Tag: Identity

Dungeons & Dragons: From tabletop to desktop

Abstract

Tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons have made the shift in recent years from a purely offline gaming system to functioning online, albeit with minor adjustments to format. As a game system that relies upon the players investing themselves in a fictional world that they will flesh out with their own created identities aka player characters, this paper will aim to explore the relationship between the identity of the player and the player character. The performance and shifting of these identities will be a central focus as well as the unique problems that will need to be addressed when playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

Keywords:

Gaming, Tabletop, Role-Playing, Dungeons & Dragons, Identity, Performance

 

Identity within Dungeons & Dragons

 

This paper will discuss the importance and function of identity, specifically the creation and performance aspects, with regards to tabletop role-playing games in an online space. Dungeons & Dragons, as perhaps the most well-known of all role-playing games, will be used as a case study for discussion in this paper. Firstly, a brief introduction of Dungeons & Dragons will be given as well as an explanation of how it functions as a game and what the shift to a digital format has changed for the system. Secondly will be an exploration of the creation of identities within the game system followed by the performance of these identities, as well as how players differentiate between the player and the character. This paper will also briefly explore the relationship between the identities of the player and character. This will be followed by an exploration of why performative identities within this system differ from other online spaces and unique problems involving meta-gaming that relate to identity. Lastly a brief exploration of online role-playing games as communities will be discussed. This paper will aim to argue that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

 

History and taking the offline online

 

Dungeons & Dragons, much like other tabletop role-playing games, is essentially a group storytelling experience with structure and rules to guide it. This is done through a dungeon master guiding the group through the narrative of the adventure and reacting to the actions the players wish their characters to take. Gary Gygax, one of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons, described it as a “Group cooperative experience…There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in” (Schiesel, 2008). As Dungeons & Dragons has existed since the 1970s it was not initially created to be played online (WoTC, 2018). While Dungeons & Dragons is still primarily played offline its transition to online has allowed many new people to take up the hobby who were previously unable to play. When players begin a game, they create a character that they wish to play within the world, this is known as a player character. This differs from other online spaces, where creating an avatar is a common aspect, in that the player will be asked to flesh out this identity beyond the simple choice of a representative image and name. This greater depth to the identity allows the player more flexibility in the identity that they wish to create and can make them feel more involved in the game as aspects of their characters backstory can be injected in the adventure. Pearson (2009) states that “online, users can claim to be whoever they wish”. This statement applies directly to online role-playing games as they are a system that allows for extensive creative freedom. This player character can be given a backstory, personality or wants and needs separate to those of the player. The player would then perform this identity within the context of the game world, making choices from the perspective of the character that they have created.

An important characteristic of offline play is the ability to see the other players, which provides players the ability to visually identify the other players. Identifying other players with whom you are going to undertake a group storytelling experience is important to understanding and evaluating an interaction (Kollock & Smith, 1996). When playing in an online space players are often limited to text or voice chat as the primary form of communication which can remove a visual factor from play, namely the fact that the players may not be aware what everyone they are playing with look like. This can benefit some players by providing them a level of anonymity within play which could in turn provide an extra level of confidence. Offline players may be more hesitant to try and roleplay a certain type of character or accent for fear of embarrassment due to the other players being in the same room as them while online this fear can be lessened or removed completely.

 

 

 

 

Getting into character

 

As Dungeons & Dragons is a storytelling experience, a core aspect of the game is being able to understand and perform the identity that players have created within their characters. Creating a new identity to be performed is not a concept applied solely to role playing games. Performing as a created character within a role-playing game is essentially a form of acting, albeit with a heavier focus on improvisation. There is no script within a game of Dungeons and Dragons for the players to follow and so a large portion of the game must be created on the spot or as a reaction to whatever is happening, this allows for a form of fluid storytelling unique to tabletop role-playing games. As players grow more comfortable with their characters, whether through further play with that particular character or experience with the game, it becomes easier for them to perform that specific identity. Performative identities are discussed by Goffman, as cited in Pearson (2009), who discusses identity-as-performance from a theatre perspective with regards to a frontstage, which is the observable space when the character is in the spotlight, and the backstage where players are able to ‘step back’ from their performed identities and discuss the game as a meta level commentary. People use different methods to inform the other players whether they are speaking as a player or a player character. This can be done through the ‘frontstage’ implementations such as the use of accents or speech patterns or a ‘backstage approach’ by referring to the character in the third person such as saying, “my character would know this”.

 

As Dungeons and Dragons is a group experience there are potential difficulties that arise from players abusing the backstage approach to performative identity, hiding behind a common excuse of “That is what my character would do” whenever they do something that is considered ‘evil’ within the alignment structure of the game. There are countless threads that exist on the internet regarding players having difficulties with a player within their game who is hiding behind their characters identity as an excuse for their actions. RPG Stack Exchange is a website dedicated to solving problems with game systems and has a forum that allows users to ask questions of the greater role-playing community, within this forum there is a discussion about how to handle a difficult player whose character is killing innocent civilians while traveling in a group with the fantasy equivalent of an ex-police officer (Stack Exchange, 2018). The first player is quoted as saying “It’s how his character is played” while the second player is saying that as his character is good aligned, he now has enough reason to kill the offending character. This type of interaction can have ramifications across two identity levels, the first being the death of players characters which can end the game for one player. The second is the potential issue it could within the group of players as the killing of another players character could upset that player. This kind of cross level emotional identity issue may not be unique to Dungeons and Dragons but does differ from other online spaces where the user may not be occupying different identity-spaces.

 

 

 

Meta-gaming

 

Being able to differentiate between the identity that a player is performing, as a character, and the players’ actual identity can be an important aspect of the game as meta-gaming is often frowned upon by both players and the dungeon master running the game. Meta-gaming can be described as attempting to game the game, using knowledge that the player has but the character would not necessarily have within the context of the game (Huvila, 2013). To manage the problem of meta-gaming it is important for players to be able to separate their real-world identity from that of the character they are playing. There is always going to some element of meta-gaming when playing Dungeons & Dragons as it is impossible to completely separate the identity of the player and player character. This meta-knowledge can lead to a player making a suboptimal choice for their character, knowing it is not the best choice simply because that is what they imagine their character would do. That kind of choice would be classified as good role-playing and applauded by the other players at the virtual table. Making choices as both a player and a character can be described as actor stance, making decisions based solely upon the characters knowledge, and author stance, making a decision based upon the knowledge of the player (Edwards, 2001). Although it is important for players to be able to differentiate between their character and themselves, there is an inherent link between the two. As mentioned earlier when a player makes a suboptimal choice knowing that it is what the character would do it can be difficult for the player to make the choice as they are intrinsically linked to their character and the potential for the choice to put the character in physical danger can be an emotional choice. This sort of relationship can be linked to the fact that because the player has created this character they are “imaginatively connected to the character” (Whitlock, 2012). As discussed above meta-gaming is a problem involving identities that can be applied specifically to Dungeons and Dragons as well as other online role-playing games while not necessarily affecting other online communities even within the gaming community.

 

Big virtual table

 

Due to the social nature of games such as Dungeons and Dragons, communities have long been formed around it. The shift to online has increased the number of players drastically (Hall, 2015). Popular online Dungeons and Dragons series ‘Critical Role’, a game hosted and played by actors and voice actors has contributed to the rise in popularity so much that it crossed into the offline space by having a billboard in Los Angeles. Dungeons and Dragons is a game that has in the past and continues to transition between the online and offline space. There currently exists no one central location for people who wish to play Dungeons and Dragons but there are multiple options depending upon the style of play people wish for with the most popular being Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 (Hall, 2017). Online role-playing games could be said to create multiple smaller communities simply due to the format. A group of players is its own small community, that group would also be a part of the greater community of the game that they choose to play which is itself a part of the even larger community that is online role-playing games. Individuals may exist within each of these communities to the extent that they wish however there must be input in the initial community in order for the game to function. Due to the multiple layers of communities it becomes a necessity for players to portray multiple identities (Koivisto, 2003). Players who wish to participate in the greater community will be unable to use the identities they have created at the table due to the lack of knowledge the community has regarding individual game stories.

 

Conclusion

 

This paper aimed to explore the concept of identity, primarily its creation and performance, within the context of online role-playing games. A history of Dungeons and Dragons was given as well as the impact shifting to an online platform has had on both how the game is played and its player base. The importance of identity and the differing ways in which it can be performed was also discussed. Concepts of identity-as-performance and frontstage/backstage play were also introduced and explored. The problem of meta-gaming and how it affects identity driven systems such as role-playing games was explained and discussed. Lastly the community and social factors were explored with regards to the online space as opposed to the traditional format of offline play. While there have been discussions online regarding the importance of a ‘true’ identity and the value of anonymity, it could be said that certain platforms such as online role-playing games should be viewed outside of this argument as one of the core aspects of the game is to create a fictional identity (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Through exploration and discussion of the various topics introduced this paper argued that identity creation is a core aspect of online role-playing games which enables the performance of a separate fictional identity in a socially accepted format.

 

References

 

Edwards, R. (2001). GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. Retrieved from                                http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

 

Hall, C. (2015). Dungeons & Dragons is booming online, but not in the way that you think.            Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/20/9172559/dungeons-dragons-dnd      -4th-edition-one-year-later-twitch-youtube

 

Hall, C. (2017). More people are playing D&D online than ever before. Retrieved  from                             https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/20/16005982/dungeons-and-dragons-online-roll20-data

 

Huvila, I. (2013). Meta-Games in Information Work. Information Research: An International                       Electronic Journal, 18 (3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044641.pdf

 

Koivisto, E. (2003). Supporting Communities in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing                        Games by Game Design. Retrieved from                                                                                        http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/05150.48442.pdf

 

Kollock, P & Smith, M. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved            from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online                     social networks. First Monday, 14 (3). Retrieved from                                                   http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

 

RPG Stack Exchange. (2018). Best way to kill a problematic fellow players character. Retrieved                from https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/68688/best-way-to-kill-a-problematic-                fellow-player-character

 

Schiesel, S. (2008). Gary Gygax, Game Pioneer, Dies at 69. Retrieved from                                            https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html

 

Van der Nagel, E & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online                          identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20 (3).                      Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

 

Whitlock, K. (2012). Traumatic Origins: Memory, Crisis, and Identity in Digital RPG’s. In                            Whitlock, K & Voorhees, A., G (Eds) Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens: The                  Digital Role-Playing Game (1st ed., pp. 135-152). New York, NY: Continuum                              International Publishing Group.

 

WoTC. (2018). History: Forty Years of Adventure. Retrieved from                        http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/history/history-forty                 -years-adventure

 

How False Performance of Identity on Instagram Influence Social Comparisons

Abstract

Social networking platforms allow users the ability to control how their identity is presented to others. In the case of Instagram, users can edit and add filters to photos of their choice to be seen by public or private audience. While these features can be used as a form of self-expression, there are often other motivations for performing identity through Instagram. This paper identifies these motivations and outlines the affect that false representations of reality can have on audiences. The paper will examine the work of various researchers on performing identity offline, online identity, social networking use, and Instagram use. The research discussed in this paper suggests that people modify their identity online to conceal negative aspects of themselves in order to achieve a desired impression on their audience, which often includes impressing their social groups and communities. This paper also identifies that distorted representations of identity can cause negative self-evaluation in audiences, who engage in social comparisons online.

Keywords: Identity, Instagram, Social Networks

 

Introduction

This paper will discuss the motivations for self-presentation of identity and how false performances of identity can impact others, with specific reference to Instagram. The paper will draw information from many researchers in the communications field to present the argument that since Instagram allows users to choose how to portray themselves, they can create false perceptions of their identity to others, which in turn, can have a negative impact on the self-evaluation of their audiences. These audiences consist of the user’s offline communities, including friends, family and acquaintances, as well as their online social networks.

According to Pearson (2009), people online can “deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or widely differ from reality”. Due to the nature of online profiles, users do not accurately depict themselves but rather articulate chosen performances (boyd & Heer, 2006). The “performer” manages disclosure on social networking sites, choosing whether to share more private aspects of their constructed identity (Pearson, 2009). Furthermore, social networking platforms with fluidity allow for users to “play with aspects of their presentation of self” while communicating with others (Pearson, 2009). Through the social networking site Instagram, users often present their identity to make themselves appear more favourable, which can induce negative comparisons from their audience who may feel jealous or view their own life in a less positive light.

 

Presentation of Identity Online

Since the way people present themselves online can be significantly different from how they present themselves offline, it is believed that communicating with others in various contexts involves showing different aspects of one’s identity according to the situation (Goffman, 1959; Lazebna, 2015). According to Rettberg (2014, p. 51), when posting a photo to Instagram, people intentionally choose what they “want to remember and share” and what they “want to leave out”. Individuals will conceal aspects that could be perceived negatively and only share positive situations (Seehafer, 2017). Rosenberg and Egbert (2011, p. 4) define the process in which individuals regulate their own behaviour to expose desirable traits as “self-monitoring”. This involves creating strategic profiles and engaging in self-presentation tactics to expose their identity in a favourable light and have a desired impression on an audience (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Seehafer, 2017).

Performances of identity in social networks start within the imagination of users and then are brought to existence with the aid of the tools and technologies of the platform, allowing users to “project, renegotiate, and continuously revise their consensual social hallucination” (Pearson, 2009). It is expected for audiences to believe the online content of others to depict accurate representations of identity that mirror reality, when instead these performances may not be genuine (Goffman, 1959; Seehafer, 2017). In contrast, Lee (2006) argues that self-presentation online is dependent on context, and therefore, interaction is not necessarily dishonest and deceptive. This argument supports Hardey’s (2002, p. 570) belief that rather than constructing “fantasy selves”, anonymous online interactions act as a foundation for building trust and establishing relationships.

Presentation of self on Instagram is mainly made up of an individual’s username, pictures and descriptions, profile photo, and bio, all of which take a part in constructing a user’s online identity. Users often upload photos of themselves with friends, at events, and “selfies” to make their life appear a certain way. A study by Adler (2017), found that the primary motivation for posting selfies was for ego-reinforcement, as these individuals feel better about themselves when receiving likes from others. In contrast to the arguments made in this paper, Adler’s (2017) study also found that participants posted selfies due to high levels of self-esteem and confidence, with one participant stating that posting selfies acted as a way for her to build her self-confidence and show love and appreciation for herself. While some Instagram users may present their identity candidly and confidently, many others use online identity as an opportunity to shape themselves as more favourable to others.

 

Using Online Identity to Belong

Much of the research into the way in which people present themselves to others is based on Goffman’s (1959) belief that individuals modify their identity to adhere to societal understandings and expectations. Goffman (1959) believes that people become characters that play out a performance when interacting with others to achieve a desired impression. Goffman’s beliefs can be applied to the modern Web 2.0 context whereby online users maintain their character and express performances through their social networking platforms, which have grown to become a fundamental factor in the management of identity and social relations (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jimenez, 2015; Seehafer, 2017). According to Rosenberg and Egbert (2011, p. 5), individuals use self-presentation tactics in order to “make a desired impression on a particular audience”. The motivation for this is derived from individuals’ intrinsic need for acceptance and inclusion (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011).

According to Pearson (2009), people construct their identities in relation to their networks and communities. People can often feel pressured to fit in with a certain group identity through the construction of their online identity, which can affect one’s reputation within a community (Kollock & Smith, 1999; Rettberg, 2014). Furthermore, Kollock and Smith (1999) argue that upholding and developing one’s identity or reputation is actually essential to the formation of communities. In modern society, people create and update online profiles that conform to society’s standards of self-presentation and social expectations (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jiminez, 2015). The motivation for individuals to carefully manage and monitor the impressions made by their online identity is enhanced by the public nature of social network profiles (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011).

One way that individuals try to impress their social groups on their social networks, mainly through Facebook and Instagram, is through uploading photos from particular events. According to boyd and Heer (2006), uploading event photos indicates “friendship structure to outsiders and an expression of appreciation to friends”, which displays participation and inclusion. Instagram has a feature that enables users to tag other people depicted in pictures and add the location that the photo was taken (Ridgway & Clayton, 2016). Additionally, each user’s profile has a “Tagged In” section that shows viewers all the photos that user has been tagged in. Tagging friends in photos can enhance the feeling of community online between friends. It can also help to achieve a desired impression on audiences, possibly that the individual is popular if they upload photos with many people.

 

Using Filters to Alter Reality

Rettberg (2014) argues that people upload photos to Instagram to heighten their own daily experiences and make themselves feel special. Instagram allows users to edit their photos and apply various filters that may conceal aspects of their performance (Seehafer, 2017). Filters are manipulation tools that can be used as a form of self-expression, involving the ability to adjust brightness, colour, saturation, and various other qualities (Hochman & Manovich, 2013; Seehafer, 2017). Instagram filters can create a different “feel” by altering the message communicated by the image (Hochman & Manovich, 2013). Using filters on photos allows for individuals to see themselves from a distance that “makes them new” (Rettberg, 2014, p. 27). By editing and using filters on photos, people are able to display an idealised image of “a socially-accepted and desirable persona” (Lazebna, 2015, p. 2). This idea is supported by Seehafer (2017), who argues that performances of identity online are expected to meet ideal standards and disguise everything that does not fit into these standards.

A study by Reece and Danforth (2017) found that depressed individuals were less likely to apply filters to their photos than healthy individuals. Additionally, the depressed participants preferred a black and white filter as opposed to the healthy participants that favoured the Valencia filter, which lightens the tint of the photo (Reece & Danforth, 2017). This suggests that people who are not depressed are the ones that are more likely to use filters on their photos, and hence, take notice of their impression management.

 

The Effect of Online Performances of Identity on Others

Since social media platforms allow for users to control how they present themselves to others, they contain idealised versions of identity (Hendrickse, 2016). According to Appel, Gerlach and Crusius (2016, p. 44), information presented online is positively skewed, increasing the “probability of unflattering social comparisons”. According to Wood (1996), social comparison refers to comparing oneself to others in terms of self-evaluation, self-improvement and/or self-enhancement. Social comparisons can result in envy, which is heightened when one compares themselves to their friends and peers due to its high personal relevance (Appel, Gerlach & Crusius, 2016). Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles and Franz (2015) support this idea by arguing that social comparisons on social media construct negative effects on well-being and self-evaluation. Goffman (1959) suggests that social distance assists in generating admiration within an audience. This distance is enhanced in an online environment, especially between individuals that have not met offline as a comparison does not require direct contact (Wood, 1996). As many individuals use social networking sites to learn about others without engaging in any social interaction, the likelihood for social comparisons to occur is very high (Vogel et al, 2015; Wood, 1996). This not only involves looking at the profiles of family, friends and acquaintances but also those of strangers, whether famous, a friend of a friend or someone with no social connection whatsoever.

Many celebrities and models have an active presence on Instagram, with millions of followers that see every image they post. One of the most followed people on Instagram is Selena Gomez, who often shares photos containing her “thin-ideal body” (Hendrickse, 2016, p. 2). Gomez and other prominent Instagram influencers all have the ability to apply filters to their images, controlling the way others see them (Hendricks, 2016). While these body and beauty standards are conveyed through various social influences, the most prominent force is mass media, and therefore, social networking sites (Groesz, Levine & Murnen, 2002).  A study by Shelly, Ward, Hyde and Shibley (2008) discovered that exposure to thin body images in the media positively relates to body image insecurities. This evidence is supported by Hendrickse’s (2016) study that found a strong relationship between body image concerns regarding thinness and appearance-related comparisons made on Instagram. Repeated exposure to such images in the media lead audiences to accept such portrayals as representations of reality, causing the thin ideal body to be seen as normal, and even expected (Shelly et al, 2008). Evidently, this affects many women’s satisfaction with their own body, and in turn, decreasing their self-esteem (Shelly et al, 2008).

 

Conclusion

Social networking sites provide a platform for people to represent their identity online through alternate performances (Pearson, 2009). On Instagram, users upload selfies as a way to perform their visual identity. Through performance, individuals engage in impression management in order to make a desired impression on an audience (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011). Desired impressions are often based around fitting in with social groups, which can help users feel as if they belong within an online community. Rettberg (2014) argues that performance of visual identity online is coercive, and users feel pressured to display a group identity. Instagram allows users to tag others in photos, demonstrating inclusion and popularity while also enhancing the sense of community. Another feature that is widely used on Instagram is the ability to apply filters to photos. While filters may be used as artful expression, they are also a manipulation tool that can distort reality (Hochman & Manovich). Since users can control their performances online, identities often represent an idealised version of reality (Hendrickse, 2016). When viewing the profiles of others online, people use social comparisons by assessing their own life in contrast to the person online. Misrepresenting true identity online can cause audiences to experience negative self-evaluation, and even envy (Appel, Gerlach & Crusius, 2016; Vogel et al, 2015). Such social comparisons are present in examples of thin body performances throughout social media and Instagram. Overall, the affordances of social networking sites like Instagram allow users to perform their identity however they please, and false performances of identity can cause negative social comparisons from audiences.

 

References

Adler, N. (2017). Who Posts Selfies and Why?: Personality, Attachment Style, and Mentalization as Predictors of Selfie Posting on Social Media. (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1979342189/B98AB26242254873PQ/1?accountid=10382

 

Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44-49. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006

 

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336

 

boyd, d., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. Paper presented at the Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai. http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf

 

Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London : Allen Lane.

 

Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). The Effect of Experimental Presentation of Thin Media Images on Body Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review. (Vol. 31, pp. 1-16). New York.

 

Hardey, M. (2002). Life beyond the screen: embodiment and identity through the internet. The Sociological Review, 50(4), 570-585. doi: 10.1177/003802610205000406

 

Hendrickse, J. (2016). Appearance-related comparisons mediate the relationship between Instagram use and body image concerns. (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1873209467/DA8D20FC83F54BF9PQ/5?accountid=10382

 

Hochman, N., & Manovich, L. (2013). Zooming into an Instagram City: Reading the local through social media. First Monday, 18(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i7.4711.

 

Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=168601

 

Lazebna, A. (2015). The role of communication apprehension, expression of the true self, and fear of negative evaluation in relation to Instagram and selfie use. (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1730242457?accountid=10382

 

Lee, H. (2006). Privacy, Publicity, and Accountability of Self‐Presentation in an On‐Line Discussion Group. Sociological Inquiry, 76(1), 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00142.x

 

Mascheroni, G., Vincent, J., & Jimenez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace, 9(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-5

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162

 

Reece, A. G., & Danforth, C. M. (2017). Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1140/epjds/s13688-017-0110-z

 

Rettberg, J. D. (2014). Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9781137476661.pdf

 

Ridgway, J. L., & Clayton, R. B. (2016). Instagram Unfiltered: Exploring Associations of Body Image Satisfaction, Instagram #Selfie Posting, and Negative Romantic Relationship Outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 19(1), 2-7. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0433

 

Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online Impression Management: Personality Traits and Concerns for Secondary Goals as Predictors of Self-Presentation Tactics on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x

 

Seehafer, D. M. (2017). #NOFILTER: Exploration of Instagram and Individuals’ Conception of Self. (Masters’ Thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1953259657/19BDFB61DAAB4C65PQ/5?accountid=10382

 

Shelly, G., Ward, L., Hyde, M., & Shibley, J. (2008). The Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns Among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Correlational Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460-476. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

 

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249-256. https://ac-els-cdn-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/S0191886915004079/1-s2.0-S0191886915004079-main.pdf?_tid=6c25a2ce-7a9f-4be0-a5b0-48b0f6c2970f&acdnat=1522121466_96685f6e0bd68ef2cb27786fbe0015f1

 

Wood, J. V. (1996). What Is Social Comparison and How Should We Study It? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520-537. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167296225009

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Are All Identities Presented Online Real? Identifying Managed Identities within Virtual Online Communities

 

Are All Identities Presented Online Real? Identifying Managed Identities within Virtual Online Communities

Jack Walton

Curtin University

ABSTRACT:

This paper explores several published articles that argue how one’s identity has been formed online and how it is represented within virtual communities. Hodkinson (2015) goes into depth about how young millennials express their personal identities (of which sexting is a component) online and contribute to some of the consequences that can go with it. This then leads to the question, are all identities expressed in online communities necessarily real? This paper will use these references to back up the point that online social media platforms and communities can lead to a world of managed identities or identities that cannot always be represented in the physical world.

Introduction

 Throughout modern society, virtual online communities have become dominant in many peoples (particularly millennials) lives. “Virtual communities and social network sites are becoming ubiquitous among those who communicate via the internet” (Porter, 2015, p.161). Many people form their identities within these virtual communities and these can be either real, completely fake or somewhere in between. This paper will argue that whilst the virtual world gives you the freedom to explore your identity, it can lead to a world of managed identities or an identity that cannot be fully expressed in the real world. It will argue that millennials are focusing on virtual online communities to gain popularity within their circle of friends and peers in their real lives; life is generally full of both positivity and negativity, however, most of the time, young millennials only post the positive aspects of their life on social media. This paper will examine some of the major consequences that can come from this anomaly. It will also examine the different types of virtual communities that can enable users to construct an identity of their choice.

Keywords: millennials, identity, communities, virtual

Discussion

“Online community is composed of members sharing common interests” (Zhou, 2011, p.3). Ever since Web 2.0 was formed, millennials in particular have been relying on virtual social media communities to prove their personal identities to their peers. “Participation in online cultures of sharing and interaction via social media is becoming increasingly … compulsory among groups of young people” (Robards, 2014 in Hodkinson, 2015 p.2). Donath (1999, p.N/A) makes it clear that in reality, there is an inherent unity to the self, the human body is something that is strongly connected to our personal identities. Once users have signed up to a social media platform, they begin constructing an online identity, which can be real, something in between or completely false. Boyd (2007, p.13) makes it clear that the common-sense approach to an online identity is to express the most noticeable or important aspects of identity and to leave others to interpret. This generally means that only the positive aspects of our personal identities will be expressed online. Whilst we do this in real life to some extent, the difference with online communities is the extent to which these profiles can be “managed” often as the user is often exaggerating/boasting about how optimistic their life is, when in fact the reality of life is that it is full of ups and downs.

In general, one must constantly update one’s profile or statuses within the social media platform if one wants to maintain a positive image to one’s peers. Forman, Kern and Gil-Egui (2012) make it clear that individual identities are part of the formation of an online community; hence bringing people who share similar interests together. These communities can be further expanded with more members joining. Within an online community, “Identification requires individual members to maintain an active relationship with other community members” (Zhou, 2011, p.8). This means that one must make an effort to keep up to date with what is going on in the community and they have to understand “group goals, values and conventions when they join a community” (Zhou 2011, p.8). Hence, there is peer pressure to comment on or update members of the community. This pressure can sometimes lead to the building up of a contrived image.

Numerous studies have explored the relationships between millennials and the digital world as well as the impact it has had on them. Hodkinson (2015) raises the analogy of the “virtual teenage bedroom” and argues how social network communities have influenced (or deceived) their identities. “Social network sites retain intimacy and the individual-centred format continues to facilitate the exhibition and mapping of identities” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.1). In today’s generation, many millenials feel the need to express a different (managed) identity on social media platforms (most notably Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat) to make themselves fit in to their peer communities and to gain likes. This is further backed up by O’Keefe and Clarke-Pearson (2011) who go into depth about the reasons and risks behind teenagers’ virtual identities. “Because of their limited capacity for self-regulation and susceptibility to peer pressure, children and adolescents are at some risk as they navigate and experiment with social media” (O’Keefe and Clarke-Pearson, 2011, p.800). Physical communities such as school, sport clubs or other extra-curricular activities can influence these different identities online. For example, a young millennial Facebook user may constantly add photos of positive events that happen in their life (such as outings or travels) to gain likes. This results in making their life look like it is perfect all the time. Posting negative status’ will not gain them any attention from their peers because the key communication tool is the “like” button.

As likes seem to be very important (and competitive) to some adolescents during their high school days, creating overly positive identity representations online is a way for them to gain more likes and followers. This has led to major issues since the 2010’s era, including cyber-bullying or, worse, suicide in teenagers. This is further backed up by Gross (2017) who goes into depth about the issue of sexting and cyber bullying and the major effects it has had on millennials. According to Gross (2017), likes are so important to the point that some girls feel the need to post explicit pictures of themselves online to gain “popularity” approval from their peers. Even though Gross’s article focuses on young females posting these images, boys are just as guilty too. Based on this research at least initially young millennials inadvertently create this “superior” image of themselves, which, in many cases, because of the competitive nature of a peer group can result in peers ending up being envious of them.

The competiveness within school and communities can have a large impact on teenagers and how they choose to present their identities often ultimately resulting in sexting. Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) discusses this false idea of identity and how “constructing an autonomous identity is a fundamental task for adolescents and pre-adolescents.” Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) makes it clear that in young girls particularly, exposing the human body is seen as a way to attract “likes” and “followers” on social media platforms. “Girls post pictures consistent with conformist beauty standards to avoid being marginalised” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A). This suggests that many young girls are feeling insecure about their social lives and they feel that gaining a certain number of likes will help them “fit in” with their peers in their middle/high school community. Selfies are also seen as a major form of visual communication between young teens. To gain more Facebook “likes” from their classmates, a school student may have docked a profile picture (make themselves look skinnier, more attractive etc.). In the minds of these young adolescents “the number of likes they receive on their profiles is understood as an indicator of their inclusion in the peer group” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A). They have “incorporated selfies in the process of exploring their identity and as a means of “presentation, representation and embodiment” (Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez, 2015, p.N/A).  Mascheroni, Vincent and Jiminez (2015) also make it clear that whilst they may gain many likes from this false identity, it raises the question about cyber bullying and how this can have a major effect on these young millennials lives. “While cyber sexual bullying is called many names: sexting, online sexual bullying, or generally cyber bullying, they all refer to the same activity –sending nude or semi-nude photographs through the internet (Gross, 2017, p.557). It also reinforces a loss of identity within the young person as they are feeling the need to change themselves to gain attention from peers online. Furthermore, virtual communities (in this instance, social media communities such as Facebook and Instagram) can tie in with real life communities (schools and sporting clubs). For example, bullying may initiate online where identities can be hidden but read by real friends from school. This bullying can then extend in to the playground in real life. Likewise, bullying at school can be extended to online bullying.

Within online dating communities, another example of changing identities is where people can customise their own profiles as well as doctor their own images to get attention from other people all over the world. Gibbs (2010) refers to this as warranting. “Warranting refers to the capacity to draw a reliable connection between a presented persona online and a corporeally-anchored person in the physical world (Walther, 2009, p.232 in Gibbs, 2010, p.74). Online dating can also consist of both real and fake profiles. According to Norcie and De Cristofaro (2013, p.N/A), “a user could set up a fake social network profile, link it to her [or his] ODS profile and “Certifeye” it.”  This means one can create a false profile, pretending to be someone else and it can seem legitimate. Rege (2009) explores the idea of fake online identities and how people scam others around the world. “Romance scams are international in scope and no centralised database tracking victims and their losses are currently available” (King and Thomas, 2009 in Rege 2009, p.495). Even though this paper was written in 2009, tracing devices are still not available. Such scams are, however, understood to be significant in leading to many disturbing consequences for the victims. Online dating can be seen as a sub-category of sexting. When a user gets more and more comfortable with somebody they have met online, they may feel the need to send explicit images of themselves to their new found virtual partner (even if they are not fully aware if the relationship is real or not).

One major consequence from online dating, managed identities and sexting is mental health issues such as depression and anxiety which can further lead to tragic events such as suicide. Wensley and Campbell (2012, p.650) make it clear that cyber bullying can come in many different forms such as “sending nasty e-mails or text messages, creating insulting websites dedicated to an individual, or posting hurtful or embarrassing pictures online.” All of these forms of cyber bullying can have a significant impact on one’s mental health leading to tragedy. A more significant suicide was the death of an American girl Jessica Logan in 2008. According to No Bullying (2017), Logan sent a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend. However, the image was sent to many teenagers in several different high schools in the Cincinnati area (once the couple broke up). The cyber bullying continued through several different social media platforms which caused Logan to take her life. According to No Bullying (2017), another major suicide that sparked social media in 2012 was the death of British Columbian Amanda Todd. An image of Todd’s breasts exposed went viral on several different social media platforms causing her to be bullied from classmates, hence she had to move schools several times. Months later however, she took her own life. Mental health issues have been a major concern for millennials (and in some cases older generations) over cyber bullying and online harassment and there have been many attempts between governments to stop this. However, to date, they have not been successful.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed how our virtual identity is constructed influenced by the online community. It demonstrates how initially our identity is influenced by a desire for likes. This leads to an overly positive identity that can not be lived up to in real life. This can lead to a sense of a lack of fulfilment in oneself as well as in jealousy of peers. The pressure to stay connected to these online communities can also have a negative impact of one’s self esteem. The competitive nature of these communities can lead to sexting and bullying which can transfer into the real world especially in confined environments such as schools.  Bullying and sexting can be devastating and can lead to depression and even suicide.

References

Donath, J. (1999) ‘Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community’, London: Routledge. Retrieved from: http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Forman, A. E. Kern, R. and Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P pages in Facebook. First Monday 17(9), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3935/3288

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N.B. and Lai, C. ‘First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Investigation of Uncertainty Reduction Stratagies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating.’ https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091

Gross, M. (2017). Cyber sexual bullying,“sexting” in schools, and the growing need to educate the youth. The University of the Pacific Law Review, 48(3), 555-574. Retrieved from: http://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol48/iss3/11

Hodkinson, P. (2015) ‘Bedrooms and Beyond: Youth, Identity and Privacy on Social Network Sites’, New Media and Society, online before print, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815605454

Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. and Jiminez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-nakend selfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-5

No Bullying (2017). “Jessica Logan – The Rest of the Story”. Retrieved from: http://nobullying.com/jessica-logan/

No Bullying (2017). “The Unforgettable Amanda Todd story”. Retrieved from: https://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/

Norcie, G., De Cristofaro, E., & Bellotti, V. (2013, April). Bootstrapping trust in online dating: Social verification of online dating profiles. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 149-163). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.4155.pdf

O’Keefe, G. and Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011) ‘Clinical Report – The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A. Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161 – 179

Rege, A. (2009). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(2), 494. Retrieved from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/75ff9576e029c3f25473da1b53790d9d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=55114

Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective. Internet research, 21(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111104884

LiveJournal’s use of anonymity and its place in online social networks

LiveJournal’s use of anonymity and its place in online social networks

Rachel M.Winship

Curtin University

Abstract

 

This paper sheds light on blogging social network site (SNS) LiveJournal, which has been operating since 1999. It was one of the first popular mainstream blogging services which focused on replicating diary entries. While originally popularised in the United States, LiveJournal is now currently most popular throughout Russia. It does operate in other countries but for the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on Russia. The specific age group being referred to throughout this paper is youth/teens. I argue that LiveJournal’s mainstream success is due to the fact that its users have always had the option to be anonymous and operate under pseudonyms instead of real names. The absence of real names allows for online identity play through blog posts and interactions within the LiveJournal online community.

Introduction

Technology is woven tightly throughout our lives in the 21st century and has changed how we live them. As leading psychologist Sherry Turkle says “through technology, we create, navigate, and perform our emotional lives” (Turkle, 2011). “Some of the largest changes we are facing as a society are cultural, changes to our social world and the way we interact with one another” (Levitin, 2014, p.120). We now do a large percentage of interpersonal communication with people in our lives through online platforms. We create our identity now not only face to face with people but online in social networks as well. Figuring out our place of identity in these social networks allows experimentation (Pearson, 2009). Offline when creating identity you might hold back parts of yourself in case of face to face rejection. While online in social networks, you have the option in most cases of anonymity in creating a pseudonym. Social nework site platforms provide areas which are disembodied mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances can be displayed to others (Pearson 2009).  Freindster popularised the features that define social network sites – profiles, public testimoials or comments, and publicly articulated, traverable lists of friends. (boyd, 2007, p.4) On social network site (SNS) platforms the online performative space is a deliberately playful space (Pearson, 2009). “The fluidity and self-concious platforms of performance allow individuals and networks of users to play with aspects of their presentations of self, and the relationship of those online selves to others without inadvertently risking privacy” (Pearson, 2009). Communities are a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online or vitual communities are a group of people who interact via internet Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, email, discussion boards, or forum (Dictionary.com, 2018). Online worlds provide rich grounds for experimentation with identity, and falsification is not uncommon; 25 percent of teen boys and 30 percent of teen girls say they have posted false information about themselves online, most commonly their age (Reed, 2014). LiveJournal is one social network platform that encourages anonymity in creating a pseudonyms. The SNS is an originally American and now Russian social networking service that allows users to keep a blog, journal or diary (LiveJournal, 2018). The option of anonymity on blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Nagel & Frith, 2015).

 LiveJournal and the history of blogging 

LiveJournal essentially looks and works much like other blogging sites, where the entry or posts made by the journal owner are arranged in chronological order (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). There is a link to leave and read comments for each post, where the user can read comments left (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). One of the appealing aspects which sets liveJournal apart from other blogging services is the users profile page. Every user has a journal, username and profile page (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile page is where the user can input things like their interests, profile picture, contact information, etc (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). The profile picture does not have to be an exact photo of the person, which is one way they can choose anonymity. Another way they can choose to be anonymous is through their username. Unlike Facebook, whose terms and conditions require their users to use their real name, LiveJournal allows their users to choose their online identity. This is an appealing feature for people who may want more than one online identity in fear of things such as; security, judgement or scrutiny about their journal entries or interactions, from friends, family or people they know offline. By creating a profile, LiveJournal allows its users to link their blogs and identities together so that they can create and build reputations based on their journals as well as their comments and networks of friends (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Services such as LiveJournal allow their users to specify who their “friends” are, and thus a social network is formed (MacKinnon & Warren, 2007).

LiveJournal was created in April 1999, by an American programmer named Brad Fitzpatrick. He created it as a way of keeping his friends up to date with his daily activities (LiveJournal, 2018). It reached immediate popularity and success which meant that it also became more than just one person could handle to operate (LiveJournal, 2018). There were other mainstream social networking sites around the first few years of LiveJournal’s service, like Friendster and then Myspace, but the premise of them was a little different to LiveJournal. With Friendster there was a heavier focus on meeting friends “on the premise that people were separated by six degrees” (CBS News). This was a feature that showed how you were connected to strangers and made meeting people less intimidating (CBS News). On Myspace, which is where many people from Friendster migrated to, they were known for customizable profiles, band pages and portraying who your top eight friends are. Whereas LiveJournal’s aim was and still is to blur the lines between blogging and social networking (LiveJournal, 2018). According to their own website LiveJournal is “home to a wide array of creative individuals looking to share common interests, meet new friends, and express themselves. LiveJournal encourages communal interaction and personal expression by offering a user-friendly interface and a deeply customizable journal” (LiveJournal, 2018).

Over the last two decades, the rapid adoption of social network sites had scholars begin to study their importance among teens and young adults (boyd, 2007, p.1). As boyd pointed out in an article, a large part of why many teens may use social networks is due to restrictions on access to public life that make it difficult for young people to be socialised into society at large (boyd, 2007, p.19). Restrictions on acess to public life may come from their parents or adults around them who believe that restrictions are necessary to prevent problematic behaviours (boyd, 2007, p.19). boyd argues that while social interaction can and does take place in private environments, the challenges of social interaction in public life is a part of what help youth grow (boyd, 2007, p.19). Boyd says “American society has a very peculiar relationship to teenagers – and children in general. They are simultaneously idealised and demonized; adults fear them but they also seek to protect them.  On the one hand, there has been a rapid rise in curfew legislation to curb teen violence and loitering laws are used to bar teens from hanging out on street corners, parking lots, or other outdoor meeting places for fear of the trouble they might cause. On the other hand, parents are restricting their youth fom hanging out in public spaces for fear of predators, drug dealers, and gangs. Likewise, while adults spend countless hours socializing over alcohol, minors are not oonly restricted from drinking but also from socializing in many venues where alcohol is served” (boyd, 2007, p.19). With an ongoing culture of fear surrounding youth behaviour, the end result is youth having little access to public spaces (boyd, 2007, p.19). The following statement provides insight into boyd’s argument with an example from fifteen year old Traviesa; “My [guardian] is really strict so if I get to go anywhere, it’s a big miracle. So I talk to people on MySpace…I know she means well, I know she doesn’t want me to mess up. But sometimes you need to mess up to figure out that you’re doing it wrong. You need mistakes to know where you’re going. You need to figure things out for yourself” (boyd, 2007, p.19). A main motivation for users of online social networks is that it is a space which their parents or authoritative figures usually aren’t aware of. They are spaces where they can explore, socialize and express themselves exploring their identities. 

Dear Diary: Community and LiveJournal

A diary is known to be a safe space for most, a place where a person can articulate their private thoughts and define their position in relation to others and the world at large (Dijck, 2004). Before people expressed their thoughts online, diary entires would probably only be read by another person if they had a close relationship. With the shift of sharing private interpersonal conversations, it is natural that a population of people online would want to share something deeper than what the testimonial and comment sections of Friendster and Myspace offered. For people who craved somewhere that they could share their thoughts, feelings, creativity and still function as their own version of a “community” (Lindemann, 2006). Although users may not use their real names and opt to use a pseudonym, the sentiments expressed through users comments on another users diary entry doesn’t make them any less valid. As Kurt Lindemann states “often, a communicatively artistic journal entry can make a reader feel personally connected to the author” (Lindemann, 2006, p.357). Before platforms like LiveJournal, communities involved in blogging were not likely to be very large or accessible to everyone because blogging required considerable technical skill and patience (Raynes-Goldie, 2004). Now with platforms like LiveJournal, blogging is easily accessible. LiveJournal is not restricted to blogging functions, but also integrates community tools in its functions, creating an online social network (Raynes-Goldie, 2004).

Identity and anonymity debate

There has been much debate between not only scholars but tech companies, who embrace what has been called the “real name” internet, versus those who embrace anonymity. Most of the debate about anonymity versus real names focuses on two related areas: trolling and safety (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Because the early internet sites relied almost solely on textual cues, there was little attempt to fix identity to one’s body (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015).  Whereas LiveJournal exists in an internet era where many internet users are faced with the decision of how they want to portray themselves online. If they present their offline identity, including their real name and photo, they may not be able to fully express or engage with different identities for fears of “context collapse” that come with using “real names” (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Context collapse is when “social media technologies collapse multiple audiences into single contexts, making it difficult for people to use the same techniques online that they do to handle multiplicity in face-to-face conversation (Marwick & boyd, 2011). Another definition of context collapse is that broadly, it refers to how people, information, and norms from one context seep into the bounds of another (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.477). Social psychologists argue that we come to know ourselves by seeing what we do and how others react to us, and that through interaction, we seek to maintain the identity meanings associated with each role (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p.478). Within Socia Media platforms, a persons diverse networks have the potential to converge into a single mass, requireing the user to have all of their identities engaging simultaneously with family, colleages, and drinking buddies, each of whom harbours different views of who the actor is, and different interactional and performative expectations.  (Davis & Jurgeson, 2014, p. 478).

Scholars such as Bernie Hogan and danah boyd have argued that pseudonymity can protect users’ security while enabling them to participate freely online without the fears of “context collapse” which comes with using real names (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Hogan’s example explores the benefits of pseudonymity when he writes about a woman wanting to write ideologically on a blog but may not want her role as a supposedly objective Wikipedia editor to be damaged by her other, less neutral writings (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). His argument is that someone can be both a liberal writer and a neutral editor who follows wikipedia’s rules; one aspect of the self is not more “authentic” than another (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Expanding on this idea, if a woman was to have dinner or go out with friends, her conversation or presentation of self might be very different to the one she portrays to her family the next day. People in day to day life present different versions of themselves which are bound to that situation or context. Perhaps the most powerful point in the decision to segment one’s online identity is that it becomes a safe and secure place to discuss complex and controversial issues (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). For example Gay youths who cannot come out to their offline community may want to find people to talk to on blogging or social networking sites. Another example is teachers who may want a public-facing profile but also want privacy as they interact on other sites (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Government or other public service job employees may also want the privacy of interacting on other sites. Others may want to engage in niche communities on sites like Reddit without their Facebook friends knowing; and many people want to share political views without impacting their careers (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Danah boyd, is one of the most prominent academic critics of the argument that the “real name”  internet  makes online activity safer. On the contrary she believes that “real name policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people” (boyd, 2011). Boyd points out that there are many viable reasons to segment one’s identity online that have nothing to do with harassing people or acting uncivilly in the comments sections.

Trolling and doxing 

Of course the flip side of all the good that comes with anonymity is the fact that there is room for trolling. Trolling is something which will not be going away anytime soon, and that has been around at least as long as people have been communicating on the internet (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is when people intentionally post content designed to incite an emotional reaction in its audience (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015). Trolling is generally a main point of contention for people who support the real name movement on the internet. People who support the real name movement claim that by doing so it is a proactive way to minimise trolls. However trolls still find ways to exist and be seen implying that attempting to force users to use real names still results in the unwanted trolls. Their aim is to be provocative and attempt to be shocking, agrue with users and engage in being verbally abusive. More advanced form of trolling has advanced to what is called doxing. This phenomenon involves groups of anonymous or pseudonymous users researching an individual and then publishing identifiable facts about that person. (Van Der Nagel & Firth, 2015) People claim this is for social good, exposing information about people involved in certain things someone else may not agree with. However people do this act for things that they decide is against a belief they hold.

Conclusion 

As discussed in this paper, the option of anonymityon the blog platform LiveJournal, can protect users security while enabling them to participate freely in the online social network (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Although there is a current debate between the “real name” internet versus anonymity of internet users, through the use of anonymity on LiveJournal, people are able to protect their offline identities, while expressing themselves on the platform. A user is at risk for context collapse if they only use their real name when on SNS platforms. LiveJournal’s use of anonymity create’s a space where there is little risk of context collapse. Users of the LiveJournal service are able to be vulnerable and socially connected with each other while still protecting any sensitive information shared online. The users are also empowered by who they choose to share their information with, as they can make their journal entries private or share with users of their choosing.

References

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume.Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Levitin J. D. (2014). The Organized mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload. 2014

Davis, J., & Jurgenson, N. (2013). Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society. 476-485.  https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369118X.2014.888458?needAccess=true 

Diaz, C., Troncoso, C., & Serjantov, A. (2008, July). On the impact of social network profiling on anonymity. In International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium44-62. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 

Dijck, J. V. (2004). FCJ-012 Composing the Self: Of Diaries and Lifelogs. The Fibreculturejournal. Digital Media + Networks + Transdiciplinary Critique. Issue 3. University of Amsterdam. http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/

Freitas, D. The Happiness Effect: How Social Media is Driving a Generation to appear

Greenall, R. (2012). LiveJournal: Russia’s unlikely internet giant. BBC News.  

Hill, K. (2011). Digital Anthropologist. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/focus-danah-boyd-ethnographer-facebook-digital-anthropologist.html#30b4d2d77866

Johansson, E. (2014). Blogging in Russia: The blog platform LiveJournal as a professional tool for Russian journalists. Baltic Worlds, 7(2-3), 27-36.

Koltsova, O., & Koltcov, S. (2013). Mapping the public agenda with topic modeling: The case of the Russian livejournal. Policy & Internet, 5(2), 207-227.

Lindemann, K. (2005). Live (s) online: Narrative performance, presence, and community in LiveJournal.com.Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 354-372.

LiveJournal FAQ: How did LiveJournal get started? Who runs it now?. Retrieved April 2018  https://www.livejournal.com/support/faq/4.html 

MacKinnon, I., & Warren, R. H. (2007). Age and geographic inferences of the LiveJournal social network. In Statistical Network Analysis: Models, Issues, and New Directions(pp. 176-178). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Marwick, A. E & boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Society.13. 114-133.

McLellan, K. V. (2006). “LiveJournal is a Conversation With the World”: An examination of the effects of interpersonal communication on personal blogging. Unpublished master thesis, University of Chicago.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday.14(3).http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Pearson, E. (2010). Making a good (virtual) first impression: The use of visuals in online impression management and creating identity performances. In What kind of information society? Governance, virtuality, surveillance, sustainability, resilience (pp. 118-130). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Sherry, T. (2011). Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. http://alonetogetherbook.com 

Shmatikov, V. (2011). Anonymity is not privacy: technical perspective. Communications of the ACM,54(12), 132-132.

Then and now: a history of social networking sites. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/then-and-now-a-history-of-social-networking-sites/4/

Growing Up In The Social Network

Abstract: This paper explores the role that online communities and the social network play in the development and implementing of identity from adolescents through to young adults. This is done primarily through the analysis of the various features and benefits of platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Blogger as well contributing factors to identity development such as community design. Various identity theories are also briefly explored to allow for an understanding of how identity development in the Web 2.0 era is changing for adolescents and young adults and becoming a key determinant in the sustainability of online communities and networks.

 

Keywords: social networks; community; social media; identity; Facebook; Instagram; Blogger; community design; identity theory

 

 

As online communities and networks expand and the number of adolescents accessing the internet continue to increase (Johnson, 2006), the role that Web 2.0 communities play in developing and implementing identity online and offline is becoming commodious. Communication is a key driving source for why and how we utilise social networks. Donath (1996) states that communication is essential for evaluating an interaction and that knowing the identity of whom we are communicating with is also essential; however, she also notes that identity can be ambiguous. In the physical world we can link our identity to our physical bodies, whereas online our identities are linked to the pictures and words we choose to post. For young people, being exposed to a multitude of content on a regular basis, during a time where their identity and self-awareness is developing, can be overwhelming but also formative of their personalities, values, attitudes and beliefs as well as how they interact in communities both online and offline. Throughout this paper I will be arguing that social networks and communities are important platforms for the growth of identity in young people in the developing digital era. I will be doing this by analyzing the features and benefits of different platforms including Instagram, Facebook and Blogger, as well as interpreting the ways in which social networks develop communities and how these communities and networks are relevant to the identities of their users.

Building Communities and Community Identities on Social Networks

 The internet, and now the rise of social networks, allows social humans the ability to learn, connect, educate, share and influence. As Papacharissi (2011) explains, networks exist to spread knowledge and that we live in an information network that continuously expands out to other users. Through these information networks, one can develop their online identity. For children who are only just beginning to form a concept of their own identity, the new multimodal forms of learning (Burke, 2013) which consist of both virtual playgrounds and school playgrounds give children great opportunity in exploration of others and themselves. Chatrooms and online video games are lending the features of avatars and anonymity at a young age and utilizing ‘play’ to create community and engagement (Burke, 2013). Buckingham and Willet (2006) analyse the online community consisting of ‘gURLs,’ which they define to be female tech savvy web users and creators that empower their thoughts and interests through their online platforms and through features of blogging websites such as text and banners; it is considered a space where girls can speak their own language and develop their online presence and identity. There are many different communities out their depending on an individual’s identity or their interests and the various digital platforms, such as online games and blogs give users the ability to express themselves through narrative and images.

Influence, whether it be from mass media created content or convergence culture within social networks, is another defining factor of identity online as much of the content one submerges themselves in is user-generated, or mass media generated, changing the inner values or desires of the user, therefore altering the content they wish to post which then in turn alters their online persona. Online communities thrive based on their community design, something that is prevalent amongst social media platforms, most recognizably on Facebook and Instagram. Design affects how people interact and how they influence one another and even the user’s interests, based on the content that they are exposed to. The design and interaction that user’s come into contact with on these platforms is what ultimately makes them want to continue using them; they may feel a sense of belonging or community or they may feel influenced or motivated by the design of the platforms to continue logging in and creating content and having an online identity. Ren, Kraut and Kielser (2007), explore the difference between identity-based attachment and bond-based attachment, these are essentially the reasons why people continue to be a part of particular communities. If you have an identity-based attachment, you become a part of and stay in the group because you identify with the group as whole; whereas bond-based attachment refers to a singular connection with an individual in the group. These two identity characteristics along with community design are dominant determinants of identity development and community construction.

Despite being one of the biggest social media platforms in the world, Papacharissi (2011) does not see platforms such as Facebook as communities but rather as social venues where communities come to meet. So what makes a community? The ability to socialize, create meaningful connections to others, provide entertainment, and allow for support and empathy to be put out into the online space are all building blocks of a community online. When you log on to Facebook the page reads: “Facebook helps you connect and share with people in your life.” This means hat you can bring your offline ommunity online but Facebook allows for this and so much more; you can now connect with people you do not know, businesses, celebrities, charities and whatever else resonates with you as an individual, which all helps to build your profile even larger.

With youths being such a heavy part of our online communities, it is unsurprising that many of them have taken up another aspect of online community collaboration, or remix culture. There are entire genre communities on platforms such as Blogger and YouTube that allow creative liberty to their users, whether it be in the form of mash-ups or through the creation of memes. These forms of creation constitute significant cultural, social, technological, and learning behaviors (Ahn et al., 2013) and as the digital sphere continues to develop it is not surprising that digital culture, along with its remixing and remediation, is becoming a part of the everyday lives of young users. As teachers urge their students to participate in class, adolescents may be just as motivated to be a part of the participatory culture taking place online. It is strongly argued also that youths cannot possibly gather the knowledge of permissive copying practices when in fact studies have found that children as young as five years old develop concepts like having ideas and voicing negative reactions to copying (Ahn et al. 2013). Essentially, this is evidence of how youths can begin developing their core understandings and values and how they can be integrated into the online social networks that they will both contribute and interact in as they develop.

You can put a definition on to what one believes community means, however the widespread nodes of the internet have allowed communities and henceforth individual users to define themselves as whatever they want to be. There is something for everyone. Young people are increasingly going online, whether to escape reality or to establish their identity in the social network. In 2004 Slater explores the idea of disembodiment from identity, that perhaps users are detaching themselves from their bodies which contains the benefits of textuality and anonymity; you can be whoever you want to be, and nobody has to know that it is you, if you do not want them to.

 

Factors of Online Communities that Influence Online Identity

 Of course our identity is firmly rooted in where we geographically come from and the cultural norms that have intrinsically shaped our values, attitudes and beliefs throughout our lives. In connection to the online sphere and social networks one can see how geographic location can impact the development of building communities online; in China, online social networkers use different platforms as compared to western users, this is primarily a result of the restrictions on internet usage but also, many of the platforms that they use such as Weibo and WeChat are designed to be appreciated by these culturally relevant users as they are utilised not only by Chinese influencers and brands but they are largely utilised across the country. If everyone in you know is Weibo then you too will most likely use Weibo to talk to them. Other cultural factors of online communities can be interests, typically music or photography; religious values and beliefs as well as the user’s propensity for privacy. How much a user wishes to share about themselves or their online identity depends entirely upon the user. Facebook does not require their users to fill out all of their profile characteristics, but rather what you want people to see. This can then be further manipulated based on the user’s security preferences. There are now so many different platforms out there to be explored by youth today based on individual factors, such as age, location and interests. For example, anyone can make a Musically account, where you film yourself parodying songs that you like or are culturally relevant in the moment. These videos can then be shared to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube and depending on the audience of your profile, enjoyed. Popularity of specific applications and platforms is generated from use, inviting friends via the platform, and word-of-mouth. Boyd (2007) found that teens admire the ability to visualize how their social world would look through their networked collection of profiles; they can visualize all of their friends online so they would in turn want their friends to visualize them.

Taking a look at Facebook, approximately 940,000 users in Australia are between the ages of thirteen and seventeen and with Instagram approximately 1 in 3 Australian’s are users (Cowling, 2018). These are fast becoming prime platforms for young people to begin building their online identities and join online communities. These platforms have been so successful as a result of their customizability. The notion of building your own profile including a profile picture, facts about yourself and your interests and then hyperlinks to your other profiles and platforms is once again of interest to a wide range of internet users. It is appealing because you can make your profile accurate to your offline profile or you can live your fantasy and take on the identity of whoever you please. Young users are wanting their profiles to reflect their interests and who they are and by giving youth the opportunity to share this journey with their peers it may make it easier for other young people to help form their identities, when they may be struggling with who they want to be and who they want to be seen as online. Teens and young adults often face the question of ‘who am I?’ With a vast array of environments, knowledge networks and social networks, users aren’t limited and they can explore different customs, societies and interests without fear of being reprimanded or put down which they may fear in their offline life.

The way in which communities formed online impact one’s identity, sense of self, or sense of purpose online can be seen as a reflection of how users interact online and how they build their profiles. Social networking sites are, like we explored before, social venues where users can come to gather. A private community may require a user to apply to join; the private group can then assess the user’s profile to see if they would be an appropriate participant for their group. A private community can be created through a private Facebook page or Instagram profile (that uses hashtags and private messaging to communicate and share) or it can be created through blogging platforms such as Blogger, WordPress and Tumblr which can put passwords on their user’s blogs, and can be only be accessed if the site owner gives you their password. Private communities such as these are useful tools for young users and content creators to be a part of the current phenomenon of whatever platform is currently trending yet it also allows for their safety when sharing their profiles online. Private communities are often policed or monitored closely to watch for bullying and negativity and with most users having a shared common interest there may not be any space for poor behaviour. An example of this would stem from community Facebook pages. High schools, universities and suburbs can have their own profiles where offline community participants can congregate online to voice their thoughts or share events. Facebook has the feature of a group mediator whom has the ability to add and remove users from the profiles, as well as delete comments and images if they infringe on the set rules, which the feature of pinned posts/notices is useful. Public communities, whilst harder to monitor, may also allow for more freedom in terms of self-expression and content creation, even if that does include remixing. Both of these communities need participation, content and discussion to maintain their relevancy and the more the platforms allow their users to share about themselves, the bigger they grow.

 

Creative and Emotional Privacy for Young Internet Users

            Being a participant in online communities and of social media has become almost a compulsory act for teens and young people who are wanting to engage within the sphere of their universe, but what is it costing them (Hodkinson, 2015)? Hodkinson (2015) uses the analogy of the bedroom like that of an online space or profile for a young user; it is about ownership of space or having something of one’s own. These users are bearing all to people they do not know in offline in their safe spaces but who is to know if these spaces really are safe. I think that in an atmosphere where an individual can fully be themselves, it is important to them that the interaction that they receive on their pages or content is appeasing to them. Young people could always have more urgency towards their safety as a result of internet predators. We must think of these online spaces as teens think of their bedrooms; as a private space for them to be themselves, artistically or emotionally, and trust that they would not interact with potentially sour trolls online.

There is a sense of territory, particularly on spaces such as Blogger, where almost everything is customizable; ownership and territory are not limited to young users, however it is increasingly important that we come to acknowledge the creative and emotional importance of these spaces, rather than limit what young users can do, explain how they can protect themselves whilst also having their own space online, just as one would do if they were to rent or buy a home offline.

As social networks expand to hold multiple purposes for its users, whether it be for information, communication, content creation, business and economic purposes and even for emotional expression and connection to the world, it is important to recognize that digital media and social media communities are becoming a part of growing up and identity development. Through the establishment of both private and public communities online, on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Blogger; people now have access to a variety of ways in which they can build and expand upon their online profiles. There are new ways for them to explore the type of content that they want to put their name to and a variety of ways for them to remain safe whilst doing it. Overall, identity can be developed and expressed through the features and allowances of digital media platforms and communities can be built online based off these identities. Online communities are there to help engage users, create discussion and develop bonds and social network identities are explorative of how we as users wish for others to understand our online presence; they can help to create friendships, reinforce or explore cultural values and societal norms and can influence our overall interests therefore shaping our identities and the communities that we are a part of.

 

 

References:

 

Ahn, J. , Subramaniam, M. , Fleischmann, K.R., Waugh, A. , Walsh, G. and Durin, A. (2012). Youth identities as remixers in an online community of storytellers: Attitudes, strategies           and values. Proc. Am. Soc. Infor. Sci. Tech., 49:1-10. doi:10.1002/meet.14504901089

 

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in    Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital    Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT PRESS.

http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

 

Buckingham, D & Willett, R. (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New     Media. Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA2186270010001951

 

Burke, A. (2013). Children’s Construction of Identity in Virtual Play Worlds: A Classroom          Perspective. Language and Literacy; Toronto. Volume 15 (issue 1). 58-73.

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1428558472?accountid+10382

 

Cowling, David. (2018). Social Media Statistics Australia – January 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-january-2018/

 

Donath, J. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Communities in Cyberspace.        Kollock, P. and Smith M. (eds). London: Routledge. Retrieved from:                                     smg.media.mit.edu/People/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Johnson, G. (2006). Internet Use and Cognitive Development: A Theoretical Framework. E-    Learning and Digital Media, volume 3 (Issue 4). 565-573.                                                             https://doi.org/10.304/elea.2006.3.4.565

 

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Networked       Sites.

 

Ren, Y. , Kraut, R. , Kielser, S. (2007). Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of        Online Communities. Organization Studies. Vol 28 (issue 3). 377-408.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076007

 

Slater, D.  (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offline. Retrieved from                           https://dourish.com/classes/readings/Slater-SocialRelationshipsIdentity.pdf

“Influencers of Instagram:” Shaping style and lifestyle trends for an online community

Instagram has become a dominant platform of social media for individuals to visually fashion a desired aesthetic as a construction of identity. Instagram is a visually performing platform where individuals who utilise the platform can develop a face for a community. I propose to define community within this study to refer to the Instagram accounts a user followers and those Instagram accounts following their Instagram page and retrieving their content. This proposal aligns with the attributes of social media and the participation invoked by network structures, along with theoretical conceptions of community within virtual contexts. The internet fosters participation by users across all platforms by breaking down and eliminating traditional communication barriers such as time and space. Definitions of online communities all revolve around the indistinguishable point that the internet has revolutionised the way people communicate with others and how we maintain and develop relationships with people online. Pearson (2009) exclaims that online, users can claim whoever they wish to be, while Wellman and Guila (1997) examine virtual communities to assert the notion that social network analysts have needed to educate traditional, place-oriented, community sociologists that community can stretch well beyond the neighbourhood. Within Katz (2004) review of theoretical concepts of communities and considerations of how new communication technologies affect traditional notions of community, the author segregates an idea of the social network community. The social network “is sustained by personal communication technologies and cyberspace and deviates widely in its social implications from the traditional community” (Katz, 2004, p. 331). To explore definitions of community within an online, social context among the platform of Instagram can illuminate how individual’s construct a particular identity that generates a specific community whereby people visually communicate.

Adopting these definitions of community realises the fact that traditional community ties have shifted from geographically focused to beginning to think about individual’s personal communities and individual social networks. Emanating from Katz’ definition of a social network as reviewed above, this paper shall attempt to examine some of the social implications that have developed from people specifically forming deliberate communities to connect with on Instagram. Communities within the application of Instagram are formed through the following and receiving of a following by other users ensuing a visually oriented community, which fosters content creation to revolve around aesthetic themes. It is a deliberate and honestly enlightening action into how an everyday person shapes their identity in the way that purposely following accounts on Instagram is a self-conscious decision that tailors a defined community based around a certain type and ‘style’ of content an Instagram user would like to see each day. Adami and Jewiit (2016) examine visual social media tracing themes that become pertinent to visual communication and social media: emerging genres and practices; identity construction; everyday public/private vernacular practices; and transmedia circulation, appropriation and control. I will draw on some these themes to theorize Instagram as a visual platform, specifically identity construction to begin a discussion on how centralized persons with a major Instagram following can foster sub-culture specific communities that can be identified through individuals personal Instagram’s ‘aesthetic’ to develop an identity online.

Instagram is a mobile oriented application which ultimately means it is a network that can be accessed, updated and kept up to date within any space and at any point in time as communication has become instantaneous. In Australia, 81% of young adults aged 18-29 have an Instagram account with usage continuing to grow, rising from an average 23 to nearly 38 times per week with an average of nearly 27 minutes spent using the platform (Sensis 2017). Young adults and teenagers are the key demographics associated with this study as this age group permeates care in self-presentation and identity management on Instagram while treating it as a fundamental daily activity. Drawing on Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez (2015) study of teenage girl’s construction of identity online, the authors state mobile communication as serving an important role in the process of self-presentation providing full time access to peer culture. Peer to peer culture on Instagram is a key aspect of deliberating what drives these users to share, post and consume on Instagram as a full time, ongoing project of self-identity that is accessed and updated multiple times a day, interrupting daily life to examine and potentially maintain a specific image to ones following. Understanding the patterns of identity construction within Instagram’s platform structures and as a process embedded in peer cultures across all mediums of social media is to understand that identity plays a key role in virtual communities (Donath, 1999). It is important to examine how individuals tailor an image of themselves within the presence of others online. Goffman’s (1959) theory of self- presentation provides much of the foundations for some late identity studies within the context of virtual communities. Goffman’s (1959) study (as cited by Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez, 2015) demonstrates that in the presence of others, individuals engage in a constant, particular self-presentation aimed at controlling how co-present actors will denote impressions of themselves. “Self-presentation is about social rituals of “impression management” and involves learning how to deal with other’ responses and maintain expressive control by putting on a “face” (Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez, 2015). This theory provides solid foundations to further identity management within contemporary communication among virtual communities as it has become a 24 hour, 7 days a week task to monitor social identity as the pace of the virtual world is rapid and constant.

As stated previously, using Adami and Jewiit’s (2016) themes to explore visual communication from Instagram users to construct a “face” for their networked communities within this platform. “The emergence of new genres and practices among social media platforms make available the creation and sharing of multimodel artefacts to an unprecedented number of people” (Adami and Jewitt, 2016). Among Instagram this quote becomes relevant through visual commentary by users: Calkin (2015, p.2) explores Instagram as a primary space for self-actualisation with Instagram providing us with a structured platform to reconstruct our histories and lived experiences through a photographic profile and with commentary. With deliberate and thoughtful processes while synonymously examining content co-present Instagram users share on their profiles, users post pictures with rhetorical captions if desired to align with the specific sub-culture of their community within Instagram. This behaviour is accurately contextualised in Adami and Jewitt’s (2016) second theme of visual communication that regards identity construction, suggesting: “As we express identities through the clothes we wear or the furniture of our rooms, so too we express our identities through visuals shared online.” Visually identifiable sub-cultures are difficult to specify and contextualise within this theorized discussion as there is no defined list of sub-cultures that are visually distinguishable across teenagers and young adults, however it is extensive. Sub-cultured communities that can be tailored visually through photographs online usually characterise themes that present visual cohesion and are ‘aesthetically-pleasing’ such as fashion and culture; art and design. However, this is a very limiting justification as it does not internalize individual’s identities and communities to the specific aesthetic they are striving for while utilizing Instagram. The notion of fluidity is important when thinking about the aesthetics of Instagram and accepting the lack of definition we are able to ascribe sub-cultures of communities within Instagram to. Fluidity reflects the nature of the internet as it is so ambiguous, as are individuals when using social media. It is illuminating to note that one day someone will follow an array of, for example, architecture Instagram pages: these accounts sharing multimodal content of interiors and houses, all agreeably aesthetically pleasing, with all accounts reflecting a specific theme of visual content that this individual wishes to consume each day, to unfollowing all of them the next day and following a range of supermodel’s public Instagram accounts instead. To complicate the discussion further the opposite could just as easily occur, with said user following these supermodels within the same space and time as they followed the series of architecture pages, suggesting they are interested in both visual communities within Instagram. As inadequate and vague this example is it completely viable within an online context. The internet is ambiguous and allows individuals to be fluid and fluctuate between content that they consume and create with the ability to deconstruct and reconstruct these identities.

Characterising behaviour on Instagram to contextualise self-presentation exposes the fact that private individuals communicate daily through the public publishing of visuals (Adami and Jewitt, 2016). The everyday practices of self-actualisation have shifted to be monitored across both online and offline modes of communication. This shift is everyday vernacular practices is a primary theme in visual communication, with individuals having to accommodate for their literal physical appearance as well as their identity and physical ‘aesthetic’ within their social networks. Our identities are politically chosen (Weeks, 1985, as cited by Calkin, 2015, p.2). What political objective does this ever constant monitoring of how people perceive our Instagram’s fulfil? Denoting simple actions, such as how many ‘likes’ an individual has on their photo from their community, determines the following and therefore the influence a user has to a certain number of other Instagram users. This initiates discussion about Instagram communities and the influencers of style to people’s perceived identities within this platform because Instagram is image laden media. The individuals with a major following on Instagram, exorbitantly more than the average user, have been colloquially termed within the Instagram community as ‘influencers,’ however the term has become recognised as of late to the private sector. Influencers shape lifestyle trends and act as an idealised ‘person-centred environments’ for specific Instagram communities.

In harmonizing studies that exclaim the roads mapped via the internet exponentials the relaxation of communal constraints, studying identity construction on Instagram explores new effects of the tailored self online. These influencers are popular to a specific community as they provide image laden content across their Instagram profile that ultimately shapes a certain type of lifestyle and aesthetic. The term influencer comes from the aesthetic shaped over time on their profile that people idealise and review as aesthetic. The content tends to reflect a specific sub-culture that can be visually prescribed. Donath’s (1999) early theories of identity within virtual communities stating “care of one’s own identity, one’s reputation, is fundamental to the formation of community” can be theorized within the modern context of Instagram. She recognises that individuals become attuned to the nuances of signature styles, which is exemplary within the platform of Instagram as people follow those people and accounts where their personal style resonates with their own. This theory of identity creates a two-way spectrum that proves summative to an extent of the way sub-culture communities on Instagram tailor and influence individual’s self-presentation and shape their online identity. The interesting fact about ‘influencers’ is they gain their following naturally due to the ‘success’ of the aesthetic of their Instagram account. They have fostered a community around a specific nuanced signature style of visual content that a large cohort of people has followed and taken to be beneficial content in the shaping of their own identity on Instagram. Donath’s (1999) theories were written a decade before Instagram was founded and nearly two decades before the idea of ‘influencers’ was even termed as it is a recent trend that has been denoted to some personalities online. Donath’s, as well as an extensive number of scholarly theories regarding identity construction within virtual communities has proved efficient and exemplary to the medium of social networked communities on Instagram.

This study serves as a brief touch on the surface of a trend within Instagram that is extremely deep and equally diverse. Focusing on Adami and Jewitt’s (2016) visual communication themes among identity theory served as viable foundations to extend Goffman (1959) theory of self-presentation to actualise into the context of how Instagram’s network structure encourages users to visually present one’s own identity and reputation to appeal to their constructed community. The structure of this study neglected discussions of communication within the platform and among users and followers, however, for the purpose of diverting the study to define ‘influencers’ as fostering communities through the visual and construction of a ‘face,’ it could be disregarded. Using Instagram and as the platform to examine virtual identities and inserting the vague notion of what is “aesthetically pleasing” within virtual communities is a relatively new chapter of studying social networks as it focuses on what a visual community could mean in the vast sphere of virtual communities but is a relevant topic to further as they have not been deemed influencers for no reason.

 

 

Reference List

Calkin, M. (2015). Making Pretty: Examing Contemporary Identity Construction through Instagram. (Thesis dissertation). Retrieved from http://sfsu-dspace.calstate.edu/handle/10211.3/162807

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.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Hodkinson, P. (2015). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media and Society. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815454

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. and Jiminez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-nakend selfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), DOI: 10.5817/CP2015-1-5

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Sensis (2017). Sensis Social Media Report 2017: Chapter 1 – Australians and social media. [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis-Social-Media-Report-2017.pdf

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

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

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

 

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

 

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

 

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

 

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

 

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

 

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

 

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

 

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

 

 

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

 

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.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Online LGBT+ Communities and Exploration of Alternative Identities

Abstract

With the evolution of online spaces, the way young people develop and explore their identities and various communities has changed drastically. For those in minority groups, like the LGBT+ community, the evolution of online spaces has become a place where they can learn and experiment with the identity and engagement with communities in a space that is safer than doing so in offline environments. The main argument is that online spaces provide LGBT+ youths with a place where they can effectively explore and develop their gay or queer identity through experimentation online and participating in supportive online communities. Anonymity, cyberbullying, and privacy are topics that are also referenced and addressed throughout this paper, in relation to youth (especially those in the LGBT community) and their online practices.

 

 

Introduction

The development of online spaces and social media has provided young people with a way to explore their identity through online communities, especially within minority groups like the LGBT+ community. Throughout this essay we will be using some terms whose definitions are often argued about. When discussing ‘youths’ this age range directly references those between the ages of 13 (which is the age restriction for many social networking sites or SNSs) to 20. Identity will be referenced as the character and intricacies of a person who make up who they are, which can be subject to change over time and with new experiences. What qualifies as a community is often debated between scholars, but in the context of this essay we will take community to mean a network of people, connected by a common interest, demographic, or location. In this paper I will argue that the evolution of online spaces and communities provides youths, especially those in the LGBT+ community, with a safe space to research, experiment with, and develop their identity, alternative communities, and societal constructs. Van Der Nagel & Frith (2015) assert that the freedom the web contains, with options like pseudonymity and anonymity, provides “important avenues for productive identity play, self-exploration, and behaviour contextualisation online”; Greenhow & Robelia (2009) “analysis revealed that SNSs … allowed students to formulate and explore various dimensions of their identity and demonstrate twenty‐first century skills”. Engaging with other people and different information online is a healthy way for teens and young people to broaden their knowledge, interact with others, build relationships, experiment with identity, break away from perceived limitations, and test social boundaries. While the internet can obviously provide some dangers in regard to privacy, especially to children and teens that may be vulnerable, the positive effects of engagement in online spaces far outweighs the negatives.

 

Gain knowledge on different communities

Adolescence is a time of change not only physically but mentally, where young people are exposed to new and exciting experiences and try to find how they fit in with those around them, and how they wish to construct and portray their identity. Many young people may identify as a minority and are overwhelmed by not fitting in with those around them, and lack access or have limited access to discourses that sway from the majority in their physical communities. However, many young people become interested in different subcultures, race, gender, sexual orientations, religions and more, and want to seek out more information on what interests them. Furthermore, many are not in an environment where it is safe or acceptable to pursue information on alternate lifestyles. However, with the development of the internet and online spaces, young people have an infinite supply of information at their fingertips, where they can pursue information about their interests in a way that is exclusively controlled by them. The LGBT+ community, among many other minority groups, have benefitted greatly with the introduction of the internet, Subrahmanyam, Greenfield & Tynes (2004) saying “the virtual world of teen chat may offer a safer environment for exploring emerging sexuality than the real world.” LGBT+ support has grown exponentially over the last few years, and many websites, like Tumblr, are hubs for those within the community. The internet not only provides support in exclusively online spaces, but can help facilitate engagement and understanding with offline communities as well. In a study conducted on sample group of 16-24-year-old LGBT youth, “results suggest that LGBT youth are motivated to fill gaps in their offline sexual health resources with online information. Further, participants perceived the Internet as an efficient way to discover offline LGBT events and services relevant to sexual health.” (DeHaan, Kuper, Magee, Bigelow & Mustanski, 2013). From these studies, we can see how young people can access information on subcultures and minority groups in order to help form their identities, with “results indicating that new media enabled participants to access resources, explore identity, find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out.” (Craig & McInroy, 2014).

 

Participate in different communities

Expanding on the previous argument, online spaces and communities allow for young people to engage with communities that they otherwise wouldn’t, and express parts of their identity they may otherwise be embarrassed about in an offline situation. It is true for all ages that many people struggle to find an offline community where they feel they fit in and that has the same interests, however during adolescence where hormones are heightened, and an onslaught of changes can cause a feeling of alienation, this can feel overwhelming to many young people, especially those who may identify with a minority group like the LGBT community. Fear of judgement and the prospect of not fitting in, or being bullied, weighs heavily on teenage shoulders, and having the ability to pursue recreational interests online allows them to engage with communities they may not otherwise, because of geographical constraints or simple lack of confidence. “Peer victimization and unwanted sexual experiences were more commonly reported by LGBT than non-LGBT youth” (Ybarra, Mitchell, Palmer & Reisner, 2015) which causes many LGBT teens to be too afraid of openly coming out or engaging with offline community activities. Having the ability to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous online, also adds that layer of comfort for teens who may be struggling to identify or engage with their community offline and want to keep their online practices separate. Online communities can provide emotional support for young people in the LGBT community and often helps them form friendships, Ybarra, et. al, (2015) reporting “LGBT youth were more likely than non-LGBT youth to have online friends and to appraise these friends as better than their in-person friends at providing emotional support.”

 

Break away from forced identity

In a similar vein, the internet not only allows you to develop your identity but can also act as a medium for you to break away from it; the internet can allow young people to break away from physicality and interact with others free from their insecurities. As noted above, anonymity is a tool that allows people to separate themselves from their offline identity, and experiment with new facets of themselves away from limitations based on their appearance, that they may place on themselves or have placed on them by others. Of young people, Valkenburg and Peter (2011) say “online anonymity may lead to less concern about their physical appearance (eg, pimples, blushes), which may facilitate adolescents’ online self-disclosure and self-presentation, and, as a result, their opportunities for approval and social acceptance. Further than just blemishes, minority groups that are discriminated against can break away from the prejudice they may face because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, or location, and interact with others on the web as someone completely different. The same can be said for those in majority groups who wish to gain information about the experiences of those who may face different treatment to their own. This allows young people to interact with others differently from how they normally would, helping them gather more information on how identity impacts the interactions you have in different communities. Having the option to break away from the identity forced on you can be a helpful way for young people to view their identity separate from factors they can’t control, and analyse the way in which they act and react to those around them.

 

Experiment with identity

Generally, everyone experiments with their identity and self during adolescence, and experimentation is essential in both emotional and physical development as well as finding out how they wish to fit into society; Boyd (2007) says “learning society’s rules requires trial and error, validation and admonishment; it is knowledge that teenagers learn through action, not theory.” Pearson (2009) says that identity is performative, changing depending on your environment, and as online you are represented merely by pixels, “these performances exist within the imagination of users who then use tools and technologies to project, renegotiate, and continuously revise their consensual social hallucination”. In other words, “SNS platforms provide areas which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances [of identity] can be displayed to others” (Pearson, 2009).  Having the freedom to explore and craft the identity that they want and translate that into the online space, can help teens to figure out if that is a side of their identity that they want to present more of the time. In the LGBT+ community, many young people may have multiple social media accounts, one for their more subdued identity, and one for the part of their identity that is overtly gay. These can be spread over different websites or within the same one, for example a more openly gay persona is displayed on Tumblr than on Facebook. This can sometimes be for safety reasons, shielding their sexuality by having a different profile, and redirecting people in your offline communities to the less controversial profiles. Testing out their different personas and experimenting with how they present themselves online can help to get an idea of how they would like to present themselves as a whole, especially as they become more comfortable with their sexuality or find themselves in a more supportive environment. In Gray’s (2009) study of LGBT+ youth “many shared the belief that their identities expressed inherent desires that they were born with but that remained buried under the baggage of community norms”, which internet exploration and experimentation helped them to come to terms with.

 

Risks of exposure to infinite publics

One of the main issues with having such a free and open space as the internet, is privacy issues. While most SNSs provide privacy features, many young people choose not to enable these features, allowing strangers to follow their profiles and potentially gather information that could come to harm them in both online and offline spaces. Two factors could potentially be affecting why young people are choosing to have open profiles; O’Sullivan (2012) discusses the “online disinhibition effect”, which has been observed that “we reveal far more personal detail and seek more private information from others when we communicate using these technologies [online spaces] than we would in person”; In a small study conducted by Gershon (2012), interviews with two groups of students revealed that many didn’t understand how public their digital writing [and posting] was. Pearson also discusses how identity and relationships are performative, with a front stage performance meant for the public, and back stage meant as private or intimate, saying “online, these mediated environments mean that there is a blurring between front–stage and back–stage: what feels like an intimate space can be under the watchful electronic gaze of a large unknown audience; what is being acted out as a front–stage performance could have no witnesses.” (Pearson, 2009). Whatever the cause, this lack of understanding or disregard for privacy among young people, is an especially concerning topic when considering people who want to physically harm or violate children get unlimited access to photos, information, and the identities of vulnerable young people.

 

Cyberbullying and anonymity

Cyber-bullying is often contributed to the fact that when online, a sense of responsibility for one’s words or actions is lessened by the fact that the people are separated by a computer, and so the sense of accountability is somewhat reduced, especially in teens who are just learning how to properly communicate and navigate the world and others around them. Van der Nagel & Frith (2015) say:

“Flaming, trolling, and doxing are all negative consequences related to anonymity and pseudonymity online. As many people have argued, the ability to comment under disposable identities, or even under no identity in the case of anonymous comment sections, can encourage people to act in uncivil ways.”

Trolling has become a fixture on almost every social media site, where people write provocative comments for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of someone, which arguably fosters unhealthy interaction and teaches young people that it is something normal and even common to want to evoke negative reactions from people with differing opinions. Performing, or being the victim of online cyber-bullying and bullying practices like trolling, can negatively impact a young person’s formation of identity by teaching unhealthy ways of interaction and lowering confidence.

 

Learn about and form relationships

Many arguments against use of SNS’s claim that if we are only interacting through devices then ‘real’ relationships are not able to be fostered, as young people don’t learn to communicate face to face, or form ‘real’ bonds. However, Maczewski (2002) notes that the net generation, those growing up surrounding by the internet and technology, “Rather than losing social skills, N-Geners are actually developing these skills at an earlier age than their parents’ generation. N-generation children have a new medium to reach out beyond their immediate world… learning precisely the social skills which will be required for effective interaction in the digital economy.” Although written before the spread of SNS’s, Wellman & Gulia’s (1997) research into online vs offline communities also discount the negative argument, saying they basically function in the same ways, and that “people on the Net have a greater tendency to develop feelings of closeness on the basis of shared interests rather than on the basis of shared social characteristics such as gender and socioeconomic status”, which can “foster high levels of empathetic understanding and mutual support”, which is a deeper and more useful connection than a community that is only joined by location. The internet also provides a space where those with difficult lives can turn to in order to experience relationships that are healthier or more supportive, a pattern which has been observed by Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor (2003); their studies found that teens who are highly troubled and have difficulty in relationships with their parents, two occurrences which are not uncommon with LGBT+ youth, were more likely to form online relationships. In these situations LGBT+ youths can turn to those with similar interests or situations online, in order to form supportive relationships and develop their ability to communicate in a healthy way. Giving teens full control over their online interactions can be stressful and frightening for their guardians, however, allowing teenagers to experiment with boundaries in an online environment could be beneficial in learning social etiquette in an environment that is safer than it would be offline. Exposing teens to a safe, removed environment where they may encounter opinions and discourses different from their own, and allowing them to interact as they please provides an experience that may otherwise be dangerous to them in ‘real’ life.

 

Conclusion

We can see how youths, especially LGBT+ identifies, use online spaces as an environment to explore, experiment, and develop their own identity, learn social boundaries, and participate in alternative communities. Online, where a person can share as much or little of their information as they like, LGBT+ youth can be shielded from backlash and potentially dangerous situations they would otherwise encounter if attempting to perform the same activities in their offline environments. Learning about their identity through research, performance, and engaging with online communities can help LGBT+ come to terms with themselves, and inform them on how they want to present themselves in their offline, everyday lives.

 

References

boyd, danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

Craig, S., & McInroy, L. (2014). You Can Form a Part of Yourself Online: The Influence of New Media on Identity Development and Coming Out for LGBTQ Youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 18(1), 95-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.777007

 

DeHaan, S., Kuper, L., Magee, J., Bigelow, L., & Mustanski, B. (2013). The Interplay between Online and Offline Explorations of Identity, Relationships, and Sex: A Mixed-Methods Study with LGBT Youth. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489

 

Foster, D. (2015). Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-stakes Reflective Writing. SAGE Journals, 43(2). http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1177/0092055X14568204

 

Gray, M. (2009). Negotiating Identities/Queering Desires: Coming Out Online and the Remediation of the Coming-Out Story. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1162-1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01485.x

 

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923580

 

Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring Identities Through the Internet: Youth Experiences Online. Child and Youth Care Forum, Volume 31(Issue 2), 111–112. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015322602597

 

O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Open to the Public: How Adolescents Blur the Boundaries Online Between the Private and Public Spheres of Their Lives. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(5), 429-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.03.001

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

 

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 651-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.007

 

Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. jahonline.org. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(10)00426-X/fulltext

 

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

 

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(02)00114-8

 

Ybarra, M., Mitchell, K., Palmer, N., & Reisner, S. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006

 

Identity as a performance: How identities are formed within the fashion community on Instagram

Abstract

This paper will argue how identities online can be shaped by their chosen communities, focussing on the fashion community on Instagram. However, these identities can sometimes be false and deceptive, which can be due to the demands and expectations within the community. Instagram has been influential within the fashion community as it is photo based, easily allows users to stay connected and create new connections. It allows users to develop a fan base and influence which can lead to being discovered and endorsed by fashion brands. Using definitions and ideas, this paper will examine the relationship between the two concepts focussing on how identity can sometimes be deceptive and the motivation behind this within the fashion community on Instagram.

Keywords: virtual community, community, identity, online identity, social media, Instagram, performance, deception, fashion, hashtags.

Introduction

The concept of what makes a community has been challenged since the development of new communities mediated through electronic communication technologies along with the way users can portray an identity. Traditionally the idea of community is considered to consist of four concepts; a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life and social system (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 317). There has been an emphasis on a physical basis for a community to function throughout the years along with the inherent unity to the self, the norm of one body, one identity (Donath, 1999). However, the emergence of new virtual communities has caused the concept of communities to be challenged and redefined. Communities on Instagram can stay connected through the use of hashtags. The virtual community has allowed users form new identities different to their physical ones. However, social media communities can allow users to portray a chosen identity online which can sometimes be false and deceptive for their own benefit.

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

Katz et al. (2004) suggests that the majority of community constructs rely on social interaction and in essence, a community is a social system. This allows the concept of community to go beyond the physical definition, where a community exists only by having a geographic location (Katz et al., 2004). The physical community occupies its own physical setting and many consider the physicality of community formation important for the sense of belonging. Members within physical community’s form groups with people who exercise local autonomy in meeting their needs in a specific locality (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community refers to communities mediated through electronic communication technologies such as social media, multiuser domains (MUDs) and internet relay chat, and also sustained through personal communication technologies such as messaging, mobile phones and email (Katz et al., 2004). The “virtual” part of a virtual community suggests a place without a geographic location which is what a traditional community is based around, and it means the primary form of communication is electronic or enabled by technology (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Virtual communities continue to provide a social system and social interaction.

Dennis, Pootheri & Natarajan (1998) characterise virtual communities as groups of people with shared interests or goals where electronic communication is a primary form of interaction. Groups might meet regularly online to discuss a subject of interest to all members. It is argued that virtual communities are worthy of being considered a community despite not having a geospatial location like a traditional physical community. This is because of the nature of virtual communities linking large groups of people to share, ideas, feelings and desires (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community provides ties and homogeneity by interest rather than physical location and locally isolated. Ridings & Gefen (2004) describe virtual communities as “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly…in an organized way over the internet through a common location or mechanism”.

A community is described to become “a metaphor for the primary ties outside of the households that provide us with larger social systems”. Virtual communities allow users to create and preserve ties among people who are physically separate (Katz et al., 2004). The removed physical aspect of a community also removes the traditional belief that there is an inherent unity to the self, there is one body, one identity (Donath, 1999).

Instagram is a social media platform which allows users to find and create social ties by the use of hashtags. The use of hashtags allows users to expose their brand or persona to large targeted audiences. Hashtags can be chosen to relate to a certain topic or interest, so users who relate can easily find the content and increase engagement. Hashtags help organise and categorise photo and video content which assists the process of discovery and community engagement (Loren, 2017).  Hashtags are not limited to a geographic location, which easily allows communities to form and create new connections around the world. The fashion community, like many others, is based on shared social practices and interests, unlike physical communities which are based on shared social and physical boundaries.

There are different types of hashtags including branded hashtags and community hashtags (Loren, 2017).  The use of community hashtags helps connect like-minded user around a specific subject, such as #evachenpose or #ootd. These types of hashtags can improve the searchability of a user’s posts, gain followers and grow the user’s own personal community (Loren, 2017). For example, the #evachenpose hashtag was created by Eva Chen, a fashion based instagramer and director of fashion partnerships at Instagram with 882k followers, which includes a photo of the user’s shoes, handbag and piece of fruit in the backseat of a car, which can be used sometimes as an alternative to the traditional #ootd (outfit of the day) post. This hashtag has accumulated 29.1k posts over a number of years. The #evachenpose appeals to users in the fashion community, people who like handbags and shoes and people who follow the Eva Chen Instagram (@evachen212). Chen has developed her own Instagram community and following which can be maintained and developed through the hashtag.

Instagram also allows users to ‘follow’ hashtags allowing them to stay up to date with other users in the community. Users can interact with each other by messaging each other, commenting on each other’s posts and ‘liking’ pictures and videos people post. A community is achieved through the member-generated content and the self-sustaining process it creates: “as more members generate more content, the increased content draws more members” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Hashtags can be utilised by the user to describe and portray their chose identities and connect to different communities.

Identity as a performance

Virtual communities allow users to put forth identity claims of the self which can be accurate or false to reality. Social media networks act as a stage in which the user can ‘perform’ and identity. Pearson (2009) puts forward that “identity-as-a-performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their social environment”. Social networking platforms offer spaces which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and also allow alternate performances for other members of the community (Pearson, 2009).

These performances by users online exist within their imagination who then use tools and technologies online to project and renegotiate their chosen identity (Pearson, 2009). Users create not only their online selves but also their staging and setting in which these selves occur by manipulating online communicative codes. However, these stages maybe social media networks which the user has chosen to be a part of. According to Schwartz & Halegoua (2015) through selected “images, videos, status updates, profiles, friend lists, visible conversations, tastes and interests, and comments that appear on their profile, social media participants present a highly curated version of themselves”. The ability to select what other people see can allow a user to put forward different identities and personas depending on the community they want to be part of and different to who they are offline. For example, if the user chooses to be a part of the fashion community on Instagram, they will then perform an identity suited for that community and follow those social cues and renegotiate their chosen identity.

 

Deceptive identities online

The online virtual community and the user as the performer, are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through the cues and signs they choose to represent their identity (Pearson, 2009). These cues and signs online can be dependent on the virtual community the user is part of. However due the fluidity the user has over the self online, the identity they perform can be inaccurate or misleading to their audience. A user can put forward as many personas online as they have time and energy to create them (Donath, 1999).

Some Instagram accounts can be fake using stock images or images of someone else without their permission. These accounts can also pay for fake followers and engagement. Purtill (2017) reported the company Mediakix created two fake Instagram accounts, @wanderingggirl and @calibeachgirl310, from scratch using stock images and secured four paid brand endorsement deals between them worth US$500 in total. This was a stunt to prove how easy it was to become an Instagram influencer. According to Purtill a user can become a fake influencer by;

  1. Finding photos: Stock images can be used or photos can be taken by the user.
  2. Purchase fake followers: It can cost around US$3-8 per 1000 followers through easy-to-find websites.
  3. Purchase engagement: It can cost 12 cents per comment and between US$4-9 per 1000 likes.
  4. Make money: get into contact with brands for endorsements.

This shows how easily users can grow and develop their Instagram accounts or several, depending on how many identities they wish to have or communities they are part of. Aspiring fashion influencers seek to accumulate a fan base which will enable fashion brands to find models and influencers to represent them. Celebrities and models are often chosen by fashion brands based on how relevant they are on social media which provides a better and more engaging story for the public (Payne 2016). This is a motivation for users to put forward deceptive identities so they can get more endorsements and influence. They can put forward as many as they desire and have the energy for. However, it can be difficult for other users to see what is ‘false’ and what is ‘true’ on Instagram.

A user can be deceptive by using items and content which do not belong to them and create a false identity. For example, users can hire clothing or bags for content to appeal to a community and its members. Instagram provides a platform for individuals in which normal societal cues are not available which allows deception to be easier. Assessment signals that help users determine deception are unavailable online (such as government issued identification) or it is not required to verify the identification of online identity (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014). According to Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014), conventional signals are used which are not verified and can represent deceptive information. Ways in which a user is deceptive includes information about the user’s identity, content of their posts or profile page and the channel in which communication takes place (e.g. messaging, video chat). The manipulation of any of these three categories reflects deception. Instagram allows profile management, the absence of identity verification and focuses on content which creates an environment which can be subject to deception within the three categories put forward by Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014). Users develop identity goals, which are used to avoid shame and embarrassment, project a more favourable image and increase social desirability (Grossman, 2017).  On Instagram, this might include creating a fake profile with false information to increase self-worth and appeal to users within a community, such as using an alternative profile picture or content. They construct their identity based on their social setting and follow communicative codes within that setting.

Conclusion

Instagram allows for identity to be a performance which can differ in communities. Identity on Instagram can also be false and deceptive depending on the user’s desires. The virtual fashion community on Instagram is maintained through electronic communication tools, such as messaging, commenting and ‘liking’ content. Instagram allows the formation of virtual communities through communicative tools and hashtags. False information can easily be concealed through strategic editing and omission of information. These tools can also shape the user’s identity performance online within their chosen communities. The traditional idea of having one body and one identity has changed with the emergence of social media, such as Instagram. Users now have the ability to create and maintain as many identities as the have the time and energy for.

References

Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early   adopters of Web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518186

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.            http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Grossman, M. (2017). Study of social media users: The relationship between online deception, Machiavellian personality, self-esteem and social desirability. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1946736580?accountid=10382

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.      Available: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasgupt David2004.pdf

Loren, T. (2017, March 30). The ultimate guide to instagram hashtags in 2017 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://later.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-using-instagram-hashtags/

Payne, C. M. (2016). Visual storytelling: Fashion brands engagement through instagram. Available from Proquest Dissertations &These Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1886812809?accountid=10382

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/artile/viewArticle/2162/2127

Putrill, J. (2017, August 18). InstaFraud: How fake instagram ‘influencers’ are gaming brands for money. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-fake-instagram-influencers-are-gaming-brands-for-money/8821440

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).  Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083  6101.2004.tb00229.x/full

Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643-1660.http://10.1177/1461444814531364

Tsikerdekis, M., & Zeadally, S. (2014). Online deception in social media. Communications of the ACM, 57(9) 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629612

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License