The Self III: Self-presentation Flashcards
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS
LEARY & KOWALSKI (1990)
- people have ongoing interest in how others perceive/evaluate them
- political candidates packaged for public’s consumption like automobiles/cereals even in mundane home/work encounters
- people monitor others’ reactions to them; often try to convey self-images promoting desired goal attainment
CONTEXT
- self-preservation developed for offline settings
- ample research exploring it ie:
1. why/motivation
2. how/construction - we create impression of ourselves for others
- recently research focuses on online self-presentation aka. dating/recruitment/social media
- KEY THEME = DECEPTION
ONLINE DATING PRESENTATION
EGAN (2003)
- stats show online dating = ^ popular choice for finding romance BUT…
- perceives as rife w/deception
GIBBS ET AL (2006)
- 86% online daters think others misrepresent physical appearance
- self-report data incomplete; unsure is true
SELF-PRESENTATION, ROMANCE & DECEPTION
- initiating relationships = tell/not (?)
- when competing w/millions online, lying temptation ^
- self-presentation goals = salient in setting
TOMA ET AL (2007) - some daters think online dating profiles = resume/strategic tools for marketing “best self” NOT giving completely candid self-representation
ASK YOURSELF…
- do I want to play up strengths/appeals OR…
- do I want to present as self w/quirks/shortcomings/flaws and hope someone understands me?
- self-presentation = critical in early dating stages; people look for clues (aka. do I persist?)
HYPERPERSONAL MODEL
WALTHER (1996)
- model suggests several factors affect deception online
- selective self-presentation
- asynchronicity
- communication cues reduction
- cognitive resources reallocation
HYPERPERSONAL MODEL ALTERNATIVE
- recordability aka. deception evidence preserved/stored
- anticipated future interaction; blatant physical appearance deception revealed aka. false advertising
- warranting; connection between real self/self-presentation aka. others may know you/spot lies
- gender difs (?)
TOMA ET AL (2007)
- online daters invited to lab
- asked about profile accuracy/deception acceptability
- ground truth (ie. actual height/weight/age) VS observed characteristics (slight weight/height anomalies)
TOMA ET AL (2007): PREDICTIONS
- predicted only minor deception (pros/cons)
GENDER - men expected to lie about social status indicators ie. income/occupation/education/height
- women expected to lie about age/weight
- both accepted to claim acceptability in deceptions
- more warranting info (ie. photos/known to others) = more accurate profile
TOMA ET AL (2007): RESULTS
- 81% pps gave info deviating from at least 1 observed characteristic
- weight = 60%
- height = 48%
- age = 19%
- BUT… no gender difs!
- men = ^ acceptable to lie about social status (occupation/education/relationship status)
- warranting = photos/known to others -> slightly ^ accurate profiles
TOMA ET AL (2007): CONCLUSIONS
- most deceptions = subtle w/some exceptions
- lying NOT across board but confined to certain characteristics -> online deception = strategic
- gender difs in social status deception (as predicted) BUT…
- women = NOT more acceptable of lying about weight/did not lie themselves
ZANDEN ET AL (2020): STUDY 1 HYPOTHESES
- online profile language errors
- to what extent do language errors in dating profiles affect perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness?
- do these effects persist when visual cues in profile pictures added to available profile cues?
ZANDEN ET AL (2020): STUDY 1 METHOD & RESULTS
- 2 (language errors/no errors) x 2 (visible profile pic/blurred pic) design conditions
- perceived attractiveness measured via 4 scales
- profile owners w/texts w/errors = less socially/romantically attractive by pps > profile owners w/o errors
- BUT effect caused only by 1/3 pps who noticed errors
- most do not observe language errors in online profiles BUT if they do, severe damage of dating potential occurs
- profile pic presence/absence does not impact results aka. NO error x profile pic interaction
ZANDEN ET AL (2020): STUDY 2 HYPOTHESES
- does text error type impact profile owner perceived attractiveness?
H3: mechanical (ie. teh/the) = negatively impact attentiveness perception
H4: rule-based (“my friends and me”) = negatively impact IQ perception
H5: informal language errors (emojis/exclamation overuse/abbreviations) = positively impact warmth perception; attraction ^
ZANDEN ET AL (2020): STUDY 2 RESULTS
H3/H4 SUPPORTED
- mechanical = inattentiveness -> low social-romantic/physical attraction/dating intention
- rule-based = low IQ -> low attraction/dating intention scores
H5 NOT SUPPORTED
- informal language = little positive effect on attractiveness perceptions; opposite if anything
-
