The reconstruction of Self: Virtual communities and the need for many me’s

26/04/2010 Scott Mackenzie 24 comments

Who am I? It is a question that has been asked by most people during their development as an individual. We spend our formative years constructing an identity by which our peers and colleagues see us, and how we see ourselves. Why then do we feel the need to create new and diverse images of ourselves in online settings?

Our identity is based upon the foundations with which we think and act in all situations. The word identity stems from the Latin word idem meaning sameness and continuity. It is used to describe the coherent form of ‘the real me’ which remains constant throughout life (Scott & Marshall, 2009).

“Deception generally involves messages and information knowingly transmitted to create a false or misleading conclusion” (Zhou & Zhang, 2004). This paper will argue that the costs of deception affect not only other people, but also the party involved in the deception.

Before the advent of the World Wide Web, identity deception was difficult to accomplish. Our identity was anchored by our body, which provided a convenient and hard to overcome definition of our selves (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.4. and Donath, 1999). Yet in the previous decade, with the exponential growth seen in users of the World Wide Web and in particular the widespread popularity of social networking tools and virtual communities (Indvik, 2010), there has been a dramatic increase in the prevalence of identity deception for a variety of reasons.

These reasons can be as varied as the social networking communities we can join. Some people use a form of identity deception in the desire to maintain privacy in an environment where information can be accessed from anywhere at any time, others will change their identity for the deception of others for monetary or emotional gain.

Identity deception can take many forms; Donath (1999) divides these into three types, including category deception, as our perception of others is based more on a set of social categories rather than a unique individual. Category deception can include things such as gender deception, or status enhancement. Impersonation, deceiving people into believing you are someone else, often a celebrity or professional figure, and Identity concealment, or the act of omitting information for the purpose of maintaining privacy. Identity concealment also includes the use of pseudonyms when communicating online.

This paper will focus on the effects of building multiple personas for the achievement of personality ‘tweaking’ rather than the more destructive uses of identity deception. It will examine some of the reasons for category deception and identity concealment and how these types of deception can adversely affect real life situations and be detrimental to the growth of an individual.

While multiple personas are continually being developed in the online world, these personas do have one unifying factor, the individual who created them (Donath, 1999). This paper will examine the reasons why people feel the need to partake in identity deception and question how the creation of these multiple personas affects an individual’s definition of the self. It will explore the roles played by community in the development of identity and how involvement in these communities can affect the construction of the self. It will argue that new media and in particular social networking and virtual communities are integral in the reconstruction of identity within an individual.

Before entering into a discussion on the negatives of multiple personas, it is important to also examine the benefits that creating a different personality provide. Many studies have been completed on the effects of role-playing as therapy, an example of this is psychodrama (Moreno, 1946). Turkle discusses the benefits of virtual communities, in particular Multi User Dungeons (M.U.D.s) as offering adults the opportunity to “work and rework unresolved personal issues and more generally, to think through questions about the nature of self” (Turkle, 1994. p.159).

Another example of virtual communities offering escape from reality is in instances where the user changes their character to experience things not possible in real life. This can be seen in instances where the user is disabled in some form, or suffering from a disease which prevents physical contact. Allowing these people to experience mobility or personal communications in a way which is most comfortable for themselves.

A group of social psychologists from the Australian National University, including the key researcher Penny Oakes, has developed a theory called the self-categorisation theory where identity and a sense of self are developed through the groups we belong to and those that we don’t. During an interview with ABC Radio, Oakes discusses the implications of belonging to a group and how these groups encourage change within the definition of self.

“They involve lots of information about how you should behave in situations, what you value, what you don’t value, what’s right, what’s wrong. Because we use the groups we identify with, to inform us about reality” (Hughes & Oakes, 1996).

Through real life we tend to become a part of many groups, but some of the most prevalent are friends and family, and business or employment. These days, many of our offline relationships continue over into our online lives.

Friends and family have a mental image of our identity before communicating with us online. We have no requirement to change our personalities to suit the situation. In fact, changes to our identity when communicating with people we know in real life can have a negative impact on our relationship with that person, leading to confusion and a distorted mental image of our identity.

On the other hand, quite often through business and employment dealings, we are required to portray a personality, which is contrary to that of our friendship network. Mixing these two personalities in either an online or offline situation could be detrimental to both sides of the equation (Donath & Boyd, 2004, p.9). We therefore begin to create multiple personalities to cope with the separation of personal and working life. Another situation, which requires identity ‘tweaking’ in real life is when we meet someone new for the first time, we attempt to present our best features while playing down any personal shortcomings that we see within ourselves.

This is normal behaviour and something that most people do on a daily basis. This separation of personalities occurs within the real life environment, but this is generally where the separation ends. When living in an online world this is simply where it begins for many people.

Each virtual community has its own set of rules and regulations, most require users to complete some form of registration, including submitting profile information and to create a character or avatar by which others view them. When we move away from the areas of offline friends and work, we have the opportunity to become anonymous and create an image of ourselves, which can be viewed as an extension, or as a conflicting image of our real life personality.

This anonymity along with the ease of creating a new persona has seen many people, who would not consider changing their physical traits in real life, begin to play a multitude of different characters in as many different virtual worlds. Often creating multiple personas within one world.

Virtual communities come in many shapes and forms including gaming environments such as massively multiplayer online role playing games (M.M.O.R.P.G.s), social networking sites and forums or discussion boards. M.M.O.R.P.G.s often not only require the creation of a character, but quite often require a change of species. Social networking sites include sites such as such as dating sites where identity deception is very prevalent and those communities where people who follow a common interest gather to discuss that interest and learn from each other.

These communities each have their own reason for an identity change. Gaming environments such as World of Warcraft and AdventureQuest are based in mythical realms with creatures such as elves and trolls as well as humans (Carr, 2007, p.172), giving the opportunity to become a different species and gender or to have no gender at all. These changes not only require a change of name or physical characteristics, but require the user to immerse themselves within a new personality. Game play could become quite boring if the troll spoke and acted like an accountant.

Dating sites have been used by many people to find their perfect match. While in real life many people change certain aspects of themselves to appear more desirable to a potential mate, never before have so many people changed not only personality traits such as mood and demeanour but also physical appearance to attract possible partners. While essentially counter productive, as potential mates will eventually meet in person, users tend to exemplify their positive traits and play down or completely remove their negative traits (Ellison, Heino and Gibbs, 2006).

While seemingly innocent, virtual communities, which have been created to cater to special interest groups have the opportunity to adversely affect the real life interactions of users. Without the requirement for personal responsibility, users can instantly become experts in a field, offering advice and opinions, often with no basis in fact, to other users without concern of consequences if things go wrong (Donath, 1999).

While deception may initially appear to affect the deceived in the most profound way, and quite often does in any individual instance, it is also important to consider the effects that this deception has on the deceiver over a period of time.

There are many stories of people being deceived by another individual, both online and offline. The most common themes for this include monetary gain and emotional or psychological superiority. Some examples of online deception include an intentionally deceptive portrayal of individual qualities to lure potential mates into a physical meeting, creating possible emotional reactions in those being deceived. The advertisement of miracle cures for an ailment coming from seemingly genuine experts within a field with the sole purpose being the sale of questionable goods, which could result in potential harm to the user, and the use of multiple personas for the purpose of emotional leverage within a relationship.

While most people must maintain separate personalities when considering friends and employment, by introducing the World Wide Web into the mix, people have the opportunity to not only have two often conflicting personalities but multiples of each. When considering the implications of conflicting personas between different communities, we must examine the number of communities an individual is involved with. In the online world, an individual may be involved in a community which supports their friendship network, another which helps with the finding of a mate, another community involved in a gaming scenario, another to do with work, another considering a part time business the user is venturing into and still more concerned with the users personal interests such as sport, hobbies and health. “One can have, some claim, as many electronic personas as one has time and energy to create” (Donath, 1999).

All these instances of identity ‘tweaking’ and the many different ways in which the identity can be changed slightly in different online environments begs the question, what happens when these different identities mix together or become confused? How then does the use of multiple personas and deception of identity adversely affect the deceiver? Constant tweaking and reconstruction by creating multiple personas removes that sameness and continuity with which a person thinks and acts.

“Yet, such a plurality is a source of stress and contradiction in both self-representation and social action. This is because identity must be distinguished from what, traditionally, sociologists have called roles, and role sets.” (Castells, 2010. p.6)

The news shows many examples of instances where a user has lost touch with their understanding of what is right and wrong, what qualifies as important and what does not. Some examples from the gaming community include that of the Korean gamer Lee who reportedly died after playing Starcraft for 50 hours with few breaks in 2005 (BBC News, 2005) and more recently a Korean couple has been imprisoned for allowing their child to starve to death while raising a virtual child in internet cafes (Tran, 2010). While extreme cases, these two examples illustrate the loss of rational thought and action and the possibility for the loss of understanding of priorities.

Each of these communities requires the user to complete a profile and registration before communication or participation, and each has its own special requirements for the information shared (requirements made both from the user and the website concerned) and each offers the opportunity for deviation from the identity the user has built for themselves through their formative years.

If users deviate from the identity the have built for themselves, do they retain the ability to make a coherent connection to the sameness and constants they have constructed and from which their identity is formed. Do the personas inherit the qualities of the creator? Or does the creator inherit the qualities of the persona?

We spend our formative years developing a sense of self. We become part of communities, which encourage us to grow and develop our identity. We then use this identity of ourselves to build and nurture friendships and relationships, which are in line with our understanding of self. The past decade has seen the exponential growth of the World Wide Web and virtual communities and also the prevalence of identity deception for a multitude or reasons.

Throughout this paper, discussion has revolved around the anonymity of the World Wide Web and how this has offered users the opportunity to create new and multiple identities within different virtual communities. By examining the opportunities offered and how each of these has the ability to affect an individual’s real life identity, we can see that virtual communities are integral in the reconstruction of the identity, which we developed through our formative years. The groups that we belong to and those that we don’t, help to shape our understanding of the self and how we think and act in all situations.

Along with the problems caused to the community through the deception of others including emotional pain and monetary loss, deception in virtual communities is also a cause of stress, anxiety and guilt within the individual at the heart of the deception. Also the confusion that can be created by trying to maintain multiple personas across different networks in the individual, and the possibilities of these personalities becoming mixed, lead to the conclusion that multiple identities are a cause for concern within the online environment.

Whether playing online in a gaming environment, looking for the perfect mate, or discussing or learning about an area of interest, users must be careful not only to confirm that another is really who they say they are, but also to be sure that they stay true to themselves. While it is easy for a user to create another persona online, it can have detrimental effects on that person’s real life identity and further investigation is required into the long term effects of this deceptive behaviour.

References

Carr, D. (2007) in Friedrich von Borries, Steffen P. Walz and Matthias Böttger (Eds.). Space Time Play Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: the Next Level (pp.172-173). Switzerland: Birkhäuser Basel. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www.springerlink.com

Castells, M. (2010) The power of identity: The information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. (Second Edition). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Donath, J. & boyd, d. (2004). Public Displays of Connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82. DRAFT Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Donath/socialnetdisplay.draft.pdf

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html

Indvik, L. (2010). More Than Half of Mobile Internet Time is Spent on Social Networks [STATS], Mashable. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://mashable.com/2010/04/22/mobile-social-networking-2/

Moreno, J. (1946) Psychodrama and Group Psychotherapy. Sociometry. 9(2/3), pp. 249-253 Retrieved March 26, 2010, from JSTOR electronic database.

Scott, J. & Marshall, G. (2009) A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www.oxfordreference.com

S Korean dies after games session. (2005, 10 August). BBC News. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4137782.stm

Turkle, S. (1994). Constructions and Reconstructions of self in Virtual Reality: Playing in the MUDs. Mind, Culture and Activity. 1(3). Retrieved April 2, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com

Tran, M. (2010, March 5) Girl starved to death while parents raised virtual child in online game

Guardian UK. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/korean-girl-starved-online-game

Zhou, L., Zhang, D. (2004). Can online behavior unveil deceivers?—an exploratory investigation of deception in instant messaging. In Galanxhi, H. & Nah, F. (2007) Deception in cyberspace: A comparison of text-only vs. avatar-supported medium. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(9) Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.sciencedirect.com

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Identity in Communities and Networks community, identity, multiplicity, Social Networking

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by filter paper about 1 month ago. Reply

I like Your Article about Sun Damaged to “Sun Virgin”! Perfect just what I was searching for! .
Written by lapel microphone about 3 months ago. Reply

What are some not so well known blog sites to start a blog?
Written by massage tips about 3 months ago. Reply

Thank you for all of the hard work on this blog. Betty loves doing investigation and it’s easy to see why. Many of us hear all about the compelling manner you convey very important items through this blog and even cause response from some others on the article and our favorite girl is understanding a great deal. Take pleasure in the remaining portion of the year. Your carrying out a very good job.
Written by Lolly about 7 months ago. Reply

This is the preecft way to break down this information.
Written by ESutton about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Scott,

In my paper on the multifaceted nature of identities I discuss how having more than one identity across more than one website, platform or community can be beneficial to a users emotional, mental and social growth. (You beat me to posting this comment so you know that already however …)

I do agree with your topic however that there is the very real danger of deception online and that users can sometimes get caught up with their multiple identities and lose track of ‘who’ they are in which site, causing them to have friends with two very different experiences of your identity meet with disastrous results. However I don’t feel this is any different online than it is offline, we represent ourselves differently in so many situations yet we don’t get confused, so I find I difficult to understand your argument as to how this would be different online?
I don’t believe nor have I read in my research for my paper of any person who has used multiple identities (for good purposes) without there being a ‘core’ aspect or self-aspect that identifies that identity as being unique to that person. If I understand your paper correctly, other than those intentionally trying to mislead it would be difficult to translate ‘tweaking’ into an identity crisis or worse yet a change in identity. That kind of transfer could only come from repeated use and belief in the existence of such an attribute, constant tweaking would imply temporary changes to suit a need rather than changing an attribute in an attempt to become confident in such a skill or attribute. As you might have taken from my paper I don’t believe creating multiple personas or identities online removes the continuity between identities or creates a conflict between our society of selves, instead I wholeheartedly believe that by having a multifaceted identity and expressing it online we are helping ourselves not harming ourselves.

A very well written and thoughtful paper,
Emelia
Written by KathleenV about 2 years ago. Reply

A well-written paper and a lot of thought provoking comments. I strongly agree with the reasons that you provided as to why people create different online identities such as the need for individuals to work through their personal issues and escapism. These elements provide the individual to role play and explore elements of their personality through their online identities. You wrote “When we move away from the areas of offline friends and work, we have the opportunity to become anonymous and create images of ourselves, which can be viewed as an extension, or as a conflicting image of our real life personality”. This comment relates strongly to my paper “The benefits of gender swapping online” as anonymity on the Internet allows users to swap their gender without the fear of being judged or discriminated against. In games such as Warcraft and AdventureQuest, do you feel that playing a different species or gender has any impact on their real life presence?
Written by JoG about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Scott, you presented an interesting exploration of the impact of presenting identity in a number of disparate forms.

I was particularly interested in your statement that “deception in virtual communities is also a cause of stress, anxiety and guilt within the individual at the heart of the deception”, did you find any research that looked at whether this reaction was associated more the individual or was something associated with internet use itself. The reason I ask this was that I found an article (pre Web 2.0 communities) that found a difference in psychological effects of Internet use depending personality characteristics (Kraut et al., 2002). They found that ”extraverts who used the Internet more reported increased well-being, including decreased levels of loneliness, decreased negative affect, decreased time pressure, and increased self-esteem. In contrast, these same variables showed declines in well-being for introverts” (p. 64). Although the Internet does provide a different forum for communication with specific challenges associated with its range of unique features (e.g. with disembodiment, the ability to expand available networks, the opportunity to present multiple selves, etc.), I think that most difficulties that arise from this forum, whether they be from general use or deceptive practices, are still inherent in the individual. What do you think?

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B, Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, J. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 49-74.
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Jo,
  
  Thanks for your comments, one of the references discusses how the use of multiple personalities can cause “stress and contradiction in both self-representation and social action” (Castells, 2010) and is discussing the use of multiple identities by an individual rather than the internet itself.
  I believe that the internet is a tool which can be used or abused and I agree with you that many of the difficulties which arise through the use of the internet are caused by the individual themselves rather than the tools they are using.
  There is certainly the opportunity to create multiple personalities in an offline environment, but as discussed in the paper, many people who would not think to take part in deception in real life find the opportunity too tempting within the online world. I would certainly say that differences in personality characteristics make a difference in the levels of identity tweaking that people can achieve without having a detrimental effect, just as certain people can handle a much higher workload than others without any negative effects on their psychological wellbeing.
  It will certainly be interesting to see the effects that this change in attitude towards identity and who we are has over the coming decade and beyond. Personally I wonder whether we will see changes to the way people manage their online identity to retain certain aspects of the personality they developed over their youth, or whether the inclusion of the internet and world wide web from the earliest stages of learning in the coming generations will change what we are as an individual and how we differentiate from others and communicate every day.
  
  Scott
  
  Castells, M. (2010) The power of identity: The information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. (Second Edition). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
  - Written by JoG about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Hi Scott,
    
    Thanks for your well thought out response to my question. It is an interesting point that you raise regarding the transition of early online identity representation into later years. I think that this may have an impact in two ways. The first relates to study findings that the public presentation of a potential self (i.e. the self that is often represented on SNSs to increase peer group approval) can lead to an identity shift, whereby the individual is able to integrate features of the presented online self into their self-concept (Gonzales & Hancock, 2008), these features are likely to remain with the person over time. The other impact which you also alluded to is that which relates to growing up with this technology and being exposed to this form of communication as an integral part of social experiences. It is likely that this experience will be integrated into an individual’s sense of self as are other social relationships – but I am not sure how this will look. I agree with you, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out in the future.
    
    Cheers,
    Jo
    
    Gonzales, A.L., & Hancock, J.T. (2008). Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychology, 11, 167-185.
    - Written by Amy Bear about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      Hi Jo, and Scott,
      
      I asked a similar question in the comments for another paper today, about how identity for the forthcoming generations must be influenced by their connectedness. Will they see the opportunities for deceit the way others have, or will they mature in the network as open ‘citizens’? The ‘norms’ of their upbringing will be very different to ours, and I suspect there will be a marked cultural shift as they grow up to populate the internet.
      
      I very briefly touched on the influence of negative feedback on identity creation – my paper was otherwise an attempt at a positive perspective – and I think this discussion provides a very good example of exactly what I wrote, except the reverse side of the coin. Negative conditioning is still conditioning, and it reinforces behaviour as surely as positive conditioning, the feedback of which results in either solidifying a behaviour, thereby making it more likely to be repeated, or re-evaluation of that behaviour, thereby making it less likely to be repeated.
      
      I’ve been on the receiving end, and witnessed many cases of identity deception, and regrettably, I’ve seen very little remorse for the deceit. What regret I have seen as a result of lies has come much later, and as a result of a change in life circumstances, which provokes one to reflect on their past. It must be very rare that an individual feels the weight of their actions during, or shortly following, the moment.
      
      Congratulations on a very insightful and well-considered paper.
Written by FransiscaMS about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi such a great paper, we are pretty much have same idea : )

“Whether playing online in a gaming environment, looking for the perfect mate, or discussing or learning about an area of interest, users must be careful not only to confirm that another is really who they say they are, but also to be sure that they stay true to themselves. While it is easy for a user to create another persona online, it can have detrimental effects on that person’s real life identity and further investigation is required into the long term effects of this deceptive behaviour.”

So agree with your thoughts, however its really hard to define someone true personality due to lack of physical contact matter whether we can read someone body languages or watching them in everyday life, even we contact them regularly in a day, but still its online communication wherein we just communicate each other through wording, which is totally hard to define and understand others personality in depth, do you have any suggestions or ideas how can we know a person who we meet online in details?

Im not really sure that they would have detrimental effects on their real life identity, by practicing or being someone else we might learning something now or we might said appropriate way to socializing with other people, even its not our real personality, but since we trying and apply these personalities then it would still remain and have chance to be in our personality as well, but in this case i have talk about the good one : ) , because mainly they just created ‘almost perfect’ personality which they can’t accomplished in their real life.
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Fransisca,
  
  I agree that there are opportunities to use the internet to help develop a stronger, moe emotionally balanced personal identity. It is when these actions get out of hand, and people begin to create multiple identities in order to satisfy different needs across the same or different networks that stress and confusion can occur.
  
  As I said in other comments, we are now entering a period of time where children have not had the opportunity to develop without the influence of the internet on their lives. When we spend time on the internet is important to manage our identity in a similar way to that which we use for our everyday lives. While tweaking does occur in real life, we do tend to constrain ourselves to only a few areas, such as work family and friends, if we then use the internet to communicate in different ways to many more different areas, we invite confusion and stress. How will identity be defined in the future, when the internet and it’s applications will change the way we construct our selves? Will we be able to maintain our sense of self and the continuity with which we think and act? While there are many benefits to the advent of the internet and the world wide web, there is also concern for some of the changes that are currently occurring through the use of and abuse of these tools.
  
  I wish I had some suggestions for how we can manage this, the only one I can offer is that people remain true to themselves and maintain and understanding of who they are in real life whenever they interact on the internet. I don’t believe there are any tools currently available to assist in this.
  
  Thanks for your comments,
  Scott
Written by Emily about 2 years ago. Reply

While researching for my own paper, I too used the work of Sherry Turkle ¹ to explore the topic of identity online – I really like your paper because you’ve subverted the popular view that multiple identities are a good thing, as opposed to Turkle’s idea that multiple personalities are an excellent idea. While we all have different ‘aspects of selves’ as described by Turkle, there is also a continuity that we associate with our ‘real life’ self – your paper demonstrates this.

Have you heard of the 2007 controversy regarding a Wikipedia contributor called Essjay? ² Essjay chose to partake in identity concealment by claiming to be an older, tenured professor with academic qualifications; rather than the 24-year-old college dropout that he actually was. Later, this Wikipedia user began to use his created credentials to win arguments, and eventually ended up lying to the press to maintain this fake identity – transforming his actions from (relatively) innocent identity concealment to category deception and bringing him into the public eye as an example of the downfalls of the Wikipedia system. To me, this example demonstrates how the “costs of deception affect … the party involved in the deception”, as you described in your paper. For Essjay, what he considered identity concealment eventually got out of hand and ended up with him receiving a lot of negative attention.

¹ Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1). Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

² See Wikipedia: Essjay Controversy. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Emily,
  
  Thanks for your responses. I had briefly seen some information regarding Essjay but didn’t follow it through to read the entire story, so thank you for the link.
  
  I think we will see in the very near future just what all the effects of our current practices on the internet are. I wrote in another paper that at the time of Sherry Turkle’s last paper (1997) there were approximately around 70 – 100 Million internet users and today Facebook claims to have over 400 Million users (Facebook Press Room, 2010) in other words more than 4 times the users in one internet application than were on the internet in 1997. The opportunity to see the effects of our actions will be greater in the coming years as the cross section of user personalities and their reasons for changing identity characteristics or remaining true to their real selves will more diverse. I also think we will have the opportunity to see more examples of identity deception and how it has affected our real selves in the media.
  
  Thanks for your comments again,
  Scott
  
  Facebook Press Room – Statistics. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Written by Stephen Harris about 2 years ago. Reply

Hello Scott,
I enjoyed your paper. It was an interesting read. I would like to pose an argument in relation to ‘positive’ outcomes of deception. You reference Turkle (1997) who demonstrates that Multi User Dungeons enable people to create avatars that vary greatly to their ‘real’ life identity thus allowing people to explore aspects of their real life identity and learn and evolve from this (Turkle 1997, p.159). I feel that your paper does not fully acknowledge the positive outcomes this has had on some of Turkle’s case studies. For example, the forty three year old male business manager named Case who plays the role of a female in virtual communities so he can experience ‘aggressive and confrontational’ aspects of his identity (Turkle 1997b, p.79). As a result, Case is able to express his confrontational side in ‘real life’ with a more balanced approach because he has not had to repress this side of his identity (Turkle 1997b, p.80). Essentially he has refined his confrontational and aggressive business negotiation skills before putting them into practice (Turkle 1997b, p.80).

This leads me to the discussion I am currently experiencing in response to my conference paper. My paper argues that the ability to deceive has a positive affect on a person’s identity. A couple of my respondents are highlight that I failed to recognize many of the negative consequences that you have highlighted here. My response to their statements lead me to the conclusion that the Internet (in general) is a social technology that could potentially have a positive or negative impact on ones identity depending on the “quality of online relationships, and what people spend their time on online” (Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson & Crawford 2002, p.49-74). The point here being is that the ‘experience’ varies from user to user, identity to identity, interaction to interaction.

Reference
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Turkle, S. (1997a). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Available: http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 49-74.
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Stephen,
  
  Well argued. I certainly agree that there are aspects of creating multiple online personalities which can assist an individual in a positive way. One of the issues which has been at the forefront of my mind during the research stage of this paper was that while studies have been completed into the positive effects of identity creation in an online environment (such as the example of Case) while very little research has been conducted into the negative long term effects of continual identity shifts caused by operating in an online environment.
  In the above example, Case uses his online identity to assist in developing his offline identity. But when discussing his inner dialogue, Turkle also points out that “his inner world of actors who address him and are capable of taking over negotiations is reminiscent of people with [Multiple Personality Disorder]” (Turkle, 1997, p.80).
  
  I agree with you that the internet and world wide web are simply tools to be used and are not the underlying cause of any issues which do occur. It is more a case of abuse where these issues begin to surface.
  
  Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1).
  Available: http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

It would be interesting Scott to think about or test is it the specific nature of the site that causes us to adopt multiple me’s just like we behave differently with our family, friends, boss, an audience with the queen or a football match? Or is that creation of an identity obtains a goal, hence sometimes the person will adopt text and photos that present in the best light possible to gain something. This is I believe a key reason why so many protect their online identities because if you present yourself as holier than thou but appear drunk on a site then your identity is shaped by others not you.

I find a couple of interesting illustrations in your paper that warrent talking about. The case of a UK Teenager pretending to be Matthew Perry on Facebook (Dr Phil, 2009) is an extreme. But the movitations of both the one doing the deceiving and the one being deceived give clues as to the relationship between the two. My thought is, as you talk about, they had identity issues as well as personal issues and wanted to present themselves in a world far removed from their own for whatever purpose. Though exteme, this does occur to a lesser extent with many who use online forums and social media. But is the one who views the identity of the person just as responsible in wanting something from them?

The most salient example of multiple me’s are the dating sites. As Higgins (2007) and Ellison et al (2006) state in relation to dating “constructing a profile that reflected one’s “ideal self” (Higgins, 1987) was one tactic by which participants reconciled these pressures.”. To me that is part of it. It does create emotional pain to find out who is online is not the person, physically or in character, who they were. But why put that level of investment into finding someone? I am not justifying building deception as simple as putting non-smoker when you smoke, but the one looking at the me on the site seems sometimes to see an idealised image. If they saw the same person presented on another non-dating site would they think the same. I doubt it.

I like your conclusion too Scott, good paper.

Dr Phil.Com. (2009). The wild wild web. Retrieved 30 April, 2010, from http://www.drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/4918/?id=4918&showID=1207

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319-340.
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Michael,
  Thanks for the encouraging words. I agree that many of the instances of different identity creation can be in order to achieve a goal, and I appreciate the point you made with people appearing drunk or out of character in a social networking setting for example. I think this is a perfect example of how two identities can cause issues when they clash. A prospective employer viewing intoxicated photos of you online could certainly affect your career opportunities.
  
  It’s an interesting point you raise regarding the receiver wanting something from the deceiver and something well worth further investigation. Tracking down information on celebrities is a favourite pastime fro many people, and the opportunity to talk to one through a social networking environment may prove irresistible to many.
  
  Thanks again for your input,
  Scott
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    I think there is some form of gratification and obession one may not understand in doing this behaviour. There are tons of psych texts and articles on it so I cannot give a long report, but I do think it is tempting to recreate an online identity far removed from who you are. But also sometimes circumstances make it happen.
    
    Example, I was on the Big Day Out virtual community board and everyone had a nick far removed from their real name. The abuse on the board even when it became moderated after 2003 was such that it was hard not to respond. You could say it was just kids acting like that but the point is, it was likely offline they were well-mannered. I don’t know if one can hide as much these days, but it is likely there are many me’s depending on the nature of the platform.
Written by PaulaB about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Scott,

I really enjoyed reading your conference paper that I can relate to several arguments and points you made. Person’s destructive behaviour that causes emotional or physical pain or suffering to others are negative results from deceptive actions in virtual communities. We often ask why people do it. While we can explain that virtual environment presents opportunities for experimentations with identities there is always human action behind and what motivated person to behave is destructive manner. Your paper focus on ‘tweaking’ of personality. Does it mean ’slight’ modification to suit presented virtual community interest/type. I suppose we are brought up to behave according to presented circumstances from business and private situation and from being in spotlight and in pyjamas at home. We communicate accordingly and if ‘tweaking’ is right term to modify communication to suit real life circumstances then we do that in terms communicating with others given social or private situation – we used behave according to social etiquete but that is no longer in modern world much in practice. We talk about etiquette on Internet but not many people really know what exactly it is. If ‘tweaking’ is harmless behaviour then let it be for now but those malicious and sometime calculated types of desctructive identities that suppose to gain a benefit to individuals or group of people. Media constantly bring stories about e.g. scandals, tragedies, harm etc. on Facebook. I wish people would support more of Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650): ‘I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist’ before becoming too carried away in cyberworld.

cheers
Paula
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Paula,
  Thanks for your feedback. I agree that ‘tweaking’ is certainly used in real life circumstances and we do this without dire consequences. By tweaking I am concentrating more on the minor changes to ones personality to meet the requirements of the situation. I think the main issue with the online world and virtual communities in particular is that many people tend to create multiple personas to perform a similar function. With the multitude of different virtual communities and social networking platforms offering an endless supply of additional attempts at creating the ultimate me. This of course offers an opportunity to ‘lose ourselves’ in our creations and lose focus on who we are in real life, creating confusion about the identity we spent the earlier years of our life developing.
  
  Scott
Written by TessaG about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Scott,

I agree with your thoughts on identity formation – that we spend our formative years developing a sense of self’ through participation in communities, and honing our identities.

As for multiple personas across the web however, I think we all do that to some extent in the normal course of our daily living.

For example, I know people who have the ‘fun’ side of their personality on display through their Facebook pages.

These same people have networks of work relationships on LinkedIn, and also interact with like-minded souls on Twitter.

Their 3 personal networking sites may (but not always) link to each other, but display different ’selves’. The same friends and acquaintances are sometimes linked across their different networking sites. However, these different selves just focus on a small part of their personal identity.

I’m not sure these people get confused. Then again, I don’t think these people have set up their different social networking sites as an act of deception.

The Internet has certainly given rise to a whole new realm of opportunities. You mentioned that people with a disability often experience fantasy and freedom through online selves. I agree wholeheartedly.

I’m a member of a group called “Ablegamers” for people with a disability who enjoy playing games online. There are many members who are extremely adept at online gameplay but who are restricted in mobility.

Being a member of an online social network enables people who cannot leave their home independently, to experience the benefits of social groups without the assistance of others.

If a person wishes to omit reference/s of their disability online, I believe it is because they wish to be appreciated and valued for their intellect and personality. Not be judged by their appearance.

Having said that, if the person never mentions their disability at all, especially after forming a ‘friendship’ or bond in a social group or in an online game site – then that may possibly be classed as deception.

I really enjoyed reading your paper and appreciate the effort you made to include the many possibilities your ideas lead to.

Thanks again
- Written by Scott Mackenzie about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Tessa,
  I’m glad you enjoyed it. I wrote a reply to Paula above that touches on the idea of the changes available online which differ to real life but I’ll fill in a bit more here. In real life we tend to have a personality ‘tweaked’ for personal situations, one for family and one for business or work, if these then transition over to the internet this would not be a cause for concern, but when we move into an online environment, we have the opportunity to create unlimited personas which offers the opportunity to not only try out different personalities but also the opportunity to become confused about who we are in real life. Our offline tweaking is generally contained within the above three broad categories but online we are able to create multiple ‘fun’ profiles, and multiple ‘work relationship’ profiles, when these start to mix or bleed into one another we can become confused about the identity we constructed during our formative years. In the case of a person never mentioning their disability, I think it would depend entirely on the situation but if that person denied their disability outright in order to satisfy a created online persona then I would say that was deception. The internet has the opportunity to become a great leveller in regards to any differences between people, as long as we are honest with ourselves and others in our dealings.
  Thanks for your feedback,
  Scott
  - Written by TessaG about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Hi Scott,
    
    Thank you for your reply and my apologies for the delay in my response.
    
    Your descriptions of the ways in which people can ‘try out’ different personas are very thought-provoking, especially with regard to the confusion which may occur.
    
    I agree that denial or purposefully hiding a disability would definitely be classed as deception.
    
    The fact that the Internet can have such a profound effect on people is an amazing phenomenon. However I have to agree that honesty is an extremely important factor.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Tessa