both traditional identity and stigma theories.

Whilst it can be said therefore that identity is effectively becoming linked to choice, creation and freedom in challenging the traditional concept of stability of identity across a lifetime, cyberspace can nonetheless have the effect of diminishing the existence of multiple identities. Constructionist theories and the internet allow for the existence of flexible, unstable and multiple selves. However, the internet as we have seen also has the effect of removing the need for public aliases in concealable stigmatised identities and serves rather to proliferate and magnify a large part of a previously hidden identity in marginalised personas. The internet as well as challenging the traditional concept of stable lifelong identities in some groups, also calls into question in other groups the social constructionist theory of post-modern internet identities as being multiple. Whilst we have seen how the internet undoubtedly challenges aspects of traditional identity theory in the possible creation of variable, impermanent and easily produced multiple selves, cyber space may too challenge even post-modernist approaches. Whilst in many non-stigmatised (and stigmatised) groups the internet has provided for a flexible, situational and variable identity – it has nonetheless conversely been seen to have a stabilising and unifying effect on those with concealable stigmas, more consistent with traditional theory.

Perhaps dichotomously therefore, the internet whilst permitting people to easily change and flexibly explore what was thought to be a stable construct (Dretzin, 2009), also allows for closer unification between the actual and true self. This challenges not only aspects of traditional, but also postmodern identity theory in relation to stigmatised groups. However, it is possible that the dynamics at play in the creation of a ‘Protean self’, could also precipitate an eventual inability to reflect on who we are as authentic identities. It is to be seen whether human beings in cyberspace will lose the aptitude to inwardly reflect, perceive and communicate a true persona without the need to connect and interact electronically with multiple, and perhaps anonymous others. In short, the traditional social psychological principle of influence of social context over the construction of identity may well be in decline.

References

Allport, G. W. (1924). The study of the undivided personality. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 19(2), 132.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 33-48.

Baumeister, R. E., & Tice, D. M. (1986). Four selves, two motives, and a substitute process self-regulation model. In Public self and private self (pp. 63-74). Springer, New York, NY.

Ben Se’ev, A. (2005). ‘Detattachment’: the unique nature of online romantic relationships
In Amichai–Hamburger, Y. Understanding Human Behavior in Cyberspace. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social work, 36(1), 67-73.

Cresswell, J. (2011). Being faithful: Bakhtin and a potential postmodern psychology of self. Culture & Psychology, 17(4), 473-490.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. S Fiske, D Gilbert, G Lindzey, vol. 2, pp. 504–53. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

Farr, R. M. (1983). Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) and the origins of psychology as an experimental and social science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(4), 289-301.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American psychologist, 48(6), 621.

Frable, D. E. (1993). Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions among those who are different. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(4), 370-380.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American psychologist, 40(3), 266.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster

Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., & Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of failure and symbolic self-completion: Extending Lewinian theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 358.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 38.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self and identity. Guilford Press.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology, 27(1), 363-385.

Major, B., & O’brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 393-421.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.: Chicago.

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity" demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3), 681.

McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and social psychology review, 4(1), 57-75.

McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 9-31.

Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship between social and personal identities: Segregation or integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1084.

Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(1), 83-94.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.

Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(3), 435.

Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and identity. Contemporary sociology, 28(6), 643-648.

Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster.